Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:55, 5 August 2009

User	Talk	Contribs	My Sandbox	Improve Me!

User:Richardshusr/Status

Hi, and welcome to my talk page! Please remember to: Be civil Start new topics at the bottom, and give your message a descriptive heading. sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages or frequently asked questions. To leave me a message, click here.

If you leave me a message here but do not plan to watch this page for my reply, please say so as I do not normally copy my replies to other Talk Pages.

Thanks!

Richardshusr (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Archives

• December 2008

Roman Catholic Church

Richard, I asked on Talk:Roman Catholic Church that the edit-warring please stop and people instead get consensus for any changes to the first sentence. You have now made a change to that sentence, yet consensus has still not been reached on the talk page. To me, that appears to be furthering the edit war that has been going on for weeks. I don't want to have to protect the page, because useful changes are occasionally being made to other sections of the article. I ask you to please revert yourself, and resume the discussion on the talk page rather than in edit summaries over changes to the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs,

You cannot end an edit war by inserting new text that no one else has agreed to. Protection of the page is preferable to adding in new text that makes no one happy. (Really, your text is probably objectionable to most of the editors except a few dyed-in-the-wool Anglicans). You're not smarter than everybody else who is editing the article (and neither am I). My reversion of your text was explained on the Talk Page (please read the explanation there) and is an attempt to insert something that is truly acceptable to all the editors, at least as an interim solution.

If you read my note carefully, you may pick up the hint that I am an admin too and could have protected the page if I thought the edit-warring had gotten excessive. The edit warring was undesirable but, IMO, it hadn't risen to the level of warranting page protection.

My understanding of admin neutrality is that you can't edit the article and exercise admin privileges simultaneously. That's overstating the case but it's a good first approximation. If you wish to insert text, you can't insist that it must stay and you can't protect the page. If you are considering exercising your admin privileges, then you need to stay "above the fray" and not be involved in editing the disputed portion of the article.

If you feel the page needs to be protected, then just protect it and don't worry about getting the article text "right". No matter what article version you protect, it is certain to be the wrong version.

I was invited to this discussion by Soidi and, although I tried to stay neutral, I found myself siding with Soidi and Defteri. That is one reason why I have been very reluctant to exercise any admin privileges. I suggest that you also choose between being involved in the discussion or acting as admin. Doing both poses a potention conflict of interest.

I have not engaged in edit-warring on this article (although I have been sorely tempted). I have not once reinserted text after it has been reverted although I have found the reversions arbitrary and the reverters obstinate and unwilling to listen to the concerns that have been voiced.

--Richard (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Alfred de Zayas

Dear Richard,

the Alfred de Zayas article in the German[REDACTED] was the subject of massive vandalism in 2oo7-2008, Wiki-rage and Sperrung. The article is currently "protected" and only old users and administrators can get into it. Alas, some of the old users and German administrators collude and although the discussion pages (mostly archived) disprove the incorrect material added, the administrators do not implement the necessary corrections, so that the article is more like a caricature. Normal IPs are blocked and even new Misplaced Pages users are immediately blocked ("indefinitely") if they attempt to correct the article. Is this is a form of cyber-terrorism? How can a normal IP complain to the Administrators of the German Misplaced Pages? There are two administrators who have seriously abused their discretion -- Sargoth and Seewolf. How can an investigation of their actions be requested? For the time being, please keep the protection of the English language article, because if unprotected it will probably suffer the same fate as the German. The French Misplaced Pages has a fine article and is not being vandalized.83.77.251.202 (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Someone added a redlink to my name in a passage you drafted (I think)

Greetings,

    If I am reading the record correctly, you wrote alot of material for the global warming adaptation article awhile back.  I just came accross that article, and of course I appreciate the fact that you saw fit to cite an article I wrote on the subject.  (I was doing a backlink check before I move my website off an old ISP to a real domain and was editing URL's).  Someone later added a redlink to my name, and I was not sure whether I should write a short bio; so I inquired and the feedback I got (including articles on the subject) was that I should take a crack at a rough draft and then vet it through the community rather than just posting it myself.  If you would be willing to join this ad hoc review committee I'll let you know when I have posted something, probably in the next few weeks.
    Best regards
    Jim  Jimtitus (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

PS It probably makes sense to shift this discussion to my talk page. Jimtitus (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I read the article you suggested, but I do not have a feel for the scale of these things. Perhaps only when you see how many people read a biography can you really know whether it was worth including. Looking at those criteria for academics:

My main contribution is that I was the original person to assess the impacts of accelerated sea level rise and anticipatory adaptation to those consequences, and get other people to do so as well. If you are familiar with IPCC, I was the only person to be a lead author in both working groups II and III in the original assessment (so of course I have 1/2000 of 1/2 of a Nobel Peace Prize.) I guess that there are thousands of topics with that level of importance--you have a better overview than I would have for how much space that rates. Similarly, a lexis search of the last 20 years has hundreds of newspaper articles where I was interviewed--but again it was all about sea level rise. My other primary contribution--which is not yet widely understood but may be some day--is the basic formulation of a land-use tool known as the "rolling easement."

Regarding google, there are only about 2000 entries that refer to me by my name in a google search and about 20,000 entries that refer to me with my initials and last name (mostly reference sections). For reasons I can't really discuss in a public forum, I've had a smaller number of publications in the 8 years than previously, which probably gives me a lower profile on the web than it was previously. Is there a rule of thumb you are following for number of entries of percent of the web?

Anyway, I imagine that a certain number of people who read articles about preparing for sea level rise would want to have access to some basic information about a protagonist--but I have no sense of how large that population of interest has to be for Misplaced Pages.

Thanks Jimtitus (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pentaho

On the contrary, the IP seems to have a bad case of ownership; and I strongly suspect him/her of being a Pentaho employee or executive. She/he keeps wanting to add catalog-style details, rather than providing solid third-party evidence of notability. I suspect that the IP is a programmer, sales rep, or at least a power user, because the jargon used is rather impenetrable to this ordinary clerical worker. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RFM

I began a Request for Mediation here and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise 06:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I have just added five sources and external links to Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. I know these sources will be of great use to you in exapnding the overall quality of the article. If you would like more sources to expand this article let me know. Best Regards Ninevite (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Hello Richard, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. So, I though I would invite you to come and take a look. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards Marek.69 04:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'll go over and take a look but I have to confess that this is not an area of great interest for me at this time. Others can probably be of more use than I can. --Richard (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your biased

Your reverting out, deleting, removing of the text of the actual issue on the East-West schism shows that you are not looking to properly (with sources) have the schism explained from both sides. You are biased then. I say this one because Lima has still yet to be addressed for his edit warring (tactics and all) against me and other editors on the article. I say this because what you left in the schism article is incoherent and does reflect what the issue actually is and diminishes it. I say this because you have used your admin priviledges to take away the clarity of the issue between the EO and the Roman Catholic church what you left explains nothing. V Lossky's explaination is short to point and gives the clarity that can be seen expressed by various other Theologians not only of the East but from the East. They are as far as I can tell trying to explain "why"? That is what needs to be in the article. Not wash up that implies that the schism is nothing but petty ethnic bickering. Since that will most definitely deny the Eastern the validity of it's grievances. And when you deny people they will not listen nor will they give validity to your perspective. How can people even resolve their differences if they are not allowed to even state them in an article about the actual disagreement as an historical event?

You are shutting down the process and the only explanation I have for that is you have picked a side and are being biased. Note this is the only edit of yours to the section (so far) that I have contested. I am only contesting Lossky's articulation of the issue being removed.

As for Lima look at what he did today even. This is after you made comments that the various Orthodox theological articles need uniformity I took the headers and format from the EO article on the Energies and Essence distinction. They and the format are not mine. Your support and enabling of Lima is biased and Lima has engaged in editwarring and the evidence is all over Misplaced Pages-Richard. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nihil obstat

Richard, concerning this edit , we have used Nihil obstat, imprimatur sources to create only the Beliefs section of Roman Catholic Church. History section and other section sources were not chosen by whether or not they had a nihil obstat and almost all them do not, they were chosen based on WP:Reliable source examples advice to choose scholarly works that have bibliographies and notes, are written by professors, are university textbooks or are the most oft cited works per Googlescholar. They were also chosen based on several months of discussion before the third FAC. NancyHeise 22:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Redding out"

This expression refers to an effect that the Misplaced Pages software produces when, it seems, trying to show changes in a paragraph that has grown too long. I find no other hypothesis to explain why not only the actual changes but the whole of the paragraph, in both its before and after forms, appears in red, an effect that the editor who wrote most of the material in the paragraph accuses me of deliberately causing. Once the paragraph had grown to that extent, the same effect followed his own changes too.

Thanks for your excellent work. Lima (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope your latest Talk-page comment on this matter does not mean that, while you did not accept the accusation that I was "redding out", you do accept the accusation that I was edit-warring. Your Bold-Revert-Discussion suggestion would not have worked. I could not revert the long quotations from selected Eastern writers who attack what they paint as Western teaching. To restore objectivity, all I could do was to quote authoritative sources of the actual Western teaching. As further selected Eastern writers were added about other similar matters, I had to counter these with authentic Western statements of doctrine on these further points, or else with quotations from authoritative Eastern writers like Bishop Callistus, who uphold the same teaching that the selected writers were attacking. Was that edit-warring? Not as I understand the term. I do not wish to mention this matter on the article's Talk page, for fear of stirring up further ire. I do so only here, quietly, confident in your understanding. Since you have so much to do, you need not reply. We can just let it fade away. Lima (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Divorce (United States)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Divorce (United States), and it appears to be very similar to another[REDACTED] page: Divorce. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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) 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

East-West Schism

So I think it's a good idea that this article be protected, but should it really be protected with the Noetic consciousness section there? LOL 05:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. It's clearly the wrong version. Now a sneaky person would have snuck in one last revert to game the system because the protecting admin is not supposed to choose which version to protect. Instead, he/she is supposed to protect whatever the last version is. I'm not that sneaky. It would be bad form for an admin to game the system in this way. --Richard (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here Richard is Being with God It was put out by Notre Dome Press. There is a good chuck of the theology online for you to read since you don't like the way I am handling it.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember that there's a way to request revisions on the talk page from an impartial admin while an article is protected, but I can't seem to find it. Can you point me in the right direction, please? LOL 18:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Use Template:Editprotected. This template is to be used for non-controversial changes (i.e. it is not supposed to be used as an end-run around the protection). --Richard (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But we're okay with protecting the page with LoveMonkey's 26 revisions, none of which were adequately discussed on the talk page? The only reason removing this section isn't non-controversial is because we're allowing an edit-warrior with WP:OWNership issues to hijack consensus. Consensus doesn't mean everybody's on board, just the preponderance of people. Looking at the talk page and the revision comments, I think it's clear that most of those edits need to be undone. LOL 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much needs to be changed in the "Theological issues" section. The problem is that we need to find a way to do it without getting into a revert war with editors who have a different opinion. --Richard (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution at Misplaced Pages is slow, painful and often unsatisfying. Look at WP:DR. First, you try to reason with the other editor. Then you can ask for a third opinion or go directly to a request for comment. Then you can try mediation through the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee. I've never gone past the RFC stage although I have been named a party to an ongoing mediation at the MEDCOM. You should hope never to get to the last step, an Request for Arbitration. That is even slower and more painful than all the other processes. --Richard (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a content dispute. I'd call consistent revisions against consensus without discussion on the talk page "vandalism," and a whole lot of his comments on the Talk Page violations of WP:AGF. LOL 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is a content dispute with some bad behavior around it. LoveMonkey is a prickly character and it is often difficult to work with him. He does a lot of work around Orthodox articles, though, and there is value in his contributions so we just have to put up with it when he goes overboard and try to reel him back in as annoying and time-consuming as that may be.

AFAICT, there is not a clear consensus against LoveMonkey (this is a matter of definition but 3-2 or even 4-1 is not a consensus in my book). The purpose of the RFC is to elicit more opinions to see if there is a true consensus. --Richard (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree, I think it's bad behaviour hiding behind a content dispute. I've asked for the page to be rolled back in an editprotect template, so we'll have to see what a neutral admin thinks. LOL 19:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree on what the problem is but not on what the solution is. Part of it is difference in philosophy and maybe difference in temperament. I'm not a cool-headed person by nature but I've learned to be more so when editing Misplaced Pages as hot-temperedness is common on Misplaced Pages and, IMO, a waste of time and energy. Much of what I wrote above is not so much what I think the way things should be but what I have observed is the way things are in my three years of experience here.

I notice that you have only recently created an account. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I hope you will find working on the project rewarding and not get frustrated and turned-off by the conflicts that arise from time to time. My advice to you is: Take a break from East-West Schism. Go work on other articles. Take a break from Misplaced Pages. Enjoy life. Then come back ready to "do battle". (Because, IMO, your position on the article is right.)

--Richard (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

List Christian Heresies

No problem. I just added it to reply to your request for help. Use what you want. And no I am in no mood to feel the "rage of the pagans" as such an article would provoke. I am Orthodox and believe in free will for all and hate no one. Here is a new bleep on the radar someone with very interesting things to say. -Dmitry Galkovsky LoveMonkey (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church

I agree with what you are saying about the Church being polluted by Constantine's promoting it to the state religion. Up to that point, only "saints" had joined - people who really believed and were willing to die for their beliefs. After that, everyone joined and overwhelmed the church all at once. Lots of opportunists. An argument can be made that they were never "really" assimilated - that we still have "Sunday" and "Easter/Christmas" Catholics (Christians).

On another note, are you aware that we have (had?) a mediation going on this topic? See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. It is dormant now. If you have discussed all this with the mediator, great. But one of the things that we seem to be lacking is direction. If you are happy with the way things are going on the discussion page, that is fine. Otherwise, maybe we should switch to a more closely handled discussion. Student7 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the mediation page and it was unclear what the topic of the mediation was. when you say "we have (had?) a mediation going on this topic", what do you mean by "topic". Do you mean the entire article "Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church", the specific issue of the St. Bart's massacre, or what? I'm not satisfied with the slow progress that we're making on the "Reformation" section but sometimes Misplaced Pages is like that... one step forward, two steps backward.

What other alternatives are there? I don't think there should be "back room discussions" except where the discussion is so unrelated to the article that it would be a distraction for the other editors.

--Richard (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "backroom discussions." Mediation is a normal route when editors have not been able to agree for some time. I requested it a month ago or so when we hadn't been getting anywhere for several weeks. While not all editors may want to participate, the mediation discussion is certainly open to being read by other editors who may later decide they want to be included. We have picked up a couple of more editors since I requested the mediation.

The problem with continuing with no mediator in the article discussion page, is focus. Each editor tries to cover multiple topics in his reply and the discussion becomes unfocused as a result. And yes, of course the mediation covers the entire article.Student7 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Forget what I said about "backroom discussions". I was confused and it is totally unrelated to what you had in mind.

I think it is more useful to have a focused mediation (e.g. on the "Historical actions" section or even the Reformation/Religious Wars section). I could participate but I don't think I am a central figure in the current dispute. I try to be an informal mediator but I often take wind up leaning more to one side than the other so I cannot serve as a real mediator. If I were you, I would attempt to restart the mediation but on a focused topic as I have suggested. --Richard (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving pages during AFDs

Please try to avoid moving pages during AFDs, or if you do, leave a note about it at the AFD discussion, so that they are closed correctly. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already apologized on Stifle's talk page but just for the record and for the benefit of anybody else reading this Talk Page... the above "move during an AFD" was a bone-headed mistake on my part. I thought it was a good idea at the time but I really kind of forgot that this sort of thing is a bad idea. I don't know what I was thinking. --Richard (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

President of Turkey's comments about Israel

Well, I was disappointed to read about the reasons for your being blocked but hopefully you now understand Misplaced Pages's policies regarding this kind of behavior. I'm fairly confident that the Talk Page of the Reuters article was not the place for your comment. However, to the extent that the President of Turkey has commented on this topic, those comments are somewhat encyclopedic and could be added somewhere in Misplaced Pages if they haven't been documented yet. If you want help in this regard, let me know and I'll research this with you. --Richard (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a good feeling that Reuters also played a strong role during the Mortara Affair, where it took the side of the groups opposing the papacy of Pius IX. The comparison between the Mortara affair and the Williamson affair is striking, it takes us back about 150 years in the past. ADM (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By Williamson, I assume you mean Richard Williamson, the Holocaust denier. I don't see the linkage between the Mortara Affair and Williamson. And I don't understand what this has to do with the President of Turkey. I need you to connect the dots for me. --Richard (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing Mortara and Williamson affairs in their causes, but in their effects, in that the media uprorars were similar, and that the same press agencies were apparently involved, albeit in a very different way. The part about the President of Turkey is unrelated to this, it is another story. ADM (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you and I might have very different perspectives on these events and the associated causes and effects. However, I think the article that you want to look at is Media bias, in particular the sections on Media bias/National and ethnic viewpoint and Media bias/Vis-a-vis religious issues. Either of these sections could be built into a separate article. --Richard (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

East-West Schism

Now, the real reason I came over here was to ask for your help in reviewing this section. Through our interaction on List of Christian heresies, I get the sense that you know a fair amount about Catholic theology. I have been working with a pair of editors who are knowledgeable in representing Orthodox criticisms of Catholic theology. They claim that they just want to represent the Orthodox side and want the Catholic side to be represented as well. I do not have the impression that Catholic theologians "do battle" with Orthodox theologians. AFAIK, Catholic theologians don't spend much effort criticizing Orthodox theology. The "official" story from the Catholics is that the Orthodox are not heretics but schismatics and that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with their theology, at least not to the point of being heretical although some variations of Orthodox theology are considered heretical. Do you have any thoughts on this?

--Richard (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The theological differences have a part of theology, a part of philosophy and a part of politics. The most notable area of difference is quite likely that of philosophy, not theology, where there is a vast disagreement on substance theory for instance. The political aspect is merely a logical consequence of this. To have a better grasp of some of the philosophical issues underlying this, a good thing would be to look at post-modernism and phenomenology, which ironically tend to explain from a modern perspective some of the contentious topics discussed here. ADM (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm lost. I understand philosophy even less than I understand theology. Is there, in your opinion, a response from Catholic theologians to the charges made by the Orthodox theologians cited in the East-West Schism article? These issues are treated in more depth (or will be soon) in the article on Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. --Richard (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The most complete response to the Easterners is really the Summa Theologica of Aquinas, which addresses all related matters in a most definitive way. Aquinas talks about Essence, Being and Substance in a way that tends to refute the claims of other theologians in the Greek Church. ADM (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

May I step in a moment--I think what Richard is asking is what is the most authoritative contemporary book. DGG (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. That's sort of true but the real problem with Summa Theologica is that it's a primary source. We need a reliable secondary source that summarizes the response to the Easterners. An analytical summary of the relevant portions of Summa Theologica from a secondary source would suffice. Contemporary is better but secondary is the most critical requirement. --Richard (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cut n'paste

If you are copying slabs of material from other articles, you have to say so with a link in the edit summary, to preserve the GFDL or whatever licence - there is a policy saying so somewhere. This is unless it was all created by you, but it is a good idea to do so even then. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reminder. A review of my recent contributions will show that I try to do that but I forgot this morning because I was copying small bits of text and it just slipped my mind. --Richard (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Instances where Whitehead uses the term "official documents" in his book excerpt are highlighted here:

and . I don't think either you or Gimmetrow or Soidi has taken the time to read the entire article because you keep saying that he only uses the term "proper" which is incorrect. Your response at mediation also failed to consider this statement by the scholar and historian Hillaire Belloc copied here with ISBN # and you also failed to consider the scholarly work by John McClintock . How can you say we have one source? We have several in addition to Patrick Madrid who also meets WP:RS. NancyHeise 18:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...

1. I have now re-read the Whitehead article and, well..., he doesn't explicitly say that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church but I do start to think that this is hair-splitting. He says proper but he does really argue that the name of the church is "the Catholic Church" and he is arguing polemically against "Roman Catholic Church".
2. Hillaire Belloc does not really say that the official name of the church is "the Catholic Church". He's not really wrapped up in discussing the name of the church but something else and so this is not really a good citation in this regard.
3. I'd seen the McClintock quote and forgotten about it. Like Whitehead, he argues against "Roman Catholic Church" but he says that Church officials substitute "Catholic Church" or "Holy Catholic Church" for "Roman Catholic Church".

As you know, I'm for putting all of this in Note 1. I just don't think the "officially known as the Catholic Church" conveys the full breadth of our discussions on this subject.

I will, however, modify my "Initial Statement" to reflect the above points that you have reminded me of.

--Richard (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to modifying the note but I think any other article text in the first sentence would not properly address the issue that is being argued by all of the sources. Also, did you read WP:Reliable source examples underneath the section where it discusses "Religious sources"? NancyHeise 22:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard, you appear to be moderating the mediation when you are not the moderator, Shell is. Since you have an opinion in the matter (that is not supported by any sources as I have requested) I do not appreciate that you have "taken over" the moderation. I appreciate your input but it should remain "input" and not "moderation". NancyHeise 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way and, to be honest, I don't see that you have a legitimate grievance. However, since I might be mistaken about the proper protocols for mediation, I have asked Shell for his opinion here. However, the stance that I am taking for now is that there are a group of editors who are working to find a solution. I didn't start the discussion. All I did was express my "initial statement" as requested and then respond when Defteri asked me if I thought certain phrases would be acceptable. From there, the discussion has evolved as it should. IMO, more discussion is better than less.

It's not my fault that there is a group of which I am a member that is converging on a solution that we agree on. I have put up a couple of red flags to remind the group that coming to an agreement amongst ourselves means nothing if we cannot get you, Xandar and others on board to that solution.

Perhaps you would care to be more specific about which edits you see as usurping the "moderating" role and what you see as "input".

Most recently, I have created a table that lays out the alternatives we have discussed and indicated who supports/opposes each one and why. I don't see that as "moderating" per se. It just helps me keep track of the "score" so to speak. We have gone around and around in circles for months on this one. I think a bit of organization in the form of rubrics (aka frameworks) would help. I only regret that I didn't see the value of doing this earlier.

--Richard (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert on Energy distinctions

I reverted because the addition was not correct. It looked like WP:OR not just something that needs a citation. It also contridicts other Catholic sources in the article and the entire scholastic movement. It does this without sourcing. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(NOTE: Unless you just hate cluttering up your Talk Page, next time, feel free to answer there. It helps keep discussions intact on a single page.)

OK... just goes to prove that it was better for me to ask for explanation than to assume the worst. Edit summaries are not just comments to the specific editor you are reverting but also to the rest of the Misplaced Pages community. Without adequate explanation in the edit summaries, reverts look like edit warring. --Richard (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW do you think you could merge the two Nicodemus the Hagiorite articles into a single article? Just asking..

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging the two Nicodemus the Hagiorite articles

Done. --Richard (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Grazie!

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Burning Heart

Hey why is there no Burning Heart article for the RC? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, My interest is more in history of the church than anything else. Also, not all Catholics focus on such symbolism (iconography). I'm one of the ones that doesn't.

--Richard (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

huh strange..

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I'm not exactly the standard model of a Catholic. It's a long story but my spiritual journey takes me towards the liberal wing of the church, even towards Protestantism.

It also makes my understanding of God closer to Scholastic than towards the more mystical aspects of the faith. Thus I know about symbology like the Sacred Heart of Jesus but this is not really part of my everyday faith.

Don't look to me to be representative of any part of the Catholic faith and especially not the mystical side.

--Richard (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

bingo, there it is...ah there it is the Sacred Heart.... LoveMonkey (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Emigration of Germans from Poland in the 20th century

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Emigration of Germans from Poland in the 20th century, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, possibly OR

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this subject, but from what I have read I am afraid that the entire series of articles on German expulsion and related suffer from German (and in some cases, Polish) extreme POV. And to be honest, I've other projects to work on rather then to study and rewrite them properly. Currently I just stubled upon the unreferenced emigration, and I suggested that it needs to be rewritten/merged/deleted, because as it is it is a breeding ground for some nasty edit wars and such.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns, Anti-Catholicism

Hi. You seem to have introduced significant content pasted from this source to the article Anti-Catholicism in January 2007. As a result, several passages in that article and Anti-Catholicism in the United States will need to be revised or removed, unless we are able to verify permission from the copyright holder in accordance with policy at Misplaced Pages:C#Using copyrighted work from others or unless it can otherwise be demonstrated that for some reason this text is free for use. This was obviously quite some time ago, so I don't doubt that you are aware at this point that contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases, unless those external sites are public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL, or unless the use of non-free material from those sites conforms to our non-free content guidelines.

Both of the articles are listed at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2009 March 5 and will be revisited on March 12th to see if permission has been verified or if clean-up is necessary. I also like to keep conversations in one place, so I have watchlisted your talk page as well as both articles in question. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl 16:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reworked the text in both of the offending articles to eliminate the copyright violation. --Richard (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I'll restore Anti-Catholicism, but it seems you may not have noticed there were two problematic sections in Anti-Catholicism in the United States. One paragraph under entertainment remains verbatim from the source. Rather than blank the whole article, I had divided the templates only to cover what I saw to be remnants of that earlier text. I've restored the upper portion, where the text was addressed. --Moonriddengirl 12:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Christianity in the United States

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of Christianity in the United States, and it appears to be very similar to another Misplaced Pages page: Christianity in the United States. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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) 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Could you pretty please rename the article Primum movens to be First Cause. Aristotle was not Latin, did not speak Latin, and in this situation the article needs to refect the concept in English. And a First Cause article will need to be created in order to properly frame the idea if the concept is left in Latin. Also Could you merge the Actus et potentia article with the Potentiality and actuality article for Aristotle. As proff of my point about the First Cause article. And finally the Pneumatomachi with the Macedonians (religious group) article needs to be merged so it can show up in the list of Christian heresies properly. All of these articles are duplicate articles. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also here's alittle something about the Energy-Essence distinction if your brain is up it.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Myth of expulsions

What Xx236 tries to say I believe is that

• People who were leaving on their own are called and counted as expelled
• People who were evacutaed are called expelled.
• Jews, Poles are called deported but Germans explelled-which has a stronger emotional meaning.

From my side-the whole issue also avoids mentioning that milions were actually settled after 1939 and are counted as expelled from Poland-this meaning that colonists sent to Germanize Poland are portayed as victims of injustice by Poles or Soviets. IIRC the German law is so formulated that not only those colonists are counted as victims but also people serving in administration of the occupied territories(see my question on Fritz Ries) On the question of Nazi involvment expelled organisation post war-this was studied by number of scholars and I would gladly provide you with them. Currently the articles have been re-worked to represent a very pro-German side of view, and I see the issue of colonists, giving expelled status to people like Erika Steinbach or actions of German minorty in WW2 that served as reason for its removal for many in Poland are mostly avoided(just some examples). I would certainly work with at representing them if you are interested(and of course I assure you all of this can be sourced to reliable publication). Also missing are the political consequences after the war for German-Polish relations and evolution of those organizations and their status in Germany. --Molobo (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not done any significant work on these articles in over a year. However, I will get involved again if you think the articles are becoming too biased towards one POV. I have not looked at the articles closely in a while. Perhaps you can point out the areas that are problematic from your point of view. As for colonists settled after 1939, can you provide sources who support the estimate of "millions"?

I think the issue is that we have to find sources who critique the methodology behind the various numbers provided in Demographic estimates of the German exodus from Eastern Europe.

--Richard (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No hurry Richardshusr-I will gather needed resources and contact you when I will start updating those articles-it will take some time, I prefer those days to do a more lenghty rework then just some sentences that will be reverted soon. As to your questions the number of milions is in :

World History‎ page 794 William J. Duiker, Jackson J. Spielvogel - 1997 - By 1942, two million ethnic Germans had been settled in Poland. Of course knowing reality they are most likely higher and lower numbers. However it is a fact that colonists were settled in Poland and they are counted as expelled. This certainly needs to be mentioned in the main article-I think its obvious why this is problematic for Poland, counting such people as expelled is really unfair from Polish point of view since they were occupiers.

As to revision of demographic data German historian Ingo Haar did a good work on this. I will search for this, but some German studies even used murdered Jews in Holocaust as source of missing Germans and assigned them to number of expelled. --Molobo (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Kevlar vest...

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thanks for wading hip-deep into the collection of articles which have been the battleground between Japanese denialists and everybody else. That's bravery! Your contribution and engagement across the several areas of conflict is not unappreciated. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality of Life (Healthcare)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Quality of Life (Healthcare), and it appears to be very similar to another Misplaced Pages page: Quality of life. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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) 03:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, you forgot to sign your comment on the RCC mediation page. Thanks. NancyHeise 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre

I note that you have recently created Nanking Massacre controversy, Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre and Historiography of the Nanking Massacre, all of which appear to cover the same topic. This appears to be content forking, and please do not create any further articles on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it appears to be content forking. Have you actually read and compared the articles? Each has a different scope and purpose. Nanking Massacre controversy is a grand overview summary article that identifies the major positions and describes them. Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre provides details about one school of thought, the denialist school. Historiography of the Nanking Massacre is a chronological account of how the history of the Nanking Massacre has evolved over time. It is a "history of history", if you will.

I typically fork off articles when I find that an article is getting too long or trying to cover too many ideas in a single article. Have you read section 2 of Misplaced Pages:Content forking?

There are some things that may occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking, when that is not necessarily the case. Some of them are listed here. Please note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork -- only that it is not necessarily a content fork.

2.3 Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Misplaced Pages:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Misplaced Pages procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

2.5 Articles whose subject is a POV

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. Criticism sections should be preferably integrated into other sections within an article rather than being spun out, as our NPOV policy states that opinions should not be considered separately from each other.

--Richard (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		Awarded to Richardshusr for being a very helpful administrator and for his excellent review of Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism. NancyHeise 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I realized maybe a little late that you have spent a fair amount of time helping me improve the page. Thanks for all your help both on this article and elsewhere. You are a very helpful administrator and I appreciate both your time and kindness. NancyHeise 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to help. --Richard (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Query

What is about? Gimmetrow 00:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Richardshusr,

Could you please help. Now that the edit protection gas been taken off "Bridge to Breakwater" 72.211.236.126 contines to "edit war and commit vandalism removing references. Thank you. Samotoottat (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

GAR for Nanking Massacre

I can't be the GA reviewer because of my history of editing the article, but I think the result will be a quick fail due to the recent instability of the article involving straight reversions of other user's changes, especially those of Arimasa, in the last month. Perhaps the article would benefit more from a Peer Review... if GAR doesn't bear fruit, you go Peer instead. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The other thing that I'm concerned about is the number of {{citation needed}} tags (some of which were put on the article by me).

At this point, I'm looking for input on how to improve this article. The reversions of content by Arimasa are largely settled thanks to the creation of Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. I have today added a link to that article so Arimasa should be contented with that. Arimasa is not as obstinate a POV-pusher as some Wikipedians that I have met on other articles.

Even if you can't serve as an official GA reviewer, can you give me your thoughts about how to improve this article? I think it's in pretty good shape and a much better article than it was a month ago when it seemed to be a very one-sided screed against the Japanese. Now, I think the article provides a more balanced presentation of the facts. Without attempting to exculpate the Japanese, it at least suggests that the Chinese contributed to the slaughter both through mistakes and deliberate policies (i.e. scorched-arth and the supervisory unit).

--Richard (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My assumed role at that article has always been a limited one, due to my inability to read Japanese or Chinese. I've acted as something of a referee in the past, reworking awful English when I think it's worth doing, and trimming obviously slanted statements or manual of style trespasses. I will continue to observe from 30,000 feet to see how the broad lines are shaping up but I will not be able to bring a dental pick down to the crevices to make sure references say what the editor is using them to say. For now, I'm going to wait until the GAR gets picked up, watch closely how it goes, and take part as I see fit. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Antisemitism

Thanks! You've been the first person to budge and show consideration of both views here, and I'm very grateful.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Falklands War

Could you please reset the protection level, its there for a reason. The article attracts a ton of vandalism from Argentina and this month is the anniversary of the start of the war and for various reasons Argentine politicians are stoking up tension again. It will simply result in a ton of vandalism edits without protection. Justin talk 17:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. It can easily be reprotected if vandalism occurs. --Richard (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK then your call, I would however point out that it would have helped to have discussed it on the talk page with the other editors who have it on their watchlist first. Justin talk 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair point; I was being lazy. If the article had been protected for only a few weeks, I probably would have done that. Having been protected for over 5 months, there wasn't much to discuss. Perhaps you should review WP:PROTECT, especially the section on vandalism...

Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of such for high-trafficked articles does not usually provide a basis for full-protection. Preemptive full protection of articles is contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages and this policy. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Barack Obama, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism. Brief periods of full protection are used, rarely, when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article.

--Richard (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough if that is policy but there is also a policy of using common sense to interpret rules. I think this is a probably a conversation for after you've reverted Las Malvinas Son Argentinas (one of the, lets say milder, forms of vandalism) for the 1000th time. I would put money on you understanding where I'm coming from by then. Justin talk 19:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Violated 3RR on March 29?

Richard, you stated that I violated 3RR on March 29. I've looked carefully at the history of the article, and I'm certain that is not the case. Could you please update your comment to reflect that? Thanks. Jayjg 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's 1, 2 and 3.

Perhaps you have a rationalization why one or more of these is not a "revert" that qualifies as one of WP:3RR. I'm open to hearing the rationalization. However, I would suggest that wikilawyering is not a productive use of time here as I'm not threatening to block you or anyone else on the basis of past edit-warring or 3RR violations. I just wanted to point out that the edit warring is unacceptable behavior and merits admin attention if it continues.

I have a lot of respect for you. I know you're an admin with more experience than me, checkuser, former member of ARBCOM, etc. I would think long and hard before contemplating a block for you. Moreover, I agree with your position on this dispute. However, I think any hint of admin action must come with an absolutely neutral even-handedness. I didn't want to slap the wrists of the side I disagreed with while letting the side I agreed with slide. It looked like you violated 3RR on March 29 so that's what I wrote. If you can prove that I read the history wrong, I'll retract what I wrote.

--Richard (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You've listed three edits. Violating 3RR means you revert more than 3 times. You'd need 4 reverts to violate 3RR. Jayjg 04:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Erp. OK... you're right. I often forget that. I'll retract it but the message is still the same. There's too much edit-warring and not enough discussion. The better thing for you guys to do was to get a neutral admin to protect the page until a consensus could be reached.

--Richard (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd appreciate it if you could modify your comment on the article Talk: page to indicate that. Regarding consensus, there does appear to be one on this, but I can wait a few days before implementing. Jayjg 22:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha terminology

Hi. I'd like to request a copy of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha terminology before it was deleted. I'd like to move it to another wiki, so I'd like the source code right before it was deleted, giving me the latest possible update.

Moving that page to my userspace or a text copy, either one is preferred.

Thanks. Alba Corpus (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. You can find it in User:Alba Corpus/Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha terminology --Richard (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - April 2009

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue VII - April 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 65 FAs, 7 FLs, and 146 GAs. That is a wonderful number, particularly of the GAs. Thanks to all those who worked on these articles! Secisek was interviewed by the Misplaced Pages Signpost in their 9 March 2009 issue here. Thank you for your great work in getting more attention to the project! Member news Our membership continues to expand. We are currently at a stunning 278 registered members. A profound thank you to all of you. Without your support and work, this project, and[REDACTED] itself, would not exist. Other news We have recently started a separate subpage of the project dedicated to keeping the members informed of the latest activities regarding FA and GA status, requests for peer review and comment, proposed deletions, and other article related activity. That information can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Article alerts. Please feel free to look at the page frequently and respond to any and all items posted there that you wish. Related projects news The Iglesia ni Cristo work group, Syriac Christianity work group, and Oriental Orthodoxy project are all currently being considered for restructuring. Any and all members of any of those groups are welcomed and encouraged to take part in the discussions. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Seventh, admittedly delayed, issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. Yes, it's been more than a bit of a rough time for some of us, okay, me, for a while here. Several things, most of them not real pleasant, kept coming up. I think most of that is over with know. I hope and pray as much anyway. Easter is the church's time of rebirth, and I hope it's a good time for the rebirth of this newsletter. I hope that the project grows in numbers and effectiveness as the church itself has over the years. Thanks again for all your efforts to date. Oh, yes, and please note that this section is entitled "From the Members". That means you, all of you. If any of you have any comments you'd like to share with the other members in this section, please feel free to let us know, and we'll put them in the next issue. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. Thanks again. John Carter (talk), Lead Coordinator To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Columbine High School massacre

Moving this discussion to Talk:Columbine High School massacre. --Richard (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Tenth United States Army

I understand the naming convention for MILHIST; I've been part of those discussions for many years. However, those naming conventions ONLY apply for units that do not already have the name of the country already as part of its official name. Tenth Army's official name is Tenth United States Army. The official name of the unit always, always preferred over anything else. If after the official name is used the country of origin is still unclear, then the country is added in parenthesis after the unit title. I'm going to change those back and any other u.s. numbered armies you may have moved for this reason. In the future please review all of the guidelines of the naming conventions before taking action; it'll save a lot of unnecessary moves. Thanks. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks, Genius101 14:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm only doing this so that I could get a coach. If you would be interested in coaching me, that would be great. Thanks, Genius101 12:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Columbine High School massacre

Hi there. Just to let you know I've restored the protection on this article after a request at WP:RPP. Sadly the unprotection experiment has failed I think. I've indeffed it, but if you suggest that a shorter (but probably still long) period would be better, let me know. Cheers! --GedUK  12:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ælfheah of Canterbury

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your anti-vandalism efforts while poor Ælfheah of Canterbury was on the main page! May an obscure little Anglo-Saxon bishop and saint bless you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I would be be very happy to have you as a coach. If you still want to, we can start whenever you want to. Thanks, Genius101 20:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your improvements to Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism. I am sorry I can not help you right now, I am still very upset about that article's FAC. Give me some time and I'll get over it. Thank you for your continued help though. NancyHeise 15:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A better source for understanding

Here are two links that I think express a better understanding (but are still poorly worded and could be more correctly translated into English). Since I am retired I can not finish the Orthodox Theological clarifaction (what is the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholic/Protestant Christianity, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism). My goal was to as is said in conversation clarify that all dialect disputes (atheism, theism, sophistry, philosophy etc. etc.) reduces to arguments of energy i.e. is it a particle or is it a wave. This is what I set out to do but hopefully after you look into these links you will have a better understanding of East and West. , I hope you would read them for an understanding for the difference is vast but not at all impossible. And thanks Richard for being human and a good Christian man.. Christ is Risen! LoveMonkey (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - May 2009

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue VIII - May 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 68 FAs, 7 FLs, and 146 GAs, which includes 3 more FAs. We did however lose one FL and 2 GAs over the past month, but we still basically broke even with the 3 new FAs. Member news With the additions of cindyrom4jesus at 69.254.33.66, User:Jwhosler, and User:Arverniking, we now have 281 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members! Other news There is some new discussion regarding project related activities, specifically including the various Christianity portals, at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum and the possible expansion of the extant Narnia task force of WikiProject Novels. All input is more than welcome. . Related projects news The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute. Member contest of the month Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of the month will get an award. Please see the details Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Eighth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. Hello from the new Christian films task force! I was recently apart of founding a task force, so this is the story. For several months, I would not only contribute to Christian films, groups, etc., but I'd also see other users working on similar articles. I really wanted to create a project for us to work from. Filmcom contacted me about trying to get a task force going, so we began working together on it. When it appeared the idea was dying, we continued to fight, and several other users joined! Thanks to the efforts of many users, I'd like to introduce you to the Christian films task force! We are currently having a bot tag all Christian film-related articles, and we are working to define our project scope. We now have our own icon and shortcut (WP:CFTF), with ten users signed out thus far - these are just some of the things that have been happening in the last few days. If you have any interest in joining such a project, we welcome everyone to join and get involved. American Eagle (talk) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here . Thanks, NancyHeise 11:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I have recently made some negative observations about some admins on my talk page and at an RFA. For the record, I consider you one of the decent admins who do their job conscientiously for the benefit of Misplaced Pages. Since you had recently worked closely with me on Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism I was worried that some might think I was referring to you. NancyHeise 18:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching?

Hi, Richardshusr. I see that you are an Admin coach but but on the request for coaching does not specify your capacity. I am currently looking for an admin coach and was wondering if you are available. Lemme know. Thanks, Otisjimmy1 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Richard. I am also currently looking for an admin coach and wondering if you are available. Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre

Source Dumping

I rather resent the allegation that I dumped the entire contents. If you had read and compared the two, you would have seen the considerable amount of editing that I had been engaging to reduce the size of the history section. I cut out about 60 percent of the article. Suggest you take the time to talk with an editor if you don't understand what they are doing.Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi,

I have seen on Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching/Status that you may have space to coach another would-be-admin. If you do have space i would love to know. I have recently failed an RfA, though it was close. I would love to be coached into becoming a better admin candidate, and therefore a better admin, by you. Obviously if you can't then I will have to wait for you or another coach to become free. Happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa | _Sign 21:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Conversely

Yes— stick to what the cited references state— AND the cited references does NOT use the term "Protestants," NOR does it use the term "other Christians." The cited reference does not blaim the term on anyone and we don't have to blaim the term on anyone. --Carlaude 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Black and Indian Mission office

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Black and Indian Mission office, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://marquette.edu/library/collections/archives/Mss/BCIM/BCIMsc2.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. See our copyright policy for further details.

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) 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Douglas v. City of Jeannette

Thank you for recognizing the absurdity of inherent notability for U.S. Supreme Court cases. I hope that you will add the cogent explanation of importance to the article and please, in the future, do not copy and paste pages of text with copyright notices reserving all rights even if you believe that notice to be invalid. It especially shifty for someone to do that on an article about a legal case. Drawn Some (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already expanded the lead of the article in question to establish its notability. As for your comment about assertions of copyright, you may wish to consider this. --Richard (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

"CAI" isn't exactly mainstream; see Robert Sungenis. Just letting you know. Gimmetrow 21:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanx. But are they heretical? Is what they wrote in the webpage that I provided doctrinally incorrect? Does the Catholic Church prohibit literal interpretation of the Bible or do they simply consider non-literal interpretation permissible? --Richard (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's for the Church to decide; it's outside of our purview. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there are positions that are within the legitimate bounds of discourse and positions that are outside of Church doctrine. I CAI's position on literal interpretation of the Bible within or outside what the Church considers legitimate bounds of discourse.? --Richard (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's for the RC Church to decide; I suspect that to find out would require original research on somebody's part, and thus would take it outside the purview of this encyclopedic project. Each sect or denomination defines heresy in their own way, if they even acknowledge such a concept. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Tyw7

I would like to have you to be my admin coach. I have ran for 4 failed RFAs. I have been for Misplaced Pages for over a year. If you would be interested in coaching me, that would be great! --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 13:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to serve as your admin coach although I wonder if you are truly interested in becoming an admin since your multiple failed RFAs show an unwillingness to take simple advice on what to do actually pass an RFA. Admin coaching from me will take a lot more work than you have put into previous RFAs. Take a look at User:Tyw7/Admin coaching and tell me if you still wish me to be your admin coach. --Richard (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was. I did improve from previous RFAs, but the problem is that most of the time I edit from anon Ip address. These address are listed in my contrubutions page. I edited the coaching page. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another question for you on the admin coach page! Have you check out the Admin Rogue link. Since they declare themselves to be vandals, can't you revoke their admin status and block them? --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was the one editing as an anon IP address above and on the admin coaching page. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hi Richardshusr, i'm not sure if you missed my previous message to you but I am interested in admin coaching an was wondering if you would be available to take on another coachee. Please let me know, if you can't I completely understand. Thanks, OtisJimmyOne 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I love your Pinafore poem. :) NancyHeise 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - June 2009

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue IX - June 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 72 FAs, 6 FLs, and 145 GAs, which includes 4 more FAs. We did however lose one FL and 1 GAs over the past month, but we still gained overall. Member news It was a big month for new members, with User:SixGreenFish, User:Invmog, User:Unconsumed, User:TheThankful, User:Noghiri, and User:1111tomica joining, bringing us up to 286 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members! Other news There is some new discussion regarding project related activities, specifically including the various Christianity portals, at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum and the possible expansion of the extant Narnia task force of WikiProject Novels. All input is more than welcome. . Related projects news The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute. Member contest of the month Given the lateness of the newsletter last month, the contest from last month continues. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of June will get an award. Please see the details Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Ninth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. I am in the process of going through the various categories related to Christianity. I am finding that several of them may not have sufficient number of members to continue. By the end of the month, I hope to have the main category list finished (yeah, it might take that long, it's huge). At that time, I think we will review all the categories and see which may not have sufficient articles to continue. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian - 13:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Evangelization

This article looks hopless to me.

See Talk:Evangelization#Coming_back_to_the_point for my proposal to merge/delete. --Carlaude 18:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting from own talk page

I thought that I was allowed to remove stuff from my own talk page... B. Fairbairn  Talk  19:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove stuff but removing warnings without acknowledging them gives the impression that you are just blowing them off and gives the person leaving the warning a bad impression. --Richard (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have finally woken up.

There will be no more United States edits from me!!

Thank you for stopping the ongoing contest in stubborness and stupidity between Golbez, DCGield and I.

I will now try to find something else to do. Have you any positive suggestions? B. Fairbairn  Talk  20:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving on vacation in an hour and don't have time to write a full reply. Let me think about it and get back to you when I get back in a couple of days. --Richard (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church mediation outcome

Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here . Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore

Hello, Richard. I saw that you quoted Pinafore on the FAC page. Ironically, I have just nominated H.M.S. Pinafore for FAC and would welcome your comments. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of...

I see that you were commenting intelligently on this in February. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League We need to decide whether these are useful.Historicist (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Arbp. Dolan comments

One bishop does not a conference make...Unless you have some other differing opinions from other members of the USCCB the two comments you have posted from Archbishop Dolan make no sense in this article. It would be more relevant if it were part of an article about the recent reorganization of the conference which included a substantial staff reduction and a structure to encourage more participation on the part of bishops. --Aicragpr (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

star

Richard, I would like to put a star on my user page to indicate Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism is a page I worked on but it would not be proper to do this unless you, Steve and Brianbolton have that same star on your user pages too. The article would never have passed FA without the combination of help it received from these people. Can you please add this star to your userpage at my request here? Let me know, thanks, NancyHeise 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Here it is if you would like to put it on your userpage. Thanks again for your tremendous and outstanding work as an admin and NPOV expert!

NancyHeise 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

History of Roman Catholicism in Ireland

I can make up the original for you if you are interested so you can see the extent of the changes that I made. I would be more then happy to have your collaboration on the article. Let me know and I'll do it all up for you. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance at greenland related articles

I need some admin assistance on Greenland, Template:Prime Ministers of Greenland, Prime Ministers of Greenland and Kuupik Kleist where an POV warrior USER:Jægermester is crusading against Greenlandic independence and adding unsourced defamatory material and ethnic slurs against the Greenlandic Prime Minister.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW. When observing 1RR what would you do when the other editor refuses to engage into discussion and follow consensus?·Maunus·ƛ· 19:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Enlist the help of other editors. Even a 2-1 or 3-1 ratio in your favor will cause the other editor to hit 3RR before you do. This doesn't work if there are multiple editors on each side. In that case, you are forced to follow the (somewhat lame and ineffectual) Misplaced Pages process for dispute resolution. All of this takes patience and can be quite frustrating. Such is life at Misplaced Pages.

Repeated edit-warring from an editor who refuses to engage on the talk page may result in a block from an admin. Your goal is to make sure the admin doesn't decide that you are just as guilty as the other guy is and block both of you. Admins should not make decisions about content (although some will). In this particular case, I hesitated to get involved because it wasn't obvious to me which of you was right and, since both of you seemed to be edit-warring, I decided to take a "wait and see" attitude. --Richard (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts needed here

Richard, Xandar and I are talking about something related to RCC and wondering what you think. See NancyHeise 03:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC) A comment here would also be helpful. Soidi (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Just wanted to say I noticed . This was one of the issues I mentioned on one of the FACs for that article. Gimmetrow 05:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

211.53.208.28

I'm coming to you because you're an admin, and you seem to be online at the moment. We would really appreciate it if you would block 211.53.208.28. The user is repeatedly removing itself from WP:AIV in an attempt to avoid being blocked. Has clearly violated a level 4 warning and has been on WP:AIV unblocked for a while. Thanks. —LedgendGamer 07:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, the IP has been blocked. I was just scrambling to find an admin that had a low chance of being offline at the moment. —LedgendGamer 07:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Liskom

Hello! Why you have removed my page? I thought i have a few days to expand it? JohnVla (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was helping this user expand this page. Please read our talk pages for the conversation about it. There were comments on that article's talk page and it appears you made no attempt to contact the user that created it either. Could you please explain the reasoning behind the speedy deletion even with the request for time during the expansion of the page? Cliffsteinman (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I did read your conversation. There's was no indication why this company is notable. As it stood, the article looked like SPAM and it was so short that there is no reason to think the article couldn't be easily recreated once you have enough material to make a real article. If there had been three or four paragraphs with at least some indication of why this company was notable (e.g. biggest vending machine company in Western Russia), I would have been more inclined to keep the article rather than delete it. --Richard (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic_sex_abuse_cases talk page

Thought you might like to know that there have been responses to your comments in this section of the talk page. Centrepull (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please can you send me a copy of the page "Tom Dakin" that was deleted earlier today.

love from Tom Dakin xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdakerz (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue X - July 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 76 FAs, 8 FLs, and 148 GAs. We gained new recognized content in each field, with 4 FAs promoted, 2 FLs, and 3 GAs. Congratulations and a big thank you to all those who worked on these articles! Member news It was a big month for new members, with User:RandomNumberSee, User:Per Ardua, User:Muzhogg, User:Arlen22, User:Scotchorama, and User:Jaybird vt joining, bringing us up to 292 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members! Other news I am still working on the categorization matter. With any luck, we should have some results by the end of the month. There are also some discussions regarding project related activities at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. One issue in particular that might be addressed is possible elections of new coordinators. Anyone interested in serving in such a capacity is more than welcome to indicate as much. Related projects news The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute. Member contest of the month The previous contests are still ongoing, because of the extreme amount of time the categorization is taking me. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of July will get an award. Please see the details Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Tenth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. It has been a long time since the last coordinators election. There is a lot for people to do, and I certainly would welcome seeing any individuals with an interest in such a position put themselves forward as candidates. I in particular would very much like to see some degree of "specialization" in the coordinators, so that, for instance, we might have someone knowledgable about some of the specific Christian faith traditions or other main subjects, like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, art, theology, and so on. If any parties who have experience with some of our faith- or- subject-based content would be interested in being candidates, I would love to see them do so. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by ~~~~

10 Commandments

Hi Richard,

Please see my comments on the discussion page. Its clear that we see things differently, but hey, we can sort it out. From my point of view, it looks like you added a bunch of stuff without support, and removed comments that cited chapter and verse. But I'm sure you see it differently. Lets have the debate im public, on the discussion page.

Cheers!

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Article on Jesus

What is your problem with the discussion page? Ronewirl (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What does it have to do with editing the article? Refer to WP:TALK. --Richard (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. It is related to editing the article. This edit is a better explanation of why it was deleted. --Richard (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Separation of church and state

I believe, these books (I think the last one is already cited there) give some explanations about the Emperor's role, in Church affairs. However, the earlier phrase "In the Eastern Roman Empire the Emperor had supreme power over the church" seems to be too much, according to John Meyendorff, "the emperors were above neither the dogmas nor the canons of the Church". Romanides also claimed that "...the Ecumenical Synod was of an extraordinary and imperial nature","Ecumenical Councils, however, were convoked by the Roman Emperor for the purpose of signing into Roman Law what the synods of Autocephalous and Autonomous Churches believed and practiced in common". (Also, the statement from the earlier version that, Mehmed II was a caliph, when he conquered Constantinople, appears to be incorrect, the first Ottoman Sultan to become caliph was Selim I, it could be added however, that Mehmed II claimed the title "Kayser-i Rûm" after conquering Constantinople.) Cody7777777 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Judaism and political radicalism

You need to do some more work on this article. Although I find the topic interesting, I think the current article is poorly written and without that many sources. ADM (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

E-mail link?

Thanks for your offer of help on Shahriar Afshar. I don't seem the find the link for e-mail on your page. Can you link it here? Alternatively you can e-mail me afshar*rowan.edu Cheers!-- Prof. Afshar (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail. RSVP. Cheers!-- Prof. Afshar (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hope it doesn't look small-minded of me to revert your restoration of material about the Afshar experiment from his bio page. The bio page needs some real biographical material in it, not material about his experiment which it is linked to. I would like to see some real material on this chap. --Michael C. Price 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for deleted page text

Hi, I chose your name at random from the list of administrators who are willing to retrieve the text of deleted pages. The page "Patricia Sawilowsky" was deleted today and I would like a copy of the text. I'm one of the people who has been trying to edit it to get it into acceptable format, but now that it has been deleted I can't continue to work on it. Thanks for any assistance. Edstat (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You can find it here. --Richard (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! When it can meet the A7 requirements I will reinstate it.Edstat (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)