User talk:Natemup: Difference between revisions

Category:African-American Catholic burials has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you didn’t explain why you reverted my edit (there was no edit summary?), here is the diff.

What is your reasoning here? Thanks. 172.58.9.249 (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for no explanation. Look at the beginning of the article; it broke the table. natemup (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nate, just finished the above article about the first Black Catholic parish in Columbus — thought you might be interested. hope you’re well! Maximilian775 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, and the great work! natemup (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe you’re conflating the terms “case officer” and “agent” in this edit. The CIA website clarifies that:

“Citizens who work for the CIA are officers — not agents or spies. All employees, from case officers, to analysts, to librarians and public affairs, are considered CIA officers.”

“So, who is a CIA agent? Our case officers recruit well-placed human assets with access to information. These spies are agents.”

Based on this information, “CIA case officer” would be the correct term to describe Ms. Spanberger. Thanks. 160.19.11.17 (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source, so to present it as a “clarification” is misleading. That is how the CIA would like people to think about “agents”, because to some the term has a negative connotation. An “agent”, by definition, is simply someone who works for another party, especially an intelligence organization. Given this, the CIA is conflating “agents” with “spies”, while defining “officers” as “citizens who work for the CIA”. Guess who else is a citizen working for the CIA? The “well-placed human assets with access to information”, i.e., agents. So their attempt to separate “agents” from “officers” a distinction without a difference. They’re all CIA agents, as Wiki’s own page for the term evinces.

Also, this conversation belongs on the talk page for the Spanberger article. natemup (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I will move this conversation to that article. 160.19.11.17 (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added a section myself. natemup (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am always happy to meet another clergyperson and clergy in formation. Congratulations. Secondly, thank you for responding in the exchanges on the talk page. I wanted to say I have no objection to the way you worded the “Anglican realignment,” and “GAFCON’ sections if we can also agree to add “Global South” since that is the term used alongside GAFCON. Thank you! Look forward to hearing from you on the article talk page. SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic-raised African Americans has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 01:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Natemup Please review how categorization works because these kinds of 3-way intersections are rarely defining. ^SMason_Garrison 01:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]