User talk:Jahaza

Thanks for your assistance in the ongoing Holocaust denial/Holocaust revisionism/Holocaust Revision debacle. I'm also an admin, but if I started protecting those pages it would look as if I was doing so simply to protect my own edits and POV. So your intervention is much appreciated. --Modemac 01:06, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

---

,

I am working from Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics at the moment. Many of the names are formatted FIRST, TITLE SURNAME. Rather than changing the many thousands of names formatted like this I simply placed a redirect to demonstrate completion of article. Afterall, redirects rarely harm anyone - and do not adversely affect anything - it is useful for systematically completing this enormous project. --OldakQuill 09:43, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Samuel, you might want to do some research on the 'As of' feature, it's a way of tracking time sensitive information. The link to 'As of' redirects, so it is transparent to the user, but you can go to the 'As of 2001' page to see statements that were true that year, updating as necessary. Yours, Troll Silent, Troll Deep 15:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I just wanted to say hello -- I saw you added a middle name to the Jacques Barzun article (the very first article I ever wrote here, as I recall) and was glad to know someone had stopped by. :-) Your blog looks interesting -- I was a graduate student in religious history (the English Reformation, specifically) for several years, and one of my fellow students had a brother taking his PhD in religious history at Notre Dame. I'm sure our interests will allow us to intersect in the future here, and I'm looking fo rward to it. Happy editing , Jwrosenzweig 15:43, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the man's name is Edward Montague Compton Mackenzie. He's often given as Sir (Edward Montague) Compton Mackenzie, which means the whole thing is what his name is. They are not alternative names. john 02:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

No need to move him, as he's apparently known as "Compton Mackenzie". Stick with best known name - we don't have Tony Blair at Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, after all. I already fixed the article text. john 02:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Right on with the East German myths page. Looks like someone just pasted in a list of complaints or something, eh?

I made minor changes to the first part of it before looking down and seeing a total dog's breakfast... --Krupo 23:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Radical centrist politics

{{TotallyDisputed}}

You've prob. got alot of silliness in you too ;) Please come and chat about it. Sam [Spade] 06:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Various

This is how you strike through text (Click "edit this page" to see the markup).

Also, I think perhaps you should have a go at rewriting the Catholocism section of Original sin. I agree that it could use some work, and I think you'd do a good job on it.

Acegikmo1 15:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find calling the 'Leather Pride Flag' "Not notable" rather insulting. (I marched in the San Francisco Pride parade this year as part of the Leather contingent). Pride Flags are very important to the communities they represent.

Dlloyd 22:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

UCC/UUA congregations

Are any of the UCC/UUA congregations jointly affiliated due to not accepting the split way back when? I know there are some UCC/UUA congregations that hold joint membership because of congregational mergers, and some because of intentional joint affiliation from the start of the congregation (after the split). I question whether any are from maintaning joint affiliation from the time of the Unitarian/Congregational split. But I have an open mind. I'm trying to put together a list of UCC/UUA congregations and their reasons for and history of joint affiliation. - UtherSRG 23:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've sent an email to both the UCC and UUA for a list of congregations jointly affiliated with both associations a couple of days ago. I heard back today from the UUA that they are compiling the list.... seems that different staff groups have different parts of the information. Just FYI. - UtherSRG 16:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List of Samanthas

Good job being pro-active and boldly editing, but in the future when moving VfD-listed pages, could you also move the "/page name" VfD vote page to the new article name, and edit the VFD page itself to reflect these moves, too to avoid confusion between whether Samantha or List of Samanthas was listed for deletion. Davodd 13:13, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

HIM changes not following WikiProject Albums recommendations

Please review Talk:HIM (band). -KeyStorm 14:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please, check out Talk:HIM (band), again. It seems I unintentionally ignored your comment, sorry. -KeyStorm 17:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Following User:RedWolf's advice, your changes have been reverted in order to accomplish the WikiProject Albums guidelines. --KeyStorm 21:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on "Catholicism"!

I do appreciate it, I was beginning to feel a little like a voice in the wilderness -- wondering if I was alone in finding that "The Evil Empire"/"Criticisms of Catholicism" just really irredeemable. (The vandalism of the talk page was just the last straw, really.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The vandal apparently has the username User:ClarityMS07 and is once again vandalizing Catholicism. Can you help again? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note: adding re-posting relevant content is not vandalism. I am not a 'vandal'.--ClarityMS07 14:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He is now blaming his vandalism of the talk page on a sockpuppet who just happened to share the same IP address over a period of 47.5 hours during which neither of them edited any other page from that address. MattWilkes may also be a sockpuppet, since that user never edited a single page before making an appearance to take ClarityMS07's side in the revert war. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello. We haven't actually met before, but I think I should inform you of a recent development on the "Vandalism in progress" page which may have affected your articles.

About an hour ago, I attempted to report an act of vandalism on the Louis Riel page, in the "Current Alerts" section. Unfortunately, as I was doing this I accidentally deleted an important section of the "Vandalism in progress" main page -- possibly accounting for some of the confusion which other users have be reported in the last hour.

I believed that I've fixed the situation now. Please note that this was the result of a misinterpretation on my part, and not a deliberate act of vandalism. I apologize for any inconvenience that my actions may have caused. (Please also note that it took me almost an hour to identify and solve the problem.)

You may wish to review your recent contributions to the "Vandalism in progress" page, to ensure that everything you intended to write ended up in its proper place. CJCurrie 02:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True Cross

I see that you have introduced yourself at the entry with a notice The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed— after a single edit back in July and without a single remark among the Discussion. I see no reason why a subject just because it is Christian cannot also be truthful in its history (hard to achieve at Wikipedia, however), so I look forward to cooperating with you in making a fully-detailed and accurate entry on this interesting subject. Do you have access to Cyril of Jerusalem's Catacheses, for quotes on his story of the finding, which appears to be the earliest? That would be a help. Wetman 07:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Red-link recovery

Howdy and many thanks for your work on that list of mis-punctuated links. The list's pretty much completed now - I'll be generating a new version of it in due course, taking all the lessons learned from the last one into account. In the meantime, if you enjoyed working through the list (or at least found it a worthwhile distraction), you may want to have a look at the similar list of plural discrepancies which highlights red-links that might be red because they (or the article they are aiming for) are improperly pluralised. Again, thanks for your efforts - award yourself a wikimedal for janitorial services if you haven't already got one! - TB 11:29, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Public Theater

Your original entry was tagged incorrectly. Once known as Joseph Papp's Public Theater, the name of this organization reverted to Public Theater after his death. It is so designated at the entrance of the building. Had you initially used the proper tag, there would have been no duplicate article created, since I would have discovered one existed when I searched for "Public Theater" - unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't ignore "A" and "The" and therefore I received the response that no such item existed. TOM 13:58, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Wikipedians who blog

Hi! if you have a moment, could you please see m:Wikinews and blogs to comment? We're interested in learning how Wikinews can work with bloggers; what they might be interested in, how they can take advantage of Wikinews, how they can contribute through their blogs, etc. Thanks! Amgine/^talk

Republics

Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Monsignor

Someone removed your dispute notice on monsignor. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of it and ask if you still dispute the article. Pmadrid 22:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ratzinger Photo

Not sure why you think claiming that a photo of Ratzinger while he member of the the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) in the section discussing his activities during WWII is a "lie", but your removal and trying to sweep the facts under the rug does neither you, nor the truth any good. Only meticulous adherence to the facts and a full airing of those facts (including the relevant photos of the period) are going to allow people to be fully informed and cognizant of the historical facts involved. Lestatdelc 04:15, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I may have removed it in the process of working on the text, i'm doing my best to keep up. I think accurate text takes precedence over an optional photo. Your comments are completely inappropriate. I haven't called anything a lie. You should apologize.--Samuel J. Howard 04:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies... the edit that accused the photo of being a lie was 19:59, Apr 19, 2005 165.123.190.42 (?Pre-WWII and Wartime - POV, trying to insinuate a lie)

And yours was directly beneath it:

(cur) (last) 19:59, Apr 19, 2005 Samuel J. Howard (?Pre-WWII and Wartime - removing out of place sentence)

And in the page history I must have clicked on your name by mistake thinking the "it is a lie" comment was yours when it was the anonymous editior above yours. Mea culpa. Lestatdelc 04:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I definitely think that picture should be in there. (Although I wonder if it is a flak uniform not a HJ uniform. (could in fact be both, he was an auxialliary to the flak as a helper so he may have worn HJ uniform when w/the flak))--Samuel J. Howard 04:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

The thing I noted was the pin on the hat, being a Hitlerjugend pin, in addition this reprpduction Hitlerjugend uniform for older teens looks like what Ratzinger was wearing in the photo.

Ratzinger's father

Thank you for your recent addition of the quotation from the London Sunday Times. A direct citation from a relatively reputable source looks better than bald assertion of the "staunchly anti-Nazi" claim. I fully support your current revision of that paragraph. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nouvelle theologie

Ok, why did you want "nouvelle theologie" inserted? I didn't see a reason on the talk page. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay.... you could've said, "wait a minute or two and I'll put it on the discussion page".... that's all... :) — Rickyrab | Talk 06:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei

Thank you, Samuel, for working on the massive task of revising the Opus Dei article towards NPOV. I hope the various versions of this article will meet in the middle to create an excellent and well-polished NPOV article. -- The Anome 08:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, too, for your masterly introduction of the metaphor: "The Cardinals and the Padres are different, but [they are] both still baseball teams." into the Opus Dei discussion. It is such moments of brilliance that make editing Wikipedia so rewarding. --Theo (Talk) 14:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help, Samuel. Do you still intend to continue editing the Opus Dei article? I would like to know how make the article more neutral. I'd like to know your plans and your response to my explanation for the rearrangement. Please give some feedback. Lafem 08:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Licence to kill

I have reinstated the licence to kill (concept) article on the grounds that I could not find reference to it going through the Articles for deletion process. There was a VFD nomination a year ago but the archive clearly states that consensus was not reached, contrary to a comment in your edit summary saying it was. Based on the comments on the talk page it would appear that the decision to delete the content and turn it into a redirect to the movie occurred only yesterday (June 5) whereas the VFD process usually takes a couple of weeks and I could find no nomination (I check there regularly). If in fact there was a VFD vote and I missed it, then please accept my apologies and feel free to revert my changes (please post a link to the discussion to the article's talk page). But clearly there is a difference of opinion as to the validity of the article in question, in which case the community should vote on it. Thanks. 23skidoo 13:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protestantism

Please let us know specifically what your complaint is with the article, and why you believe it ought to be disputed; your comments were a bit vague. Thanks. KHM03 12:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, please let me know here, on the Protestantism talk page, or on mine, what caused you to be offended; and, I will work with you to correct what I've done. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help in revision

Greetings! I am trying to translate the article Brazilian vote-for-cash scandal from Portuguese to English. The article is very detailed and it was complimented on some journalists was complimented on some journalists [1]. I would like to have some help from an English speaker so he can revise some parts of the text. I will appreciate any help or comments. If you can participate I will be very gratefull. If you can help me, please go to User:Carlosar/draft and do some editions. Thank you very much! --Carlosar 12:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei article for feature article

Hi Samuel, I found out that you have been very helpful in revising the Opus Dei article. Can you be so kind as to check if it is already worthy of being nominated as feature article? Thank you so much. Thomas S. Major 07:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Battles of Sangju and Chungju

There was nothing to merge. Chungju Campaign is an exact duplicate of the content at that article. Johnleemk | Talk 05:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesia Dei

You edited Category:Icclesia Dei to set Category:Priestly Society of Saint Peter as a sub-category instead of a parent cat. I don't know much about the subject, but shouldn't Category:Priestly Society of Saint John Mary Vianney and Category:Society of St. Pius X be moved as well ? -- Ze miguel 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm even more confused now :) I'll let you and other experts sort it out. Cheers. -- Ze miguel 16:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The undeletion vote on Template:User No Marxism

Hi! I see you have been using this template on your user page. In case you haven't voted yet, make sure you don't miss the vote on the issue, whether to undo its deletion or not Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User_No_Marxism.Constanz - Talk 14:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

List of people who were who were non adherents of the Dharmic religions to be cremated

In case you didn't notice, List of people who were who were non adherents of the Dharmic religions to be cremated (not its original name) has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

greetings

I'm new here so I thought I'd introduce myself to some of the people here--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 06:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic

Would you like to comment on a new move proposal? Dominick ^(TALK) 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 05:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Roger Langley

I've never heard of your Roger Langley and top search engine results bring up the person I was looking for: Roger Langley, top member of the Prisoner Appreciation society. The Prisoner DVD box set even has a forward by him. What do you think of me redirecting Roger Langley to The Prisoner ? also your current page has nothing but your userpage linking to it. --Indolences 01:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Tiny Rascal Gang

First of all, please put new posts at the BOTTOM of talk pages so others can find them. Second of all, if you think that the deletion and salting was in error, I would suggest opening a discussion at deletion review. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Youngren

Um, I don't know how to do searches for Google news for more than the past month, apparently. I just looked on Google News for the name. How would I search for more than the past month? Corvus cornix_talk 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 06:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Pelton Sibley

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Robert Pelton Sibley, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia'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. Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

{subst:adw|Robert Pelton Sibley}} Springnuts (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)