User talk:Zotz

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Sam Spade 09:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and False

"to protest the Church's opposition to safer sex education, the Church's homophobia, and the Church's attempts to block access to safe and legal abortions."

This way is biased and false. It is making false claims about church teaching. The accurate Church teaching would be "promotion of abstinence and the Church's belief in protection of the unborn". If this is not what they were protesting, then it should be noted what they believed to be protesting, but it needs to be made clear what the actual Church teaching is and that what they were protesting was not in reality church teaching.

To compromise, this is the best way to put it:

"protest what they perceived as the Church's opposition to safer sex education, homophobia, and attempts to block access to legal abortions. The actual position of the Church is promotion of abstinence and protection of vulnerable life, including the unborn."

Conman3000 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the church holds a protest, or states its position, it can do so in its own words. It can't choose the words of those who protest against it, or who oppose it. - Zotz 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I changed it to include both sides. Wikipedia is not a protest website for your own political issues. Those groups that oppose something can not make up the teachings of those they oppose. Please do not remove any useful imformation from the sentences again. Conman3000 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Kevin Borick

A tag has been placed on Kevin Borick 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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.

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and AIDS

Part of this article could maybe be tranfered into a separate entry entitled religion and AIDS, which would discuss the various controversies surrounding the opposition to the use of contraception and the support of chastity for people who risked being exposed to the illness, such as homosexuals in developed countries or poor people living in African countries. ADM (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you want to use some of the material developed for this article about Cardinal O'Connor elsewhere doesn't mean it doesn't belong here. The consequences of O'Connor's actions belong in the article about him, no matter where else they are also mentioned. We don't create POV forks of material here. - Zotz (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material that I wanted to use wasn't POV, it was in fact quite accurate. The problem is that the O'Connor page is turning into a one issue article, and while much of the problematic content may in fact belong there, much of it arguably doesn't. Other editors have pointed this out and have suggested that the article be trimmed. I was merely acting upon this previous suggestion. ADM (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Church

True, it is a fork, but I challenge you to proposing a regular deletion, because I think it has a good chance of being kept as an example of AIDS activism. ADM (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal O'Connor

I did not intend the quotes as "sneer quotes", but so as to indicate the use of a subjective term which does appear in the quoted section. Nonetheless, I understand and accept your point of view on the matter and do not in the slightest contest their removal. PsychoInfiltrator (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]