User talk:JASpencer/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Karl Denninger

Why are you reverting the Karl Denninger Wikipedia? The claims made were both linked to factual evidence of such claims. Wikipedia truly is losing it. The claims are both factual and evidenced. Yet you delete them? Why? What are you hiding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.96.203 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm part of a sinister tea party plot to hide THE TRUTH. Can't you tell? JASpencer (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Peter Piel

A tag has been placed on Peter Piel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ialsoagree (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb, check digital point

I did't know how to contact you so i'm writing here. I'm working on a translation and I looked up for "Digital Point" (DP abbreviation). From this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DP if you follow the link under : Electrical Digital Point, electric box on the road side poles. it redirects to : Shawn Hogan ..... I think it's a mistake, please correct it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.94.107 (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


New DNB project

You might possibly be interested: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography has just been set up formally. So far not much impact on the issue of getting topical lists. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

CathEncy

You added {{CathEncy}} to a number of stub articles last month. I have just been through all the articles, and you were the only editor to have used the template in this fashion recently. I went through all the usages of this template adding a "wstitle=" parameter as the use without a parameter is being depreciated, so in future you will need to add a named parameter to the template like this: {{CathEncy|wstitle=name}}. -- PBS (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

All the Ts! Likewise {{CathEncy|name}} will have to be {{CathEncy|wstitle=name}} -- PBS (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ottorino Gentiloni

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ottorino Gentiloni requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability of clergymen

Hi, I started a discussion as to the notability of clergymen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Clergymen, your input is welcome. J04n(talk page) 16:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Text and cite removed from the letter at the Christadoulous Sabbatos article

You've used a reference to the wrong guy, I'm afraid--it seems pretty clear that the ref you used is a reference to Archbishop_Christodoulos_of_Athens If I'm in error and clearly so, please revert and explain. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted myself here, while the letter does refer to the Archbishop, I see now that it also potentially refers to the second name given for the article subject. My apologies. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

sourcing

I strongly support your articles on this subject, but I would advise you to do two additional things: one, is to add whatever information you can find besides a bare listing. At the least, if they wrote books, as probably most of them did, add a bibliographic reference to the books--i they ought to be in the sources. If the edited church papers, or the like, specify which ones in as exact terms as possible. Second, it is best not to to rely entirely on the old catholic encyclopedia. . Normally it will at least give a reference, and this should be cited. But for many ofthem there is likely to be later work also, & it should be looked for, at least in google books and --for 20th century figures--in Google news archive. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of St. Elie and St. Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Catholic Cathedral

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on St. Elie and St. Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Catholic Cathedral requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bluefist (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Ironholds (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Mid Banesore for deletion

The article Mid Banesore is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mid Banesore until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Omenuko

The article Omenuko has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Apart from the introduction to the book (not an independent source), I can't find evidence that this was the first Igbo-language novel, merely one considered "classic", "popular", the author's "foremost Igbo novel"

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Restitution (theology)

The article Restitution (theology) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This looks a little too much like a dictionary entry.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marcus Qwertyus 02:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're doing, and it is not appropriate....

As you did here with Jonathan Rees and also with Anders Breivik you seem to have a problem with inserting uncited material into the list. You said Breivik was a Mason before any RS proof was offered by any source (meaning it was a rumor when you did it), and for Rees, you are using an opinion piece. The immediate reversion only goes to show you are trying to sneak things into the revision history, and I've had just about enough of it. MSJapan (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Restitution (theology)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Restitution (theology) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cerejota (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Your addition to Restitution (theology) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Cerejota (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Software testing controversies

The article Software testing controversies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

essay / original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

so-called "Quaesitum est"

Hello, JA. I've been thinking about our article named Quaesitum est. My first thought was that only papal pronouncements are referred to in this manner, i.e., two or three words in Latin or other language. But "Quaesitum est" is not a papal pronouncement; it's from the CDF. It's not called "Quaesitum est" on the English part of the Vatican website, but "Declaration on Masonic Associations". Am I wrong about the naming? I'd appreciate your thoughts on the issue. Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 17:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved the article from "Quaesitum est" to "Declaration on Masonic Associations". --Kenatipo speak! 02:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pro-war Left

Hello. As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-war Left (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JASpencer. You have new messages at Talk:Fermanagh Orangeism.
Message added 10:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mo ainm~Talk 10:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Brea

You're inferring that because he was returning from the building, that he was a member. The source does not state that, and that is why I removed the edit in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned your article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Michael_Brea, feel free to join the discussion. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Angels, Early Christian Representations of listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Angels, Early Christian Representations of. Since you had some involvement with the Angels, Early Christian Representations of redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MSJapan (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Heroic Act of Charity, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Benedict XIII (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John Gambold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to John Potter and Moravian
Faculties of the soul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Scholastic
Holy Club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John Clayton
Roman Catholicism in Lithuania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Liberal
The Steamers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Labour

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited James Mawdsley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSSP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphans' homes

Both of these redlinks are for specific groups of historic buildings, not for the organisation with which they are related. Having either of them as redirects would be similar to having National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers redirect to United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem with St. John's redirects

I see you created a dab page for St. John's Lodge, which is fine, but you created a bunch of redirs that excise the Lodge numbers from the article titles. Now, in the case of Massachusetts, Lodges do not have numbers (thus "Boston" is OK, because there is another in Newburyport), but in other jurisdictions, the proper and commonly used name of the Lodge includes the number.

As noted above, sometimes the same Lodge name is used with different numbers. Having looked at Connecticut in particular to find Lodges of similar age in the area, their first four Lodges are called "something-St John's Lodge" and a number. It also is plausible that the current location of the Lodge's meeting place is not where it met historically, and not where it might be a year from now. St. John's is also a very common Lodge name; most states in the US tend to have at least one Lodge by that name. One other caveat is that Lodges can merge and/or change location while retaining the lower Lodge number and name.

In short, the dab is fine, but Lodge numbers need to be retained where they exist per COMMONNAME, not redirected to titles that don't include it and only have a location. MSJapan (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to make things more complicated... During the colonial era there were two rival Grand Lodges in England - dubbed by historians as the "Moderns" and the "Antients" (or Ancients) - both of which chartered lodges and Provincial Grand Lodges in the colonies. There are a few places where there were two rival lodges named "St. John's Lodge" in the same city. This makes historical research difficult... because when you find a source that says someone was a member of "St. John's Lodge", it is not always clear as to which St. John's Lodge the source is referring to.
I came across this problem in researching the foundation of my own lodge... a previous lodge historian had compiled a list of "mother-daughter" relationships between the lodges in my district (when a group of masons from one lodge decide to split off and form another lodge, that second lodge is sometimes referred to as a "daughter lodge" of the first). He found a source that indicated that several of our founding brothers belonged to "St. John's Lodge in New York City"... and he assumed that this meant they were brothers of what is now "St. John's Lodge, No. 1" (thus supporting the idea that my lodge was a "daughter" of St. John's No. 1.) However, when I examined this source in the course of my own research, I found a problem... New York's St. John's No. 1 received its warrant from the Grand Lodge of England (Modern's)... but the source indicated that most of the brothers who founded my lodge were "Antient" Freemasons, and actually came from the other St. John's Lodge... the one that had been chartered by the Antient Grand Lodge of England (This St. John's Lodge, founded by the Antients, had gone extinct during the Revolution... so no longer existed at the time my lodge was founded).
I don't think any of this has caused a problem in any of your links and redirects so far... but it is something you need to be aware of if you are going to start linking to articles on old lodges... especially those named "St. John's". Don't assume that a reference to "St. John's Lodge" in one source is the same "St. John's Lodge" mentioned in another source... even if they are in the same location. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Brea for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brea until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited William P. Yarborough, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. John's Lodge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MailChimp

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on MailChimp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. PamD 17:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Jamaica United Front, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progressive National Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability of The Scumfrog

I noticed that you challenged the subject's notability, amongst a flurry of other flags. I'm in full agreement that the article could use better sourcing, and generally is in need of development. (It suffers from the well-known 90%-of-the-content-is-in-the-introduction syndrome, for one thing. *sigh*.) But it does include the information that Jesse Houk is a Grammy-nominated recording artist who's worked with Cyndi Lauper and for Chevrolet, an internationally-renowned DJ who's had remixes reach #1 on Billboard's dance charts, and the co-founder of major dance label Effin Records. I guess I don't really see how that can fail to satisfy the notability guidelines as documented in WP:MUSICBIO. —FeRD_NYC (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyes@wikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

American Board of Catholic Missions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Vatican
German Party (1947) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regionalist
Lower Saxony National Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regionalist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Margaritae

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Margaritae, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09657a.htm.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for creating the new article Charitable Irish Society of Boston and for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Johann Ludwig Brassicanus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint Gordianus (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Saint Gordianus (disambiguation), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Gordianus_and_Epimachus%2C_Saints.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Imperial Ducal Abbey of Kempten

Hello! Your submission of Imperial Ducal Abbey of Kempten at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Imperial Ducal Abbey of Kempten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magyar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article Camelots du Roi!

Enjoy a brownie! 
Sapere aude22 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A Barnstar!
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Michael Balls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ian Gibson
Thomas Bell (Catholic priest) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rack

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Grey London

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Grey London, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Pope John XVIII (XIX)

Hi. I'm not sure what you intended to do here, but what you did was set up a page which redirected to itself, so I have deleted it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitlers Pope

The book is about Pacelli before and during the Nazi era. have you read it? Sayerslle (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If I were to point you to WP:CALM would you stop leaving nasty notes on people's talk pages and making PoV edits? JASpencer (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
have you read the book? its not nasty, its a perfectly straightforward question. what pov edits are you referring to? it is about pacelli before and during the Nazi era.Sayerslle (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Jay Abraham listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jay Abraham. Since you had some involvement with the Jay Abraham redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Prince Hall Freemasonry

Bessel says it is "it is likely", and has no empirical data to support the assertion. Your addition implies that the data is in the reference, and it is not. Therefore, you are making a claim not supported by sources. MSJapan (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly this discussion is about, but I think the encyclopedia "Africana," about Africa and the African diaspora, contains an article on this subject. As a source which is, basically, encyclopedic, it might be a source that all would find acceptable. Some of the content regarding the diaspora has been criticized for laying too much stress on the involvement of people from Africa, but I don't think that criticism would necessarily apply here. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The old presentation was that the segregation issue was something almost entirely in the past as less than a fifth of the states are holding out, but although there is certainly less segregation it is still ver live gone when around half the PHF members are affected. Bessel is not a source hostile to either either UGLE or PHF (which cannot be said in regard to his attitude to Catholics for example) and it is clearly based on a lot of knowledge on the matter. This is a valid opinion based on useful information, the words may need to be buffed up a bit more to make it clear that it is an estimate but it shouldn't simply be deleted. JASpencer (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What useful information? Bessel cites no specific figures for the 50% number. Which states they are is not at issue, as there is a chart for that, but saying that 50% of the membership is concentrated in just under 20% of the country (by state count) certainly falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL to me, and Bessel isn't exactly being altogether certain on the matter either. From your statements above, you're already taking the 50% figure as factual, and there's just not enough there to say that. MSJapan (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a very important piece of information. The population figures are pertinent, and the idea that around 50% of Prince Hall Freemasons are in nine states, eight of which have amongst the highest proportion of African-Americans in the country (and where Freemasonry is not exactly weak) is not exactly exceptional. It's like saying that Freemasonry allows Mormons, except in Utah. Should it be noted just how much more likely a native of Utah is to be Mormon than in the other 49 states? JASpencer (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 RBS computer system problems

Thanks for your work on this article - it's much appreciated.Autarch (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

AV edits – ‘erroneous’ is not a matter of political opinion

I have reverted your removal of the word ‘erroneous’ from certain British MP’s claims that Alternative Vote gives some voters more votes than others. In each case the word cited a definitive document from the University of Reading, and similar documents are available from the Electoral Commission and countless other sources. The facts are not in question.

As AV does not give any voter more votes than any other, can you offer a reason for removing this crucial and factual word other than some political motivation? nemo (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi JASpencer - apologies if this is not the right way to raise this but why have you undone my edit to this page on the subject of AV? What is left there now might make people think that AV does infringe the principle of 1 person 1 vote. (It doesn't because if you vote for someone popular and I vote for someone unpopular as my 1st preference, then while my 2nd preference vote is counted, your 1st preference vote counts AGAIN, so e.g. by round 2, I have had 1 vote for my 1st preference candidate and 1 vote for my 2nd preference candidate, whilst you have had 2 votes for your 1st preference candidate, i.e. we have both had 1 vote in each round, (and so on). Or equivalently you can say we each only have one vote, in the final round, (which might be your 1st preference vote, but my 2nd preference). This follows simply from the definition of the system as sent out to every household by the electoral commission at the time of the referendum). It is simply a property of the system and stating otherwise is just as wrong as e.g. stating that under the AV system proposed you would have had to rank all the candidates. The subject of this article thought this point was important enough to raise so what is wrong with also pointing out that he got it wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadSailor (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC) MadSailor (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your note.
I got worried about the tone of the "one person, one vote" section, particularly as it was being used as a justification for a number of highly questionable edits on politicians who opposed AV in 2011. You can see more of that on the NPOV Noticeboard and you're perfectly welcome to join in (in fact it may be better to do this on that forum as that will mean the debate will be more centralised and more people will be able to join in).
But a quick note on what I was worried about:
1) The centre of this seems to be a straw man argument. When did David Cameron or anyone else on the anti side say that somehow 1,000 votes would be 1,200 votes - the argument that is being repeatedly refuted here. It really seems to be a wooly argument. This is why I put the NPOV tag on. Admittedly these are what the "refuting" arguments are about, so I've left that text - together with the rather weak opening line around the "one man one vote" piece.
2) The Michigan case seems irrelevant to the 2011 referendum, as it seems to have been put in by an article editor who wants to prove the point rather than a participant in the debate. If there is a citation in relation to this during the referendum then it's fine to put that in as long as it's clear who cited this.
3) The section directly quotes five contrary opinions without a direct quote from the No campaign either making the original claim or refuting the no claims. There is a clear lack of balance.
JASpencer (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I was talking about Stephen Mosley article. I guess you are talking about AV referendum article, (where I haven't edited one person one vote section at all). I'm sure a citation could be found re Michigan case, and in any case it shouldn't take a court of law as it's only a matter of counting. But Michigan case was about instant runoff voting which is the same as AV, so surely it is relevant, (and the fact it went to court, shows that some people are confused enough to benefit from the ruling. Also I remember reading some of it and it does have some quite clear and useful explanation). I don't see how you can have balance about something that is just a question of maths. (If I were to say 1 + 1 = 2 and you were to say 1+1=3, then what is the balanced way to say you are wrong)? The NO campaign definitely made the original claim - I think as one of their central points - as did many of our politicians but I'll try to find a few references and answer on that other page you mention. (It may take me a few days though). MadSailor (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. If it is about Stephen Moseley you really should go to the NPOV Noticeboard where it's talked about. JASpencer (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
This time with the correct link - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.22Erroneous.22_position_in_the_Alternative_Vote_debate JASpencer (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
OK - I see there is lots there - it will take me a while to answer properly. Meanwhile here are a few references re your points above. From the NO2AV campaign itself: http://www.no2av.org/why-vote-no/current-system/ and from the BBC listing the main arguments from the 2 camps: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13229787 - it is the top argument on the NO side. Unfortunately the BBC itself sometimes got confused on this point, but they get it right here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595 (see under "Can people still vote for just one candidate?" - although in fact it's not just the 1st choice that can count more than once. (The fact that any other preferences they could have stated will not be taken into account is comparable to not voting for anyone in 1st past the post - and does not affect this discussion one way or the other ). In my view it is unbalanced not to distinguish between facts, e.g. what time does the polling station open, how many candidates are you obliged to vote for, how many times does your vote count, and what can only be arguments e.g. would AV affect the behaviour of politicians, or make coalitions more or less likely, etc, (even if some data from previous elections can be brought to bear on those arguments by the proponents of the various camps).MadSailor (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Category discussions

I have nominated two categories you created in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 5 which you might want to check out. Mangoe (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. It get's quite irritating when these things come as a surprise. JASpencer (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

FMW, FYI...

Blacklisted again, so that should take care of it. Apparently some things got under the radar. MSJapan (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't react to paranoia through paranoia, but it seems that some people don't see the danger. JASpencer (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Churches dedicated to the Sacred Heard

Category:Churches dedicated to the Sacred Heard, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic chuches completed in 1905

Category:Roman Catholic chuches completed in 1905, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 09:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Akdamar Island

Hi! I see that you (on 6 July) reverted the edits by IP 88.247.111.65 to the articles Khtzkonk Monastery and Armenian Cathedral of the Holy Cross for obvious reasons. The same editor has (on 11 July) made similar edits to the article Akdamar Island. Since you seem to know the subject matter well, I wonder if you could look at those edits to see if there are any of the additions that are worth keeping, or if it is all POV and OR. Kind regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have also noticed those anon edits to Khtzkonk (I know who added them), and I think that the older but shorter opinionated text that was replaced by it was probably also by the same person. I've deleted that shorter qustion-filled opinion-piece part of the article. I just thought I should mention this here, since my edit summary unintentionally inplied that I was saying that it was you who had added the opinion-piece. Meowy 10:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mass of the Lord's Supper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Stole and Ciborium
Stripping of the Altar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Stole and Ciborium

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Daniel Winter

The article Daniel Winter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Although the article may demonstrate importance, researches have not revealed sufficient third party reliable sources to establish Wikipedia criteria for notability at WP:CREATIVE

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Winter for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian Lay Association crisis

Hi, JASpencer. I'm glad too see others interested in Brazilian history. I'd like to remind you that the 1870s crisis between the government and the clergy is actually known as "Religious Question" and not "Brazilian Lay Association crisis". Thus, I believe you should change the name of the article. If I can be of any assistance, let me know. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Viscount of Rio Branco

Are you aware that you are making substantial changes to the article about the Viscount of Rio Branco without opening a thread on its talk page? That's a FAC and that's not how things work out. --Lecen (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The changes are in one area which showed some considerable bias towards one side, a lack of coverage (for example not even naming the imprisoned bishops) and reliance on one source. Even a Featured Article is not immune from WP:BOLD or WP:OWN. I think as it now has its own article it should be shortened. JASpencer (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
That's an article about Paranhos, not about the Religious Question. It's obvious that there is no need to tell the names of the bishops or to be overly detailed. What do you mean about biased? According to whom? And why? If that's controversial then you should have had opened a thread and talk about it with other editors. --Lecen (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually that's not the way it's done. Bold changes can and should be made to improve an article. If there are disputes then they should go to the talk page. To only go through the talk page to make non-trivial changes would otherwise fall into WP:OWN. I have, by the way, been careful to stick to the sources that are available. JASpencer (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you telling me that Atynax and I, the ones who wrote the article, have to watch you change an entire section and all we can do is to complain in the talk page? I asked you where is the bias and you have not answered me. A quick look at your history log reveals your interest on the Catholic Church. It's quite obvious to me where is the bias. --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Well if the changes aren't vandalism you should be making changes on a piecemeal basis where you disagree with them. If you think that the whole direction is wrong then go to the talk page.
As to the bias.... Fristly there was the incorrect assertion that the Papacy unconditionally approved of the blanket government control of the Brazilian church, the lack of any mention of previous disputed government assertions of control over the church (making it seem like this argument was out of whole cloth), the fact that it was totally wrong on the order of events (contrary to the sources) making it appear as if this had been co-ordinated and the lack of any mention that the Catholic prohibition on all forms of Freemasonry had been longstanding. There are still glaring omissions such as a lack of any explanation as to what the fraternities and sodalities did, the lack of context about the growing tension between Freemasonry and the church in Brazil, the Erastian view of Pedro.
JASpencer (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)