User talk:ADM/Archive 1

Archives

1 2 3

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, ADM/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Or perhaps I should say welcome back? It's been awhile, eh? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

administrateur ?

Es-tu administrateur ici aussi ? Si oui, pourrais-tu effacer User:Staatenloser et son historique, merci. Staatenloser 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Alimandi

Your request for a page on Luciano Alimandi got it started. Please feel free top add to it. History2007 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a starting point

Here is a good source to define energy.. [1] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Vatican conspiracy theories

I have nominated Vatican conspiracy theories, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vatican conspiracy theories. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Williamson controversy

Hello, while I value your contributions to the Williamson article I would like to some advice:

  • please do not simply add "X said Y" to the article without including it into a proper context
  • please avoid giving unnecessary detail (such as the university where the Msgr is a professor)
  • when using a referenced source, please do not simply pick one element and leave out the rest: that the Swedish SSPX superior as well as the RC diocesis in Sweden distanced themselves is just as important as Schmidberger and more important then quoting Schmidberger at great length.
  • MOST IMPORTANTLY: when referencing a source, please use the actual title used, not a summary of what you think relevant.

Thanks, Str1977 (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the Swedish diocese part is more relevant, it is likely not, since we are to assume that the SSPX and the diocese are really two separate and likely conflictual entities, which would disagree on almost anything else anyways. However the fact that Father Schmidberger did condemn Williamson is relevant, since on other relevant matters they have been on same side and otherwise fought the same battles. ADM (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my posting more carefully. I did not say the diocesis part is more relevant than Schmidberger but just as relevant (though I may grant you that it is slightly less important than the two SSPX superiors' comments). And it is a fact that it has distanced itself. Also the Swedish superior has also distanced himself. And yes, Schmidberger is relevant he is therefore included - though not by name. What is not relevant is quoting Schmidberger verbatim. I hope your silence on the other matters means agreement. Str1977 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rest is formalism, which I am good at, although I am kind of a substantialist, more interested by substance than form, albeit I surely will pay attention to what you said. ADM (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Str1977 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ty

thank you for creating Pontifical Academy for Life. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditions of the Church

If you want to restore the Catholic Church to traditional values, finding a way to keep child molestors out of the priesthood would be a good start. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ugly truth is that a HUGE percentage of molestors are also gay. Therefore we have got a BAN on all gay seminarians, see for example Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. If you had a similar rule for teachers, lawyers and doctors, I suppose it would have the same kind of impact. ADM (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the priests molesting boys could be assumed to be gay, sure. I'm pleased to see that they are indeed taking some action. The scandals of a few years back were a huge black eye on the Church. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

FYI, there's a discussion about your edits at WP:AN/I. Cheers. Fraud talk to me 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a monolithic editor, but I am however interested in various controversies and news-related events, and this sometimes gets me into the lion's den. Take no offense pal, cheers. ADM (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, just wanted to let you know that some other editors were discussing your edits, and that you may want to respond to it. Was just a friendly notice. :) Fraud talk to me 00:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USCCB committees

Hello, ADM. You have new messages at Talk:United States Conference of Catholic Bishops#Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.