Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:52, 22 February 2010

Catholic Church

Hi Haldraper and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I wanted to let you know that I replaced your edits on RCC regarding the Last Judgement because the nihil obstat imprimatur sources do not list Limbo as a state of afterlife. Also they do not list four but only three states of afterlife. If you have an appropriate source for your edits, please come to the talk page to discuss this with us. Thanks. NancyHeise 17:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rugby

You are correct that rugby league is called "rugby" in the North (though not in Australia) but it would still be reasonably common to call rugby union "rugby" as well. Hippo's edit summary is wrong to say that rugby league isn't ever referred to as "rugby" but his actual edit was okay.GordyB (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The FDA (trade union)

I have tried to start a talk page on this, and would be grateful for your input, specifcally, why and how you have reached the conclusion that the FDA is not a trade union, when it is, in fact, a registered trade union, and has been for decades. Guineveretoo (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Now being discussed at WP:EAR - please feel free to join the discussion there too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dodgers and Giants

You have no basis to claim there's "no evidence" that the Brooklyn/L.A. Dodgers and the N.Y./S.F. Giants are just two different clubs, not four, as the evidence is right there in the articles. I have posted your "work" at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball‎ to give you a chance to explain yourself before I turn you in to WP:ANI for disruption. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the name-calling. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing! On the project page, I have listed the history links for the Giants and Dodgers at the official MLB site. They include their New York City years in their own histories. The Dodgers history page has a front page feature about their own Jackie Robinson, who of course played all his major league years in Brooklyn. Baseball Bugs carrots 10:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Merseyside derby

As far as know and I wasnt born then it was known simply as "the Derby" back then. Yes Merseyside did not come into existence until 1974 but I can assure you if you said the Liverpool derby in the city people would think it was a race at Aintree. I welcome your input but please refrain from changing pages names without discussing it first. Xenomorph1984 (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Haldraper (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bitter

VB is not a bitter: I've left rationale there for its inclusion. SimonTrew (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Labour Party UK appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. --Welshsocialist (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I wanted to give you an opportunity to do a self revert to avoid getting reported. Mamalujo (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you've only been editing for less than three months and never received a proper welcome message. If you look at WP:Welcome, you'll see what Misplaced Pages newbies are normally advised to look at. This will help you know what people might be talking about when they acuse you of violating WP:3RR or WP:NPOV.

By the way, even though I am another MT-sceptic, I rather feel that you're onto a loser trying to exclude "humanitarian" from the description.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool

I'm trying to understand this; if a reliable source described than as "finest buildings"; then it can't breach WP:NPOV to say that. Otherwise we'd be left with "Adolf Hitler was a man". Rodhullandemu 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also it not a statement claiming that they a the 'finest' in relation to other cities. It means the finest in the city. If you can find a source that doesn't think the buildings in question are 'many of the finest' then I'll happily remove the statement --Daviessimo (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, NPOV doesn't mean remove praise or condemnation if there is no balancing view; it means we represent both sides of an opinion, but only if they actually exist. Rodhullandemu 19:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fourth International

You forgot to raise this major major on the Talk page, where it has been discussed and agreed. Please revert that change and then raise the suggestion on the talk page. --Duncan (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As before, I object to this and request that you revert the page. Just because I don't reply to you within 48 hours, that does not mean I am convinced. --Duncan (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have come to a consensus on this. I support the FI and all but this needs at least better framing with regard to the idea that some Trotskyists don't consider the FI to be, you know, "The FI." Cadriel (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been merged Cadriel. Reading the main FI page, it became clear that most of the material on the 'FI (post-1963)' page could easily be fitted into it. The page is still there as 'USFI (1963-2003)' describing the ex-central body of the FI although I'm not sure if that's really necessary so it could probably be deleted. I think the conclusion we came to is that the body reunified in 1963 is the only one that claims - justifiably imo - to be the descendent of the organisation founded in 1938. The splits from it that use some variant of the name are all mentioned with links to their own pages and the disambiguation page makes clear who they are. I think this may be the best solution we're going to get.Haldraper (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the merge; when we discussed the possibility just a few days ago, there was clearly no consensus for it. You proposed your possible solution at the time, and it was rejected. Warofdreams talk 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Haldraper, your edits to the Catholic Church are improper. You are removing consensus agreed text and pictures without any discussion first on the talk page. A lot of people have worked for over a year and a half to get the page just the way it is. If you want to change something or if you disagree with something, bring it up on the talk page first. Also, we do not use magazines as references in the history section unless it is discussiing a recent event. WP:reliable source examples suggests using scholarly sources written by university professors who are experts in their field published by university presses or publishers with a reputation for fact checking. Tertiarty sources were used to determine the scope of sections as Misplaced Pages allows. Your addition of estimates of the number of people killed in the Albigensian Crusade may be allowed in the article if you have a scholarly source and discuss it on the talk page. Thanks, NancyHeise 00:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Catholic Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. anietor (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are being rather disruptive over at the Catholic Church article. Your two most recent edits have what I consider to be misleading edit summaries. You claim to be removing only POV, unsourced material, yet the edit history is showing that you are taking out the sources along with the statements. If you don't like something, bring it up to the talk page and suggest changes there, but removing sourced statements from this article, that has been the product of some of the best collaborative editing on the 'pedia, just because you don't like what they say, is unacceptable. Gentgeen (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper: Please STOP making unagreed POV edits to the Catholic Church main page. You have been told that this is not the way to do things, and that you must discuss and agree significant changes here first - yet you persist. I see from your talk page that you are a new editor, and have been warned many times already for this sort of behaviour on other articles. PLEASE CEASE Xandar 14:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24h for disruptive edting at Catholic Church William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock #1474030 lifted or expired. Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  10:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you

Thank you, Haldraper, for your kind words. I was interested to read your comment that there were more Englishmen and Irishmen on the American side of the War of Independence than on that of a German monarch with a mercenary army. In reply, I would say that it is therefore somewhat ironic that German Americans are the largest ethnic group in the U.S. One of them (Gen. Eisenhower) even led the Allied forces in defeating Nazi Germany. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your (Hal's) points illustrate something I've mentioned in a number of talk pages. Nationality isn't a straightforward concept. What actually counts?

1. place of birth: is it
   1. the country the place was in when they were born there? then
      1. the composer Franck was Dutch; I've only ever seen him described as either Belgian or French
      2. this was actually the criterion used in English law until fairly recently: you were one of us if you were born in the dominions of the monarch; this meant that Sir William Herschel, who was born in Hanover after 1714, didn't need to be naturalized before being knighted
   2. the country it's in now: then
      1. Kant was Russian
      2. Bartok was Roumanian
      3. Archimedes was Italian
      4. Herodotus was Turkish (& maybe Homer too)
      5. Augustine of Hippo was Algerian
2. male line ancestry: then
   1. George III was Italian
   2. James VI & I was Breton
3. overall blood: then
   1. as you say, George III was almost entirely German (Queen Victoria even more so)
   2. the present Queen is rather less than 1/2 English, but less German than that
4. upbringing, which you mention; I have to say this is the way I tend to think of it myself; culturally, people tend to belong where they were brought up; I tend to regard people as British if they sound British, which is usually iff they were brought up here
5. legal nationality: some people have more than 1, either simultaneously or successively
   1. Franck was successively Dutch, Belgian & French
   2. Stravinsky was successively Russian, French & American

All in all, it illustrates my more general point that infoboxes are often rubbish. Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Join us?

Hello, Haldraper! Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Misplaced Pages's Greater Manchester-related articles. Given the interest we're assuming you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Greater Manchester? It's a user-group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Greater Manchester-related content. There is a discussion page for sharing ideas as well as developing and getting tips on improving articles. The project has in-house specialists to support and facilitate your ideas. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We hope to be working with you in the future!

--Jza84 |  Talk  16:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Militant in Northern Ireland

Hi Hal, thanks for getting back to me, and what an eye for detail! I'm sorry I rarely have time to engage in developing these articles myself.

I quote you from Peter Taaffe's book, the Rise of Militant: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/militant/ch4.htm

"John Throne was from a Protestant background (his father had been the head of the Orange Order in Donegal) but had become a socialist and was involved, in a prominent position, in the Civil Rights struggle in the Bogside Defence Association and the Northern Ireland Labour Party in Derry, being chair of the Young Socialists."

This is in the late 1960s, not long after the Militant began publication.

By the way, I hope you saw my comment in the discussion page on the first para changes. It would be interesting to see how many other editors are watching the page and have an opinion. Andysoh (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Of course, the deeper you dig, the more complex the situation alays turns out to be. The CWI in Ireland is one separate CWI section which operated different strategies in the north and in the South, although both north and South, in the late 1960s, operated within the respective Labour Parties.

In general one would say that North of Ireland 'Miltant supporters' were not part of the Militant tendency, as you point out. The NILP was not a part of the LP in Britain as you know, albeit it had a close relationship.

But Wiki policy is to keep it simple and avoid "technical" issues, which can be gone into in the body of the article. I tend to think that the difficulties we are discussing here arise only when we try to do too much with the opening sentence.

It seems to me the wiki link to the Labour Party in the opening para is sufficient to deal with matters in relation to Northern Ireland since the opening para of the Labour Party article is clear on the question.

Andysoh (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Beer

I've started a discussion on the images in the Beer article in order to get a wider view. See Talk:Beer#Lead_images. Regards SilkTork * 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

per your request

• a b c d McGonigle, p. 172 quote "Hitler, of course flagrantly violated the rights of Catholics and others whenever it pleased him. Catholic Action groups were attacked by Hitler's police and Catholic schools were closed. Priests were persecuted and sent to concentration camps. ... On Palm Sunday, March 21 1937, the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge was read in Catholic Churches in Germany. In effect it taught that the racial ideas of the leader (fuhrer) and totalitarianism stood in opposition to the Catholic faith. The letter let the world, and especially German Catholics, know clearly that the Church was harassed and persecuted, and that it clearly opposed the doctrines of Nazism."
• a b c d e f Bokenkotter, pp. 389–392, quote "And when Hitler showed increasing belligerence toward the Church, Pius met the challenge with a decisiveness that astonished the world. His encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge was the 'first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism' and 'one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican.' Smuggled into Germany, it was read from all the Catholic pulpits on Palm Sunday in March 1937. It denounced the Nazi "myth of blood and soil" and decried its neopaganism, its war of annihilation against the Church, and even described the Fuhrer himself as a 'mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance'. The Nazis were infuriated, and in retaliation closed and sealed all the presses that had printed it and took numerous vindictive measures against the Church, including staging a long series of immorality trials of Catholic clergy."
• a b c d Rhodes, p. 204-205 quote "Mit brennender Sorge did not prevaricate. Although it began mildly enough with an account of the broad aims of the Church, it went on to become one of the greatest condemnations of a national regime ever pronounced by the Vatican. Its vigorous language is in sharp contrast to the involved style in which encyclicals were normally written. The education question was fully and critically examined, and a long section devoted to disproving the Nazi theory of Blood and Soil (Blut und Boden) and the Nazi claim that faith in Germany was equivalent to faith in God. There were scathing references to Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century and its neo-paganism. The pressure exercised by the Nazi party on Catholic officials to betray their faith was lambasted as 'base, illegal and inhuman'. The document spoke of "a condition of spiritual oppression in Germany such as has never been seen before", of 'the open fight against the Confessional schools and the suppression of liberty of choice for those who desire a Catholic education'. 'With pressure veiled and open,' it went on, 'with intimidation, with promises of economic, professional, civil, and other advantages, the attachment of Catholics to the Faith, particularly those in government employment, is exposed to a violence as illegal as it is inhuman.' 'The calvary of the Church': 'The war of annihilation against the Catholic Faith'; 'The cult of idols'. The fulminations thundered down from the pulpits to the delighted congregations. Nor was the Fuhrer himself spared, for his 'aspirations to divinity', 'placing himself on the same level as Christ': 'a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance' (widerliche Hochmut)." NancyHeise 18:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your edits on the Catholic Church talk page here: I have also detailed which sentences in which sources support article text. Please do not place citation needed tags on sentences that are clearly cited. Thanks. NancyHeise 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Holt's bitter.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Holt's bitter.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just add the link from the flickr page to the information template. Salavat (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

just cut and paste the link straight after the equals sign on the same line as "source" on the image page. Salavat (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Hydes brewery.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hydes brewery.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Proletarian Military Policy

Hi there. I think your edit is misleading. It suggests that Socialists previously opposed imperialist wars, but did take sides in the Second World War because of the threat of physical extermination of the labour movement. That is not the Trotskyist position, and was not the basis of the PMP. The PMP argues that socialists should go with the call up in order to stay close to the workers - and not as a way to taking sides against the threat of fascism. --Duncan (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

re Rachel Corrie

Per WP:BRD I have undone your edits to the above article. Some of them, like some of the delinking, seemed reasonable but removing the Mike's Place bombing will be controversial and against consensus. Had you viewed the article talkpage you will have seen the extensive discussion surrounding the inclusion of this section, and the consensus that formed to include it. Should you wish to restart the debate then you should do so there. I also suspect that some of the other delinking you did - such as the house demolition one - would also give rise to dispute, so again I would request that you form consensus before making similar actions. Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have opened a user RfC at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise. From my analysis of the diffs, I think you are eligible to certify this, although you are, of course, under no obligation to do so. If you choose to certify, please check to make sure that I have not missed any key diffs in your attempts to resolve the dispute. Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, is this called "WP:canvassing"? NancyHeise 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, I came to your talk page to ask you about this edit. I have added a section to the article talk page to discuss it. I think it is too detailed for this article and we try to use scholarly sources in the history section, not .com's. Can you please come talk to us about this? I think you could find that info in a scholarly source and say what you want to say in a single sentence at most. We are trying to keep article length down a bit since some have complained about article size being too big. Thanks. NancyHeise 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pannonica

Hello. Please discuss before moving to an article based on her maiden name, as you don't have a consensus. Thanks.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Anglican "groups"

Hello. Regarding your edit and comment about the word "groups" - in reference to the personal ordinariates for former Anglicans on the Catholic Church page - being "vague", can I point out that the word "groups" is actually the term that the Vatican in its apostolic constitution on this issue uses. In fact the Latin name of the consitution translates as "Anglican groups" or "groups of Anglicans". Therefore the word is actually the correct one to use in the article. Cheers. Afterwriting (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS A WARNING (Morning Star (UK newspaper))

My discussion with you has been patient and by the book. You have said I am "willfully blind" after I phoned the newspaper on the matter (which you agreed I could to do), to get their clear opinion. And you have since called my edits back to consensus, "POV based" (in your revert to your own admitted POV). I'm not normally sensitive, but you need evidence to use these kind of words about another editor - but you have NONE. My comments and edits have all been perfectly sound, polite and per policy. Also, I feel you are simply disrupting the article now, and are clearly editing outside of WP:policy. You are pushing me into contravening the WP:3RR rule too.

So this is your 'warning' (a standard practice before complaining), and I will take this higher if you continue with any of the above. I simply don't have the time to edit battle over clearly non-policy changes to such a clear on-and-off Wiki consensus.

You have one indirect source, which you have not provided support for on or off Misplaced Pages: you simply cannot draw your own conclusion from it, and then place your conclusion as a 'fact' in the first line of the Intro. Also, you cannot push the paper's communist history into the fist line, before the current information on the paper is detailed. That fails Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style guidelines (WP:MOS). Please endeavor to keep your negative feelings on Communism and the Morning Star out of Misplaced Pages's article space, and make sure your edits pass policy. And please consider the main text as being appropriate editing space. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Christ myth theory. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ari (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you stop reverting at Christ myth theory you may be able to avoid a block for edit warring. You have already violated the three revert rule. Instead of continuing to revert, try to persuade others on the Talk page that your version is correct. A large text removal, like the one you made at 13:07 on 29 December, is unlikely to win you any friends and supporters, even among those who believe that the Christ myth theory may be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: I have again reverted your attempt to link this subject to Holocaust denial and flat earthers in the lead. WP:LEAD requires an overview of the subject, not a verbatim rendering of footnotes used, let alone those of religiously motivated critics of it which are clearly WP:UNDUE WEIGHT anyway. You seem to think this page is Jesus or Historical Jesus rather than Christ myth theory, although given your clear conflict ot interest pastor, I question whether you should be editing it at all.Haldraper (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this, so I'll take them in order.

(1) Your edits to the Christ Myth article violate the Three Revert Rule; stop. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

(2) The current lead is not a "verbatim rendering of footnotes" but a brief summary of some scholars' views, sourced with footnotes.

(3) The scholars who compare the Christ Myth to Holocaust denial and so on are not obviously motivated by religious concerns--don't try to mind-read--Crossan and Ehrman are very unlikely to possess such motivations in this matter.

(4) These critical comments are most apropos in the Christ Myth article and not the Jesus/Historical Jesus articles. The critical comments are explicitly directed at the subject of the Christ Myth page and are only tangentially relevant to your proffered alternatives.

(5) My edits clearly do not represent a conflict of interest. I am not writing about myself, my family, my friends, my business, my band, my legal case, my favored political candidate, or any other related thing. I am writing about a historical/literary theory articulated in the 18th century and developed since then. Further, all my edits are heavily footnoted with reliable 3rd party sources which generally derive from recognized experts in relevant fields. Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Z9 The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Haldraper reported by Eugeneacurry (talk) (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|I am not sure I have contravened 3RR: I cut the final lead para from Christ myth theory and when it was rv I cut it again. On the second rv I rewrote it and then rv that when it too was cut. I therefore appeal the block. I also have my own complaint of WP:COI to make against Eugeneacurry, who has been editing California Southern Baptist Convention despite being a pastor in that church as his user page makes clear, which I am unable to submit at WP:COIN. Are you or another admin able to look into that for me? Haldraper (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Autoblock has been cleared. Rodhullandemu 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I love that "consensus" was achieved by blocks. When you get out of jail could you sign Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Dec_5th_poll just indicating the obvious that you weren't consenting to the changes that you got blocked for opposing. Thanks in advance and good luck jbolden1517 01:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Email me when you get this.

Catholic Church (1830s)

Thanks for reponding to my request for clarification with this edit. The text is much more informative and is improved in tone. (The previous wording seemed likely to evoke a ‘looks like Catholic whining’ response in the minds of unsympathetic readers). Ian Spackman (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pale ale

Unfortunately, the history with that page is that the definition needs to be stated absolutely clearly or anything and everything gets called a pale ale. --Killing Vector (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Catholic Church in England and Wales"

Would you please see my comment at Talk:Catholic Church in England and Wales? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Party

There was no need to remove the section on the party being center-left. In the talk page we had come to consensus about the party being centrist and center-left. If you are going to remove that particular unreferenced claim then I suggest you remove its political position as well, which again, we have come to consensus on and is unreferenced. I noticed you did not however remove a nearly identical unreferenced claim on the Republican Party's page.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources." Consensus is irrelevant when it is based on original research.Haldraper (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR at Morning Star (UK newspaper)

I put this on my talk, but I'll copy it here too:

You are on 3RR. I'm not going to go to that myself, so the only way to stop you putting your well-voiced POV into the article will to report you and insist it is returned to the consensus edit. 3RR is one thing that works like clockwork, so I suggest you do not try it! Matt Lewis (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

I just to want to say straight off: I respect your sources and I have no intention of engaging in an edit war. At the same time, I also hope that you can show deference to academic sources that disagree with your viewpoint. I find it almost astounding to believe that the Lib Dems have "moved to the right," as you said in your last edit, when the horse's mouth proudly proclaims "we are the only party that believes in fairness" ahead of the British general elections. If there are any more generally leftist concepts than equality and fairness, you'd be hard-pressed to find them. I hope we can come to some sort of amicable understanding here. Another user intimately involved with the article suggested that we could call the party both 'centrist' and 'centre-left.' I'm willing to adopt that framework, and include all of our sources, in the spirit of compromise. Let me know what you think.UberCryxic (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ubercyrix, every party in Britain claims to believe in "fairness", maybe we should tag them all as centre-left? The main body of the article is actually pretty clear about how the Liberals/Lib Dems while historically a centrist party adopted some centre-left positions under Kennedy at the time of the Iraq war to appeal to Labour voters but has since moved to the right - e.g. over tax cuts and student top-up fees - which is unsurprising given the number of Tory/Lib Dem marginals. You might also want to look at their recent record in local government which is certainly not centre-left.Haldraper (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Every party in Britain claims to believe in fairness? I'm not British, but to quote the British, that's bollocks. Go review the Conservative Party website and you'll see equality and fairness are not even remotely important ideas in their platform. As long as we're at it, a fundamental difference between the right and the left in more recent times has been the mantra "life's not fair" for the former and "we can make it fair" for the latter. The Lib Dems fall in the leftist camp in their general view of social justice, equality, and fairness, which are not concepts embraced by all British parties (why the heck would you say something like that?).UberCryxic (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ubercyrix, I took you advice and went to the Conservative Party website. A quick search for "fairness" produces this speech by Shadow Chancellor George Osborne entitled, guess what, 'On Fairness' which includes the following:

"Fairness is one of the strongest impulses that underpins our social fabric, forms the basis of our relationships, and as political thinkers from Locke to Lincoln have argued, gives our democracy legitimacy...The first characteristic of a fair society is one where people are properly rewarded for their effort and ability. And the great victory for the right in my lifetime, across the world, has been to show that this is best achieved through free markets operating within the framework of the rule of law, a fair tax system and strong social norms.

The second characteristic of a fair society is one in which there is equality of opportunity, so that people can achieve their aspirations regardless of their background and no one is left behind. And I believe here in Britain my party is now winning the argument that the progressive goals of reducing poverty and increasing mobility are best achieved by Conservative means.

The third characteristic of a fair society is less familiar but as important – that the current generation should not saddle the next generation with the costs of its own mistakes, be they environmental, social or fiscal. And I can see a new debate emerging in British politics in the coming months in which Conservatives show that we offer long term inter-generational fairness in contrast to a government willing to mortgage the country for its own short term survival."

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2008/08/George_Osborne_On_Fairness.aspx

Still want to claim that only left-wing parties talk about fairness? Haldraper (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the substantive policy differences between the two underlying formulations of fairness, what you found is a speech by one member of the party. That's great, but it doesn't make a trend. The Lib Dems have adopted the concept as the party platform (essentially), which reveals far more about their ideological inclinations than some speech ever could. On the other hand, I don't see the Conservatives making fairness the centerpiece of their election!UberCryxic (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk about moving the goalposts! When I say "every party in Britain claims to believe in "fairness", you accuse me of talking "bollocks". When I show you a speech entitled 'On Fairness' from the Conservative website you say it's just a "speech by one member of the party", yes the Shadow Chancellor who may well be in charge of the British economy in three months time!

There are "substantive policy differences between the two underlying formulations of fairness"? Yes, but did I claim otherwise?

"The Lib Dems have adopted the concept as the party platform (essentially), which reveals far more about their ideological inclinations than some speech ever could."

Well that's not something we can judge based on words but rather, as the article does, on their policy shifts from left to right since 2003.

"On the other hand, I don't see the Conservatives making fairness the centerpiece of their election!"

Why not? Osborne's already made it the centrepiece of a speech, I can easily see Cameron picking it up as a theme. Haldraper (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To your last question: for one (major) reason, they're conservatives, ergo inherently against any concepts like fairness and equality. Osborne's speech is obviously silly pandering, but I didn't want to get into the politics of it all. What I do want to get into is the academic sources, and I now have several from the last decade placing them as center-left. The best option here seems to be calling them bother centrist and center-left.UberCryxic (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, please be careful when you revert next time. You reverted another user's edits about ideological position, but you also reverted my (mostly cosmetic) edits that had nothing to do with that fight.UberCryxic (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've commented in the talk page, and I sincerely hope that you would acknowledge the viewpoint of other academic sources.UberCryxic (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I did discuss it in the talk page. See my suggestions.UberCryxic (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I find it really funny that you accused me of pushing my "conservative POV," given that I hate conservatism from the "c" to the "m". If you spent two seconds looking at my profile, you would see that I'm a liberal.UberCryxic (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not a book is available on Google is absolutely irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. If you have a hard copy of the book, use it!UberCryxic (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've given you two more books in the talk page calling the party "left-of-centre" and "left-liberal." Go discredit them before I add some other ones.UberCryxic (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One major difference between you and I in this fight has been that you constantly attempt to analyze and interpret the sources whereas I simply regurgitate what the sources say directly. If it says center-left, I say center-left. If it says centrist, I say centrist. Now you're doing it again in the History section. The history article cited never says the words 'center' or 'centrist'. I apologize for accusing you of adding that stuff in there, but just because it wasn't you doesn't make it any more right. Moderate and third force, by contrast, do appear in the article, and hence it makes more sense to include them. Let's say what the sources say, not what we want the sources to say.UberCryxic (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with your new version. Good job.UberCryxic (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Rugby Football Leagues

Hi Hal. Please see User_talk:Jeff79#.22Rugby_Football_Leagues.22.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, by my pronoun I did not imply you were wrong to remove unverified material. However, you did not just add a reference in that edit, you also removed a completely seperate sentence and didn't put this in the edit summary. I would not have removed the journal reference had this been a seperate edit. I do, however, object to you removing any mention of the other Australian states. Not mentioning them would be unbalanced, violating WP:NPOV. I am well aware of WP:V, as I am also aware of the need for balanced writing. This was the part I did want to revert. In future, please seperate edits instead of mixing them together. GW(talk) 22:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Lib Dems

I added centrist per our agreement in the talk page, but don't forget to add the citations for it. That's your responsibility since you wanted that label in there.UberCryxic (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)