User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2015/January

Your ANI report

Hi. I have closed the thread you started on ANI, as I feel it's going to cause more harm staying open. I honestly don't think any offence was intended - without wishing to try and excuse it, it's just typical British banter; indeed, the sort I use between friends and co-workers on a regular basis off-wiki. I really think everyone who's commented at the nomination for Margaret Rodgers has done so because they want to see the best possible hook on the front page, which will help attract readers to find out more about her life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Very sorry to see you in distress over at DYK, Amandajm. I'm sure what Ritchie333 says above is quite true. DYK can be a very tortuous process (especially lately for some reason!!). It's often very tricky, so it seems, to find just the right hook. The phrase "pull the other one, it's got bells on" springs to mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, thank you for your message. I don't see any reason why a DYK process should lead to insults being delivered.

Martin, I'm Australian. Profanities ar part of the every-day vocabulary, but I don't think that the insulting tone of the response from EEng was either light-hearted or accidental in its form. If this person is in the habit of delivering "light-hearted" insults to the authors of the biographies of recently-deceased people, then User:EEng just needs to be alerted that being "light-hearted" in an offensive manner may be even more offensive under some circumstances than others.

Can I believe that there really is no-one else around who can see the inappropriateness of such "light-hearted"ness and point it out to this offensive person?

Even if I was not writing the biography of a friend of the last thirty-four years, I would almost certainly still consider the references to a) Jesus, b) my supposed ill-temper, c) my bowels, to be intentionally offensive.

You appear to be informing me that this person does this frequently and gets away with it.

Amandajm (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A very poor choice of words, in that combination, for your situation, certainly. Yes, User:EEng seems to be pretty "direct" most of the time. Of course he's not to kmow, just like the rest of us, that the deceased was a personal friend of 34 years. I guess that's part of the strange "demi-world" we all inhabit here at wiki. I do hope you can two can patch it up in some way. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain that there is no way that EEng (or, indeed, I and every other decent person editing here) would want to belittle or pour cold water on Margaret Rodgers, or dismiss her achievements in life. There's a lot we don't know about people, and text-based communication on the internet isn't generally a good way of communicating. In any case, our biography of living persons policy means that disparaging or contentious remarks about the article's subject are completely unwelcome and aggressively removed. I honestly wished you'd gone to EEng's talk page and just dropped a note that he was talking about a close personal friend of yours - ANI tends to attract an audience who "pile on" to a discussion and create drama, and it's best avoided. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Martinevans123, I am unaware of the politics of ANI. I am not in the habit of lodging complaints. I went to the page of EEng, and found that this person had already been taken to task, both through the process and by a number of individuals. Seeing that action had been threatened in December 2013, but the insults had continued, I decided to go through the unpleasant process.

I am alarmed at the lack of accountability. I am alarmed at the discussion being closed with the offensive behaviour being deemed "light-hearted". I ask you seriously, what sort of language does one have to used, in order for it to be not deemed "light-hearted"?

Using "Jesus Christ" as a profanity on a discussion on a page relating to a recently-deceased Christian person is 100% likely to give deep offence to someone that reads it.

If there is any accountability in the Wikipedia system at all, then this person will be held to account.

User:EEng has referred to my bowels. Now, I am going to refer to his innards in response. If he has any guts he will acknowledge and retract the offensive material, and apologise.

Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." - Karl Marx. I'm very glad you have accepted EEng's olive branch. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Martinevans123. I do like the quote.

It's probably time I trotted out my nephew User:Aman Dajm. He's an LBGT Indian Muslim. If anyone insults his colour, race, gender-orientation or religion, he will go running straight to Holy Jimbo himself, and howl that he is being persecuted. Aman Dajm will get much more possitive attention that a white Christian Australian grandmother like Amanda J. M. who is supposed to simply accept being lampooned for gender, religion and nationality, because it's all in a days fun, here on Wikipedia. Amandajm (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool! Could he loan me his wiki t-shirt sometime? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that he would part with it. Don't laugh. I have a very interesting family. Amandajm (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try not to. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Rodgers (deaconess)

Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Beatification

Hi, Amandajm,

First, I just want to thank you for your work on Wikipedia, which I know is driven by the hard work of volunteers such as you. People such as you do the anonymous work to help ensure that Wikipedia is a more credible international tool. Thank you!

I just wanted to follow up with you about this post on my talk page:

Some more fixes are needed. Every one of the articles about the WWII Martyrs needs the following:

A statement that they are beatified, in the lead of a longer article or the first three of a stub.

The word "beatified" needs to be used, not "blessed" Any person can be blessed by any religious, (or by any other believing person, for that matter). "Beatified" has a specific meaning.

The word "beatified" needs linking to Beatification.

Full name of religious orders. Using initials to designate an organisation is pointless. SVD (or whatever it is) could be a venereal disease, as far as the general reader is concerned.

I want to take issue with you for the fourth point. The initials for a religious order are not pointless; they used with the person's name. For example, the Jesuits use "S.J" immediately after their names, such as "Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J." (in fact, that's how the initials are used in that article). This is how I would expect the person's name to appear in an encyclopedia article. Many people understand the initials of several of the more common religious orders. These initials when used with the person's name should be a link to an article about the order, if there is an article on Wikipedia. Then further in the biography about the person, a full name of the religious order can be used.

I think it's a pretty rare day that someone reads an article that begins "John Doe, SVD (1900-1942) and says: "oh, this is a venereal disease." It just seems inappropriate as feedback. I understand that you feel that some people are just not familiar with with these initials, and I agree that can be an issue. This type of construction is actually somewhat common. For example either "Judith Olivia "Judi" Dench, CH DBE FRSA" is either highly respected and decorated, or maybe she needs to see a doctor...now! ;-). I suspect that perhaps this comment was based on a different article or an instance that you saw somewhere else.

Also, while I agree that an article about someone who is beatified should used the term "beatified", that person actually does carry the title "blessed". You can see that right now in the article about "Blessed Teresa of Calcutta" (reference to the term "beatified" is in the third paragraph).

Thanks again for your work on Wikipedia. Best to you in your work.

Craig.borchardt (talk) 01:25, June 29, 2014‎ (UTC)

Craig, this is what I am referring to: "Blessed Ludwik Mzyk (April 22, 1905 – February 20, 1940) was a SVD Martyr.[1]"

If the initials are after the person's name then anyone, whether they recognise the initials or not, should know that they represent a title, or honour. However, the use of initials for an organisation in the context of a sentence such as this one is meaningless to anyone who does not know what the initials represent. If I said that he worked for the CSIRO or NSWGR, would you have any idea what his occupation might be?

I also must remind you that, unlike most talk pages, on wikipedia, you add your post to the bottom of the page, not the top, and you sign by using four little squiggles (top left of keyboard). It immediately inserts your name and the date

Amandajm (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Amandajm, I agree with you about Blessed Ludwik Mzyk. It's not my article and I'm not involved with it. Maybe this feedback should be on the talk page for that article. Thanks for your feedback. That said, I did go to this page and tried to edit the first paragraph.

Craig.borchardt (talk) 01:03, June 30, 2014‎ ‎ (UTC)

Craig.borchardt, my comment with regard to the use of the term "blessed" relates to "blessed" when used as a verb, with a lowercase "b", not as it relates to the Blessed Ludwik Mzyk, where it is used as a title. The article that I was commenting on said something to the effect that the martyrs had been "blessed" by the Pope, rather than stating that they had been "beatified" by the Pope. "Blessing" people is what the Pope does every time he raises his hand over them in St Peter's Square. It doesn't carry the same weight as "beatification".

Can you please check some of the corrections that I made. The comments that I left relate directly to changes that I made to the relevant article, or to changes that need to be carried over to the other Martyrs' articles as well. So far your queries haven't taken into account the actual problems.

About article ownership: If you are involved with some of the other articles in the series of Martyrs, then you might as well take a look at the lot. The person who began the article on Blessed Ludwik Mzyk may not necessarily come back to it, and there is no reason why you should not make improvements or corrections. That is the way that Wikipedia works.

Amandajm (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)