Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 12

message: The semi-protection just expired and already the article has two vandal edits.  We may need to request an extention for semi-protection.  Majoreditor 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will keep an eye on it and semi protect if necessary. But just two vandal edits (from the same ip) is not enough to warrant semi protection. Garion96 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was just vandalized again; see these two edits from an IP.  I sincerely hope you're right and that we can use conventional methods to minimize vandalism.  Unfortunately, there were frequent vandal attacks prior to semi-protection.  The pattern may be resuming now that the article is no longer protected. Sadly, this article is a vandal magnet, attracting purile comments from grade school kids. Majoreditor 13:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest edit by an IP sure looks like (yet another) act of vandalism.  This one removed  a block of text, leaving a sentence fragment and incomplete paragraph. It appears that we're drifting back into the same old pattern. Majoreditor 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been another act of vandalism on the article by an anon IP, dated April 19. This marks six vandalizing edits by four editors in approximately four days.  That's about the same rate experienced prior to semi-protecting the article earlier this year.  Majoreditor 12:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another vandal edit  which needs to be reverted. Majoreditor 17:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which was two days after the last vandal. Relax, if it gets bad it will get semi-protected. Garion96 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: High profile articles like this unfortunately always have vandalism. If you really can't stand that, I would indeed advise you to work on a less high profile article. But the rate of vandalism on this article (so far) is not that high. It really is too bad that it took 2 hours to revert that edit though. Garion96 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, yesterday was really bad. Hope it gets normal again after the protection expires. Garion96 (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi Protecting an article really isn't a big deal. There is nothing wrong for Sping a high profile article. Stealthrabbit Say it, baby, say it! 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protect Again

message: I like her words.
"Spread love everywhere you go: first of all in your own house. Give love to your children, to your wife or husband, to a next door neighbor... Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier. Be the living expression of God's kindness; kindness in your face, kindness in your eyes, kindness in your smile, kindness in your warm greeting."
-----Mother Teresa
Anyother writing by her? Why she did not choose to be a writer?
--222.166.160.88 05:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She wrote relatively little, but did collaborate on a few books, such as Mother Teresa: In My Own Words  (ISBN 0-517-20169-0) Majoreditor 06:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did she write anything in her life? 

message: This article has been chosen as the current Collaboration for WikiProject Saints!  Many thanks to Majoreditor for nominating it.  Let's see about getting it up to GA standards!  --Anietor 14:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a couple of suggestions from my first glance at it.  The external links seem a bit heavy, perhaps some trimming would be appropriate (per WP:EL - external links are included if they provide additional info about the subject that would not be contained in the article even if it were brought up to FA).  The "see also" section should go - either the links are important enough to be linked to in the article (in which case the see also is just duplication) or they aren't important enough.  Finally, the entire article should be edited to remove duplicate wikilinks.  Pastordavid 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Saints Collaboration 

message: The article is mostly well-written and very well referenced. However, some of the references are not properly formatted, and some are just a url. Once the references are properly formatted, I'd be happy to pass it for GA status - • The Giant Puffin • 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as the references have been cleaned up, I'm happy to pass. Well done - • The Giant Puffin • 08:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Hold 

message: Thanks Pastordavid for getting this article sourced. It was about time someone did this... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Others provided the citations, I have merely filled them out so that we are using full (and correctly attributed!) citations throughout.  I have gotten through most of the article (a couple near the end could still use a little touch-up).  Thanks for your kind words Jossi.  I think GA is in our sights ... Some more good work with citations and FA is not an impossibility.  Pastordavid 22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything I can help with? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last half of the article could use some additional work. I will go by the library on Monday (when I'm back from vacation) and pick up some of the books I had been using when I was working on the article. They will be useful in filling in needed citations, expanding the biographical information and handling influence/legacy and criticism. Looking forward to working with all of you as we get this article to GA status. Majoreditor 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, one place to jump right in would be to help with the prose.  It is pretty good, but could certainly be improved.  Any work to help the article "read more better" would be greatly appreciated.  ME, welcome back, hope you had a good vacation.  Pastordavid 03:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of other thoughts, from looking over the peer review.  We still need to see if we can expand the lead, and provide a fair use rationale on :Image:Mother Teresa2.gif (standards are getting ever stricter on this).  Pastordavid 03:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added  to the image's page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good work 

message: I think it might be a good idea to give a plain-language approximation of the pronunciation, for those of use who don't understand phoenetics. 72.8.104.11 19:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess that the IPA symbols make no sense to me, either.  Should it be replaced with a traditional pronunciation guide? Majoreditor 22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it is policy to use *only* IPA symbols, which, incidentally, makes all of Wikipedia's pronunciation help utterly useless to me.  I've managed to learn to read the Greek and Russian alphabets solely from encountering them frequently alongside English transliterations on Wikipedia, but I've seen probably 10x as much of that IPA stuff as I have either of those examples, and it's still gibberish to me.  Furthermore, I've only ever seen it here and in advanced language-learning guides or linguist-oriented material.  Everything else just transliterates, and I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of Wikipedia visitors encounter it here for the first--and possibly only--time in their lives. Fallingcow 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How do you pronounce the name?

message: I've listed this article for Good Article Review. The article is not stable (as the various protects show), and it reads like hagiography in places, with criticism either at a minimum or entirely absent, depending on what day it is. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all of the protects this year have been to protect against vandalism. Majoreditor 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the GA/R was Keep. The article shall retain GA. On an additional note, page protection and vandalism is not a factor in article stability which refers to edit warring and the like. Regards, Lara♥Love 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Laura. The results of the GA/R can be found here .  Majoreditor 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The article was renominated for delisting by user:70.232.77.79 on 19 August. Consensus was to speedy keep. Nomination archived early per WP:SNOW. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Regards, Lara♥Love 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Laura, thanks - again - for the GAR work.  All, the guys at Good Article Review have now recertified this article's GA status twice this month. Majoreditor 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article review

message: Pater, we've beend down this road before. Adding Penn and Teller-related material violates WP:RS. Majoreditor 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF was your last edit to the article about. Most of my edits shich you indiscriminately removed addressed a citation tag which you kindly re-instated.
And as for your RS claim, it is irrelevant. The sentence gives examples of the sort of people who have criticised MT. If I cited Penn and Teller as evidence for MT being a Martian, then they would not be RS. --Peter cohen 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. This is why a criticism section is a bad idea. You're dumping trivia into it. We could expand this to an unmanageable size article if we include every little positive and negative fact in here. Penn and Teller just simply doesn't make the cut. Majoreditor 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the Penn and Teller reference.  As mentioned in the long discussion above from months ago, it is not an appropriate cite.  Even less relevant is the fact that Showtime aired it, and it is spesculative to say that Showtime gave unfavorable coverage to MT because they aired a comedy routine. Including such references lowers the quality of this article. --Anietor 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like if South Park ran an episode critical of Hillary Clinton. The episode could merit attention in the South Park article(s) but doesn't make the cut for the Hillary Clinton article. Majoreditor 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Two problems with that edit. First, it violates WP:3RR. This has been duly reported. Second, it almost certainly makes the sentence false. I am pretty sure that it is not Donal MacIntyre but Penn and Teller who used the various phrases quoted in the remaining text. But at least it is only reverting one person's changes this time. Please can people stop making slapdash edits. If you want this to remain a WP:GA you need to edit properly. At least it only reverted one person's edit this time and not several.--Peter cohen 19:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We've been done this road before 

message: It may be painful, but we're starting to see some consensus on the general structure of the article. Thanks, Necronomikron. Majoreditor 13:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than the currently missing references on a couple of items that I will go through when I get home, I'm much more satisfied, all said and done: the opposition is no longer in just two small sections, and is interspersed throughout the document, in relevant locations: eg., talk about charities ends with a short criticism to the spending, etc. Necronomikron 13:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some progress?

message: Please be aware of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Anietor and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Majoreditor. I believe that User:72.220.146.66 is a sock puppet created by one or other of these editors after there three reverts for the last 24 hours had been used up. Third parties on either side of the argument may wish to comment.--Peter cohen 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, talk about sour grapes!  Just because editors, even anonymous IPs, have common views, doesn't mean they're sock puppets.  Majoreditor and I, along with several other editors, have been working on this article, got it to GA status, and continue to monitor it for appropriate edits.  I encourage editors of this article to not be intimidated by the threat of false accusations and continue to check this small but aggressive group of editors that are trying to downgrade this article (they failed delisting attempts twice) and now want to throw in sourced and unsourced criticisms into the article in ways that go against wiki policies and articles (see above discussions).  This article is still a good one, let's make sure it stays that way!  We'll deal with the sock puppet silliness on that page, let's not clog up this talk page with it.  But keep watching this article for the incremental attempts to downgrade it and make inappropriate edits.  --Anietor 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never use sockpuppets and I never use meatpuppets. Majoreditor 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Uninvolved but lurking:) WTF? In reading this talkpage and noting the edits by any anons, they are nearly unanimously opposed in POV to these two editors.  And the concern is what?  Looks like here's a page I need to watch, per Anietor.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what the posters in #Blatant propaganda expected to achieve, but they did not post to the article page. The new IP poster reverting edits to the article is what really attracted my attention. (I haven't reported any socks before.) My post at the top of this section was actually intended to invite views from people who observed the edits and wanted to comment for or against at the actual sockpuppet pages, not to start comments on those cases here. But yes if people want to consider other socks here and exchange views before adding afew more reports, go ahead.--Peter cohen 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I question the lack of participation by User_talk:72.220.146.66 on the talk page, and instead his first edit is to revert someone. -Nodekeeper 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock puppet