User talk:ADM/Archive 9

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Talkback

Hello, ADM. You have new messages at Smartse's talk page.
Message added 21:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smartse (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

over and over

why do you add the same comment to a jillion articles? it is hard to take a suggestion that article X should discuss a topic when you add it to a jillion X's. it's spam, and it's not ok. Tb (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The news about the personal ordinariates created a vast media sensation, and I felt it was justified to add appropriate links where the press had already asserted that there were logical consequences to the decision. So, it was like a 9/11 type of event, where the topic is so newsworthy that it deserves to be researched in detail with non-original sources. ADM (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is recentism of the highest degree. There basically are virtually no such organizations. It is not true that for every Anglican jurisdiction some search should be carefully made. (Indeed, if there were, the media firestorm would have mentioned them, doncha think?) The "personal ordinariate" is an arrangement by Roman Catholics, for Roman Catholics. The only thing it has to do with Anglicans is that it concerns some Roman Catholics who used to be Anglican but are so no longer. But worse, your technique is to spam a huge number of article talk pages with a completely baseless question, saying that the article "needs" some kind of change, without any indication that this is part of a broad spam and is entirely unrelated to the distinctive content of the article. Perhaps you should alter your comment to say something to clue in editors that it is not a comment about a particular article. As it is, your comments seem deceptive. Tb (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Anglican communion is in a deep crisis right now, and it is entirely possible that there are small-c Catholics in every single Anglican province. I mean small-c Catholics here, Catholics that are unsure about papal infallibility and the Immaculate conception, but do recognize the theory of apostolic succession, and the consecrated episcopacy. No true Evangelical can have bishops, no true evangelical can believe in apostolic succession, because these two criteria were utterly rejected by Martin Luther and John Calvin in the 16th century. Therefore, the original question concerns the identification and identity of Anglo-Catholics across the Anglican communion, who are currently re-organizing around core leaders in order to fend off attacks from opposite sects of liberals and Protestants. ADM (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So this is about some POV you want to see represented? You seem to be saying that such groups must exist because your reasoning tells you so. Actually, turns out, that whatever crisis there is in the Anglican Communion, it has not manifested itself according to the fantasies of those Roman Catholics who think the only "natural" thing is to "return" to Rome. There is only the tiny Traditional Anglican Communion, which (ah, the irony of naming) isn't Anglican any more than Basil Hume was. So, you may think it is deeply surprising that these groups you hope for don't exist, but there it is, they basically do not. So, can we return to the point: it is inappropriate for you to add identical comments on a jillion talk pages pretending to be about that individual page, and hiding the fact that each message is part of a broad spam campaign? Why don't you instead write up more fully why you think such groups "must" exist and should be hunted for, and then post a link on each of those talk pages, so that editors can judge the whole, rather than the pretense of individual comments? Tb (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also really funny to hear you dictate what a "true evangelical" can or cannot believe. Maybe you might do them the courtesy of declaring what they believe for themselves, which may confound your decision about what they should believe, but also may be an interesting fact in the world to consider. Tb (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who has the POV problem when you insist that the Traditional Anglican Communion isn't really Anglican at all, which to me sounds like basic pandering and posturing. It is both Anglican and Catholic, because it celebrates rituals in the Anglican tradition, and because it seeks full communion with the Holy See. There are probably millions of people in the Church of England and its affiliated daughter-churches who share these same basic attitudes, but haven't yet been able to do this because of current internal divisions within Anglicanism. ADM (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about the TAC; this is about your adding deceptive messages to many talk pages in an apparent attempt to drum up as many mentions as possible for a brief flash in the pan event. It's WP:RECENTISM. It's not ok. It is misleading. Can you adopt a strategy which makes plain in these comments that they are part of a broader campaign, so that editors can be aware of the context when they read them? Tb (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The internal document about recentism unequivocally states that there are many beneficial, unrecognized positive aspects to recentism, because it is one of Wikipedia's key strenghts, of being able to gather new encyclopedic content. ADM (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Experience has shown that collaborative editing on Wikipedia has resulted in the ability of Wikipedians to compile a (long tail) set of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many varied current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This ability of Wikipedia to record and synthesize the events of the day may be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period. In other words: "if we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow.

Your quote here is wildly misleading, and indeed, dishonest. The document does not state this "unequivocally", but rather, identifies that point of view in a section on the "debate over recentism", and expresses what is expressly identified in the article as a controversial position. But it is not your deception in this regard which is the point. this is about your adding deceptive messages to many talk pages in an apparent attempt to drum up as many mentions as possible for a brief flash in the pan event. It's not ok. It is misleading. Can you adopt a strategy which makes plain in these comments that they are part of a broader campaign, so that editors can be aware of the context when they read them? Tb (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I clearly indicated what I was doing, so there is no possible deception anywhere. What I wanted to know was two things : 1) in what provinces and dioceses is the High Church branch of Anglicanism most powerful ? 2) in what provinces and dioceses of the Anglican communion were the strongest ecclesial reactions to the recent personal ordinariates ? That's all I was looking for, and it isn't very much. ADM (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So your messages were designed not to improve the articles in question, but to provide data of some sort for some other question. Don't you think that people should know that? Since your messages didn't say anything about the relative power of high church Anglicanism, and they didn't ask anything about the strength of reactions, the messages in question were highly deceptive. They appeared to be suggestions to improve articles by adding material on a given topic, but their purpose was to inform you about something else entirely. This deception is not appropriate. Why not instead say "I'm trying to learn about the relative power of high church Anglicanism across the Anglican Communion, and about the strength of reactions to the recent news about personal ordinariates in the Roman Catholic Church; if anyone has anything they could help with this, please let me know." That would be direct, and honest, and would not be like the messages you did post, which simulated interest in the articles themselves, and did not mention what you now say your purpose was. Now that your purpose is more clear, perhaps you can replace those comments with this new one, or, if that's too much trouble, give me permission to replace your comments with this new text explaining your actual purpose? Tb (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind that sort of message at all, but I'm not sure whether being direct like that is actually allowed on talk pages. I thought there was some sort of hidden rule where all talk pages had to be written in a sort of indirect way in order for the talk pages to not become too personal and remain focused on the existing article title. In fact, at the beginning of this conversation, I though you were accusing me of being too direct and not indirect enough. ADM (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it may well also be bad to use talk pages as a way of doing your research project. But the problem then is the substance of it: we are here for writing an encyclopedia, and using talk pages, indirectly or directly in ways contrary to that is prohibited. But it is especially bad to do so in a misleading fashion. Tb (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of comments

Please stop copying my comments from the place where I left them to my talk page. It is not ever ok to write comments above someone else's name, even if the only contribution you make is to copy it to a new place. Tb (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)