User talk:Malick78/Archive 1 Nov 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Plymouth Brethren

In regards to the edit summary you left when editing Plymouth Brethren, please see WP:OWN. No one of us has the power to make content decisions. Rather, they are made by the community as a whole. It would be helpful to have a source cited that mentions that these two individuals are Brethren members. (I am not questioning the appropriateness of the listing - just offering advice as to helpful edit summaries.) --BigDT 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bodkin Adams

  • I'm undecided as to whether Bodkin Adams was guilty in my opinion. I think it would be wrong to suggest he was convicted, he was not in his lifetime and died innocent in the eyes of the law. I appreciate your point but also heard him used as an examply in a debate recently in which they described him as someone who was innocent and wrongly accused. It's a mystery really, but I wouldn't want the article to give the wrong impression.--Couter-revolutionary 13:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, while Adams certainly wasn't convicted, that is also a long way from being able to say he was innocent:) If you look at the trial section you'll see what I mean. Maybe it needs some more fleshing out, but from what I've read it seems pretty clear he was guilty. It's also worth noting that the main book I cited came out just last year and was the first book on Adams to have full access to the police archives. These were sealed until 2033 but opened early for said book to be written (according to its foreword). Therefore, while it's early days, I'm sure a consensus will form among scholars that Adams was a) guilty, and b) his trial was prejudiced.

If you feel like continuing this chat, I'll be more than happy:) Malick78 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the article imply he killed the Duke of Devonshire? Surely not. Why was he attending Lord Devonshire anyway, he practiced in Eastbourne, did he not? Best wishes, --Couter-revolutionary 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The Devonshires own lots of buildings on Eastbourne's seafront - so they have a strong connection with the town. Whether Adams killed the Duke is beside the point (he may or may not have, he may also have failed to provide proper treatment - something he frequently did with other patients), more important is that if Adams was found guilty re: Mrs Morrell, the police would look into the Duke's death once again (the had looked into it once before but not thoroughly - since they found no will left. They found no will - because they looked for 'Cavendish' in Somerset House rather than '10th Duke of Devonshire' under which the will was lodged! No one had thought of that). Macmillan wouldn't have wanted more attention drawn to his death since the Duke was his brother-in-law - and the link between them was Macmillan's unfaithful wife. Furthermore, the Duke's death was sudden and demanded that the Coroner was notified - Adams failed to do so. Therefore the law was broken by Adams in this case in this respect. Fascinating eh? Malick78 08:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is indeed. I was actually unaware they had property in Eastbourne. --Couter-revolutionary 08:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Just remembered, the Duke was also the Grand Master of the English Freemasons. A member of the Plymouth Brethren like Adams would therefore have considered him close to being the devil incarnate. That may have flashed across Adams' mind when giving him treatment... Malick78 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I doubt that would have influenced his actions! Surely His Grace would have refused treatment from the good doctor?--Couter-revolutionary 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, what do you think of the page now? Btw, regarding your questioning of whether we can question Adam's guilt (you edited the "Guilty or Innocent?" bit a couple of weeks ago and mentioned it) - I think you can. After all, when people talk of Derek Bentley who was convicted, they question his innocence. Anything can therefore be questioned, as long as there is a valid reason. Do you think the page now presents one? Malick78 17:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:John_Bodkin_Adams_1940s.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John_Bodkin_Adams_1940s.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subtlety

I have reverted your edits that reduce the graphic wording. Remember, wikipedia is not censored. However it's very possible that there is a good reason for your edit. If so I apologize, but I would like to hear the reasoning. Hope to hear from you soon. Foolishben 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adele Astaire

I removed the trivia section because the particular information entered seemed particularly remote to the life and career of Adele Astaire, and because trivia sections are generally discouraged. Normally I would try to incorporate such information into footnotes but I really don't see how the fact that her brother-in-law was murdered in unusual circumstances merits inclusion in such detail, if at all - after all it seems to be mainly a transplant from the article on Edward Cavendish. Perhaps a brief footnote referring to the Edward Cavendish page might be more appropriate? Dermot 12:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closed Brethren

Hello Malick 78: I´m an Evangelical Baptist from Venezuela, a country in South America, ruled by Dictator Hugo Chávez, a darling from dogmatic communists you fight against; but this time I want to tell you on another completly different issue: The Article in wikipedia on Plymouth Brethren falsely claim Closed P.B. are same group as Exclusive Brethren or Taylorites. Because I`m historian and from P.B. background I know it is patently false From my own experiences in the early 1970s, there were huge differences between the Taylorite Exclusive Brethren and other Darbyite brethren groups, herein referred to as Closed Brethren. Because of the leadership scandals, some people left the Taylor meetings and joined meetings of the Glanton Brethren or Kelly Brethren, etc. A lot of these earlier divisions among Closed Brethren were healed in the later 1970s. While this difference is disregarded in the article, this article must to be reestablished to the original way., -by the way an University in your beautiful homeland had a Venezuelan Rector/President-, you must to know by first hand this is simply untruth. New Zealand had many Open, Closed P.B. congregations, and Exclusives are important as a religious (and in lesser grade as a political one also), group there. http:www.cultwatch.org is a ministry by baptists and presbyterians evangelizing to Exclusives. My mother is a Closed Plymouth Brethren, her group NEVER talk on Taylor or teach any doctrine linked to him. I work as columnist/colaborator for a Spanish Closed Brethren Magazine, Gethsemaní, led by Joan Soler i Rius. I have tried to fix it, but many users delete my work, my references to sources and links proving this. I think there are political reasons behind it, because Exclusives- nowithstanding any heresy a Christian can find in them- are supporters and endorsing right-wing politicians and candidates. This situation ofuscate and irritate so much to comunists, that these people tries to create guilt by association on Closed Brethren. Help me with the article please.

  • Hi, erm, I don't actually know too much about PB in general so I'm not sure how I can help you in your struggle with the nasty Venezualan communists. All I can do is wish you luck.Malick78 16:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reasons for changes in plymouth brethren

while reality from differences between two entirely diverse groups from exclusives brethren and closed brethren get censored in wikipedia, the article must to be established in my edited version. Because the other edit version is biased and founded on a particular point of view

  • Hi, if you want to edit the main PB page - explain your reasons in the edits. If you want to do something very radical, then suggest it first in the talk page - so others can help or make comments on how to do it properly. (For example, you removed the 'notable members' section without explaining why - everyone else likes the section) Finally, when commenting here, please sign with four of these I am most interested in working on articles about language and linguistics, and religion and spirituality., but without the space, so people can see who you are. Thanks.Malick78 21:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
  Hello Malick, edit the article as you want to doing it, but please no censores, hid, delete,erase the simple fact Closed Plymouth Brethren are absolutely NO in any way the same people/cult/sect/religion as Exclusive Brethren, and even the last are various different branches and stripes.  I put in my changes links to entirely differentiated sites from Closed P.B. ministries and churches, while links to Exclusives sites appears there.

I published a long list from notable P.B. but another people deleted it. And last but no least my computer hadn´ that signs for signature.

[edit] malick, p.b. again?

why you delete references and weblinks on differences between closed and exclusive taylorite plymouth brethren?.

  • I deleted them because they were badly organised, confusing, and because when you added them, you destroyed a lot of good information which other people had worked hard to include in the article. If you would like to change the article radically, please tell people on the discussion page what you are doing and why - that way we will understand your reasoning. Malick78 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of external links on Ewan Dowes page

Reverted to include links. One illustrating that he was the sport's first owner of a dual code contract for rugby league and union, another giving his profile and biography, and the other linking him to the 2006 Grand Final. If you wish to write about these within the article and reference them please do. Londo06 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It should be the other way round - the info should be mentioned in the article first and then the links added, otherwise people won't understand the importance of the links before they click on them. I'm removing themMalick78 09:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would you be interested in joining the Wikipedia Crime Project?

I have seen that you like to contribute to serial killer articles I am trying to organize a task force on this subject under Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography. If you would be interested in joining contact me. Thanks, Jmm6f488 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You Have been added to the list, Thanks! Jmm6f488 04:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Eastbourne_pier_1870.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eastbourne_pier_1870.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Roland_Gwynne_-_1930.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Roland_Gwynne_-_1930.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serial killer task force userbox

Here is the userbox for the taskforce:

add this {{User Serial Killer Task Force}}

for this

This user is a member of the Serial Killer Task Force.


Thanks, Jmm6f488 02:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of John Bodkin

John Bodkin, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that John Bodkin satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bodkin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of John Bodkin during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. New England Review Me! 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Bodkin Adams

I am sorry for removing John Bodkin Adams from the list, but as has been said he is by no means a prominent member of the Plymouth Brethren. As you would have to be in the list, that is fine. You obviously think I am biased from your message on my talk page, but you are obviously biased yourself against God and Christianity as is clear from your user page. I will add "acquitted" to his description which is entirely factual.

  • Thank you for your message. While JBA may not be 'prominent' as a member, the list on the PB page is for 'notable' members - and being Britain's second worst serial killer certainly counts I think you will agree. Whether I am biased is neither here nor there, Wikipedia article pages are where the truth should be displayed: counting JBA as PB surely adheres to that notion. Feel free to add 'acquitted', but please do so in the knowledge that it should actually read 'acquitted in a trial that was interfered with by outside forces'. That would be the actual truth.Malick78 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Although I do not know the case very well, it is true that John Bodkin Adams brought notoriety on himself and the Plymouth Brethren and knowing the nature of man, I suspect that he may have been guilty. I too, am a strong believer in stating the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another berean (talk • contribs) 08:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smith Wigglesworth

Point taken about the grammar. Page 109 of the source reference states that once in Cardiff, South Wales, he addressed an audience with the following testimony :- "I was saved in the Methodist Church when I was eight years of age. I was confirmed by the bishop in the Church of England. I was baptised by immersion in the Baptist Church and had the grounding in Bible teaching in the Plymouth Brethren" He goes on to say that he marched with the Salvation Army learning to win souls in the open air, and received sanctification under the teaching of Reader Harris and the Pentecostal League. He then went to Sunderland and had an Acts 2:4 experience. I am not sure if you are aware, but Acts 2:4 experiences is a real hot potato within modern day Christianity. The Brethren, in general, deny that such experiences are for todays church. I remain open on the matter. However the great dangers of pentecostalism is that too great an emphasis is placed on "signs and wonders" and less emphasis on actually getting grounded in the Bible, something which the Brethren are generally noted for. Personally I would rather learn from reading the Bible than believing in, what I see as fake modern day apostles. Smith Wigglesworth remains an enigma to me. From what I read he had the bible knowledge, backed up with holy living and spectacular spiritual gifts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another berean (talk • contribs) 08:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. I know nothing about him though, I was just smoothing out the English:) Malick78 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reithianism

I thought you made a good point. I've started a new subsection of the Reith biography headed Reithianism, with a redirect from Reithianism. You may be able to improve on it? Xn4 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I'll see what I can do:)Malick78 06:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Bodkin Adams‎

Please stop adding the "serial killers" category, it's a breach of non-negotiable policy WP:NPOV to state it as fact in that way. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 15:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but WP:NPOV states we should represent:
fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).

Now I am presuming that have read all the books cited in the bibliography, because I have - with one exception - Sybille Bedford's book which is out of print. She wrote it the year after the case without access even to the trial transcript - and was therefore unable to analyse the case properly. She was also hampered by liable laws - Adams sued 12 papers after the case, winning each, so she could not speculate and even imply his guilt.

The other books were all published after Adams' death for this reason.

One is by two journalists (Hallworth and Williams) and says Adams was guilty (they had access to the police at the time of the investigation). One is by the judge, Devlin, who said Adams was a 'mercenary mercy killer' - hence a serial killer under law since mercy killing is a crime. Hoskins' book (the author became a friend of Adams) says Adams wasn't a killer, just inept - but Hoskins never saw any evidence at all and just interviewed Adams. Surtees meanwhile sits on the fence: he interviewed Adams (he was a colleague) and various people who knew him, but saw no records. The only book that was written with access to the police records is Cullen's. It states unambiguously that the wealth of evidence shows Adams was a killer - and states that political interference made the prosecution pick a weak case (confirmed also by Hallworth and Williams), lose evidence, hand confidential papers to the defence (allegations made in Parliament), prosecute half-heartedly (a view agreed with by Devlin) and then drop a second indictment - an act the judge called an 'abuse of process'(Devlin's words).

For this reason Cullen's book deserves more weight than the others. At 687 pages it is even as big as the others combined. It is not a breach of NPOV to rely on a book that had access to evidence that the others didn't. It is for these reasons, as the guideline demands, the most significant view. All the others are lesser for the described reasons. Please respond before I reinstate the category you object to. Malick78 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop wikilawyering. The policy states "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one". The fact is that Bodkin Adams was found not guilty of murder, therefore he cannot be aded to the serial killer category. One Night In Hackney303 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The operative word is significant. If a 'published viewpoint' is less significant (ie it is based on hearsay (Hoskins, Surtees) or neglible (Bedford) or incomplete (Devlin, Hallworth) evidence), then it deserves a lesser standing. If another book is the most authoritative (because of the basic fact that it is the only one to have examined the evidence), then it automatically has more weight. No bias is involved, it's self-selecting.

Another point: if a court in the middle ages found a woman guilty of being a witch - should we have an article introducing her as a 'witch'? No. We use our judgement and add that she was alleged to have been a witch. Because our common sense tells us it was an invalid verdict. That of course is an extreme case but one which can establish a policy to follow. Adams though is a more subtle case but with a similar subtext. His trial would not bear up to today's standards, for the reasons given in my previous post. For that reason there are real and justified causes for doubting the not-guilty verdict. It does not break NPOV. The trial may have been 50 years ago and not 400, but that does not mean it cannot be criticised. Cullen gives ample reasons to. So just as the witch is not a witch, the acquitted Adams was not 'not-guilty'. Common sense has to prevail (and yes, there is a policy page that backs this up - Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - the kind with which you are so enamoured: 'if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.'). Quite obviously, if you read the whole article, Adams should be described as a serial killer. Do you not at least agree with that? Malick78 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that the verdict cannot be questioned. However you seem to think the opinion that he was a serial killer is given greater weight than the fact he was found not guilty by due legal process, in fact you seem to think the opinion should be asserted as the truth, which cannot be done. Please do not attempt to think you can wikilawyer your way out of this using ignore all rules, as NPOV supercedes that per the Wikimedia Foundation. One Night In Hackney303 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Malick, your logic is apalling. Your "medieval witch trial" example is way off the mark, and I am unable to see the relevance. Surely, you are not suggesting that a trial in the Middle Ages is roughly analogous to a trial in a court in early 20th century England? This betrays either an ignorance of or fundamental lack of faith in legal jurisprudence. The example I would suggest you examine is that of Sacco and Vanzetti, in which doubts about the fairness and propriety of the trial, as well as subsequent investigations and evidence are all dealt with in an even-handed manner.
You can edit the article to reflect that there are doubts as to the verdict, with references from the books you are so fond of quoting, but you cannot state as a fact something that a court of law has stated is not a fact. He was acquitted by a jury, that is the final word on guilt or innocence. You cannot place him in the serial killers category. Doing so, as One Night In Hackney has said again and again, violates the NPOV policy. There is no way around it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • An acquittal was only the final word in guilt or innocence because of the double jeopardy law - which was then in effect and which you may have noted has now been abolished in the UK. However, the point is surely, if a trial was so unfairly run can it ever be questioned? The answer most obviously be yes. All that is required is enough evidence to support the questioning of the verdict - and if you had read any of the books in question (your argument is stubbonly one dimensional and ignores all these alternate views) you would agree that sufficient evidence has been presented. This does not violate any NPOV because the evidence is overwhelming in its support of the view of Adams' guilt.
Meanwhile, I must thank you for your mentioning of the Sacco and Vanzetti case - it supports my argument fully. You have mixed up two things: the content of the article and the categories at the bottom of the article. You praise the article for being even handed in its description of events, yet the categories at the bottom omit 'murderers' and 'robbers'. Do you realise that it therefore 'ignores the trial verdict and agrees with the Adams' article's situation entirely?' Why don't you add these categories to the Sacco and Vanzetti article? Could it be a POV clash that stops you? Or are you running a POV campaign in favour of Adams? Your inconsistency may lead suspicious minds to think this, so please feel free to clarify your precarious position. Malick78 09:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive

Please read what the text you added said, instead of what you think it said. I quote "Ireland (now Northern Ireland)". Is Ireland now Northern Ireland? No, and per WP:IMOS we only use Ireland to begin with. One Night In Hackney303 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • So "now in Northern Ireland" would be okay, would it? If so, I'll amend it thusly since as I mentioned before, currently it is confusing to readers not aware of the subtleties of Irish history (and who will therefore think Randalstown is still in Ireland. Malick78 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No, because Ireland is not "now in" Northern Ireland, and per WP:IMOS we only use Ireland. It's not difficult to understand, I've explained it to you at length. One Night In Hackney303 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel you are being wilfully unhelpful. There is no way in the world a reader would misunderstand the phrase 'now in Northern Ireland' to think that's where the Republic is. People do have common sense, and they will realise that Randalstown is being referred to. Your WP:IMOS has a blind spot regarding this issue since confusion does arise in this case, and I will happily add 'now in' to avoid confusion in order to improve the article. Clarity is needed in this situation and this will produce it. Malick78 07:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As I've told you before, WP:IMOS says to use just Ireland. If you think there is a blind spot on IMOS then the place to raise it is on the IMOS talk page. One Night In Hackney303 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You haven't answered the point that it is confusing. IMOS says in the intro:
"Manual of Style, this page is a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."
I shall therefore treat JBA and Randalstown with common sense and as an exception, since I find it confusing and think other readers will too. Malick78 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not confusing, it's perfectly clear. If you continue to ignore guidelines and edit disruptively I shall open a request for comment on your behaviour. One Night In Hackney303 17:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is confusing - few people will realise that the 1899 situation is being referred to. I didn't after all. As for editing disruptively, I mentioned many times that it was confusing and you didn't reply to that particular point. You just repeated the IMOS thing. Since you didn't reply to that point, I could only respond using my own view, and sort out the problem that way. How though am I editing disruptively? I made something clearer. That is not 'disruptive'. Secondly, for months people were happy with Randalstown being in 'Northern Ireland', it was only recently that you took offence to it. The consensus was that it was fine.

How about we drop the country altogether? With just town + county? After all, Henry VIII of England and other monarchy related articles drop the country from birth and death info. Do you feel like compromising? Malick78 10:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serial killers

I have removed John Bodkin Adams from both List of serial killers by country and List of serial killers by number of victims, because he was never convicted of a single killing, therefore he is, ipso facto, not a serial killer. If there were an article for "Accused serial killers," you could add him to that. Thankfully, no such article exists, to the best of my knowledge. I request that you not add false or misleading information to articles. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. One Night In Hackney303 21:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you notice that Jack the Ripper has never been proven to have existed - and more importantly - 'it has never been proven that his victims were all killed by the same person?' Should he be removed? Surely he is only there because of police suspicions and the views of scholars that he is included? This too is the case with Adams. You are giving too much weight to a court verdict from a time when the courts were far from fair. Adams' inclusion in these two lists came with caveats to warn readers, who could then read more to understand the situation. What you have done is to the detriment of the lists. Malick78 09:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, please stop adding an acquitted man to the list, it's a breach of a non-negotiabe policy. One Night In Hackney303 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I am in full agreement with One Night In Hackney303 on this point. I concede nothing. You are simply wrong, and I would thank you to drop the issue. You cannot add a man who was acquitted of the only charge of murder brought against him to a category of confirmed serial killers. This is nonnegotiable. I consider the matter closed. Please stop leaving me messages. Further action on your part in regard to this matter will have to lead to intervention by administrators. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)