Fastifex, I'm about to do a total re-write of the whole page (I've been workign on this for about a week now, with my notes in notepad form.), I want to incorporate some of your material and remove some of it, as well, as some is redundant or NPOV (not much, but a little). Some of your changes, like adding a controversies related to body modification are in my notes, and I really like the edits you've done there. Are you going to continue to make edits, or should I just keep on going with my project? Glowimperial13:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir,
As body modfication is in no way part of my core interests (history and institutions; but we Flemish intellectuals are somewhat of the uomo universale type, as a medieval Latin professor literally called me), while you seem to be an expert, I am delighted to read you find at least some of my contribution worthwile, and even contunued my experiment of suscinct definitions with typology links- I find them usefull, as many laymen probably will.
Since I am in no hurry to return to the subject, I suggest you go ahead soon with any additions and even restructuring if worthwile. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the NPOV abbreviation (I started my account ths week, most of my already numerous contributions since april were anonymous on an IP) so I'm at a loss what you mean there, while redundancy can of course be tackled with my approval in principle - even though nobody needs approval, I appreciate your courtesy.
As I started re-examining the article, I formulate these remarks :
you linked to "stretching", deleting my few lines on the subject, but there was nothing on body modification there - I made an attempt and linked it to your article (surprisingly the word neck links to Padaung, a usefull link though, which a quick google allowed me to elaborate a bit on too)
why has the reference to needle heals been eliminated?
I dare hope you find a way to include the distinction whether a body modification is reversible
may I suggest you elaborate the Sources & References section, listing your treasure trove, as only the expert can be expected to be able to? This naturally goes for all valuable articles (In confess I don't allways do so myself, but then I do intend to return to the subject later and better my ways).
First off, let me say that I have very limited knowledge on the subject matter.
When I converted physical punishment into a redirect it was to avoid something called content forking, that is a separate article on the same subject set up in order to provide a different point of view. If you read the physical punishment article and corporal punishment article, you will see that they are very similar, for instance the physical article has the intro
Physical punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain or other bodily suffering intended as correction or punishment (see that article for general considerations and alternatives). The practice is generally held to differ from torture in that it is applied for disciplinary reasons and is therefore intended to be limited and justifiable (for (re)education, justice etc.), rather than intended to totally subdue the will of the victim (as for interrogation or pure terror). Severe or prolonged forms of corporal punishment are, however, more or less indistinguishable from torture.
while the corporal article has the intro
Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain intended as correction or punishment. Historically speaking most punishments, whether in judicial, domestic or educational settings were corporal in basis. The practice is generally held to differ from torture in that it is applied for disciplinary reasons and is therefore intended to be limited, rather than intended to totally destroy the will of the victim. Severe or prolonged forms of corporal punishment are, however, more or less indistinguishable from torture.
The way I saw it when I made the redirect, the two articles were on the same subject, they were structurally virtually identical and therefore prime candidates for an immediate redirect. Since the corporal punishment article was the older of the two articles, I redirected the physical punishment article.
My view is still that the redirect at physical punishment ought to stay as a redirect, and that the discussion on how the subject should be covered should be done at corporal punishment. I appreciate that this can be a very controversial topic, at least far more controversial than the subjects I like to work on (chess and transportation). However, making a fork at another title has some very serious downsides, most importantly it is confusing to the readers who use the encyclopedia, and it is therefore strongly discouraged.
I realize that discussions with other people on controversial topics can be tough and energy draining. Since I know very little about the subject, I can only provide some general advice.
The formal rule on edit conflicts is the three revert rule. Except for simple vandalism, which is quite narrowly defined, no person is allowed to make a revert on the same article more than three times within a 24 hour period. Even administrators have run afoul of this rule, it is the reason for most blocks against established users who don't usually engage in vandalism.
WP:COOL has some words of wisdom for handling conflict.
If you at any point start to feel so angry that you have trouble thinking clearly: stop. Remember don't take what happens at Wikipedia too personally. I will refer you to a piece of advice I got from Rossami, who gave it to me here when I was feeling mad and frustrated at foolishness, breaches of policy and other terrible things. Following this is easier said than done, but I think that it remains good advice.
For the moment, that is what I have to offer. I won't convert the physical punishment article into a redirect a second time, but I won't be surprised if someone else chooses to do so. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to give me a line on the talkpage. Sjakkalle(Check!)15:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Sorry for removing that information. I guess it looked to me like a typical frivolous edit (I didn't recognize your username). Also, on researching, I found that the hazing was done by President Bush's fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon - not by Skull and Bones - so it may indeed have been done to freshmen. I added a link so that those who might remove it in the future can verify for themselves. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. -- Pakaran21:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent additions to Aden Protectorate are useful but they appear to all be sourced to WorldStatesmen. Although WS is often a good source, it has numerous gaps and errors on South Arabia. (FOTW also sources it). Do you know of any other confirmation source of the state names and treaty dates? LuiKhuntek07:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the link to your user name is hellish red (a typo? a former account? - I never met such a case- maybe you never created your own page?), I can only hope you read this here, but anyway - your vigilance is appreciated, and yes it is definitely wise to look for more sources. Unfortunately Christopher Buyers' amazing website RoyalArk does not treat the former Yemeni polities yet (only the former imamate itself), but I do know of another website of interest- perhaps even more unfortunately, http://www.almanach.be/central.html Almanach de Bruxelles is no longer free, they now charge a suscription fee I'm not eager to pay until I'm confident I'm ready to get the maximum out of it in one go (best value seems $50 for a year; there's enough other sources to work while they probably work on the gaps they had, and update), but when it still was free I had the foresight to save a few megabyte of data on most (allways non-European) dynastyies they covered (I'll always regret I didn't get round to India, the second largest number of dynasties after Indonesia, which has many 'stub-like', so I guess India would have been even more data, but I saw no warning they would turn paying, so I thaught there was time). I don't have time right now, but I will check my archieved version (I wonder what's the copyright status- am I allowed to mail someone -you might be interested, but do provide a working link then to your page or talk page- what was free then? I hope so) I haven't got round to checking the relevant data, but certainly intend to see whether this is usefull in our Aden-case Fastifex10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have recently edited Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire. One problem mentioned in the article is that "such a large empire inevitably sees many changes over several centuries, any listing is either a freeze in time or, as below (still incomplete), a compromise concerning overlaps and other alterations." In an attempt to systematize the listing, I made a chart based mainly on Donald Edgar Pitcher’s An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire (1972) that is a list of provinces in 1609 (near the height of the Empire’s power). The chart includes Turkish names, dates of foundation, current location, and other notes. I followed this with a list of provinces that disappeared before 1609 and provinces that appeared after 1609. Finally, to reflect the administrative reforms of 1864 and the decline of the Empire, I have a list of provinces in 1877.
This information would remove little of the information currently in the article but would be a reorganization of the article that would change its appearance (e.g., end the Christian/Muslim division of provinces). Because information on this topic is scarce and sometimes contradictory, I wanted to run this by you before posting the changes. Please give comment or objection at User talk:LuiKhuntek or the article's talkpage. Thanks.
LuiKhuntek21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments about Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire at User talk:LuiKhuntek. I agree with your concerns about the need for more information on the provinces. However, I think that anything beyond the basics should be posted separately at independent pages for each of the provinces. (The same with Aden Protectorate -- I already created several pages there but haven't finished [e.g., Lahej, Upper Yafa])
The problem with a systematic master list of Ottoman subdivisions is that there were so many changes over the years and there sometimes conflicting accounts of names and dates, even in the original sources (see Pitcher’s An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire for details). Because of this, the "snapshot in time" method may be a good starting point. I will post something in a few days.
Hello!
If you got the information for the article Intendente from a website, can you please put a link on the talk page? This would be helpful to other editors. Cheers and Happy Editing! Banana0413116:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is utterly justified, except that the best place for a link is of course the Sources & References section at the end of the article, where I intended to put it (but apparently forgot to fill it in- now done, but I'ld spot that anyhow). These first data storages are from [[1]] (see each present country). I realize this is at present a rough mess, deservedly tagged, but much more will follow; as the title is originally French Larousse, printed in French, would be my first guess for more Fastifex18:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 11% for major edits and 18% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)
This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot22:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the Wikipedia will not allow double redirects. If you redirect to a redirect page the second redirection will not be taken. Make sure the redirect links to the original article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I was a little bit too fast there with reverting your edit, I noticed you moved the main article now. - Dammit08:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I must point out that I am aware some of my redirects only 'work' indirectly, which is usually the result of the way they are made: I see a red link, which is a double real problem (the reader can't get to the information, the contributor is in danger of erroneously creating a parallel article), so I lay a chain of 'probing' links till I either find an existing article to link to or know I have to create it (often I have a good source at hand). This solves both problems, and often on more counts then the original red link, as none of the links is left red; if a reader doesn't care enough to click a few times to get at the goodies, he's apparently not hungry enough, so that's not a serious problem in my eyes. By the way, it turns outthere are Bots who seem to specialize in hunting 'double redirects' to cut them short, and they seem to find them faster then I'ld like in some cases as not every redirect is to a synonym, some other would be better left as they constitute de facto stubs. Fastifex09:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop adding commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so breaches Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block.
--Francis Schonken09:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I must first of all apologize for a perhaps too hasty correction I have just made to the page you referred me to. There are two Primates of Ireland. I do not know when it was agreed that there should be two. In the second half of the seventeenth century the two archbishops, one of whom was Saint Oliver Plunkett, were disputing in correspondence with the Holy See about which of them had the right to the title of Primate. Now it is pacifically accepted that both have the title, and that the Archbishop of Armagh has precedence. Too late, I remembered that the section concerns those who were given special seating at "the Vatican Council". (Which Vatican Council?) Perhaps you have access to more precise information about whether both were specially accommodated at the Council. If either archbishop was a cardinal at that time, it was the Archbishop of Armagh, whom you mention as being given the special seating: I would therefore have thought that the place for a Primate would have been assigned to the Dublin archbishop.
You missed Argentina in your list. The Archbishop of Córdoba obtained from the Holy See the title of Primate (I do not know in what year) on the grounds that it was the first diocese in the country. If the Archbishop of Buenos Aires had known of the request in time, he would have objected that Buenos Aires was the first archdiocese in the country.
I must say I think the article is quite wrong to attribute some sort of honorary title of Primate to sees merely on account of their importance within a country, such as Sydney in Australia. As I see it, only the Holy See can explicitly or implicitly grant the title of Primate, just as only the Holy See can grant the honorary title of (Latin) Patriarch, and just as the explicit or implicit recognition of the Holy See is an essential element in the definition of an autonomous particular Church, or Ecclesia (ritualis) sui iuris (canon 27 or the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches). Buenos Aires is certainly the most important see in Argentina and was so also when Córdoba got the title, but even more certainly it is Córdoba that is the primatial see.
In the Catholic Church hierarchy page, would it be better to replace "The Latin-Rite title of Primate is in some countries given to the (arch)bishop of a particular (usually metropolitan, oocasionally exempt) see" with "The Latin-Rite title of Primate is in some countries attached to a particular archdiocese"? Or even return the text to how it was before the to my mind quite unnecessary specification about the kind of see (metropolitan, exempt, archiepiscopal) was added? My main problem with the present text is the word "exempt". I understand what you mean by it, but most people do not. The phrase "occasionally exempt" will mislead them even further into thinking it means that a primatial see must be a "metropolitan and from-time-to-time exempt" see. Can you fix it?
Returning to the page on Primates, I honestly think it is nonsense to say Primates are on a level with Eastern-Church Exarchs within the Catholic Church. Apostolic Exarchs are obviously on the same level as Apostolic Vicars, Bishops of titular sees appointed to look after an area that has not yet been raised to the level of eparchy/diocese. Patriarchal Exarchs are surely no higher. Would it not be better simply to remove all this most unsure talk about alleged rules of precedence?
That is my opinion: that both the precedence question and the attribution of the title of Primate to archbishops of sees that have never been granted the title should be removed from the article. But, as I prefer to prune my gradually growing watchlist rather than add to it articles I prefer to let go their own perhaps inaccurate way, I leave editing to you.
I see now a link to an article on Exarchs. However, the time I have spent writing this has taken from me any wish to look it up. That article too I prefer to let go its own way.
Lima13:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although your request is most flattering, I'm afraid I will remain for a while to pressed for time to oblige properly. Hereditary titles definitely can be elaborated, but that takes serious consideration. As for court appointlment, I honestly feel that doesn't make much sense as a topic per se; it would be better to turn it into a redirect, and work in the titles in an article that allows to put them in context - Noble court seems an excellent choice, since many terms are not specific to one court, or even ambivalent in time and/or space. It would be best to create subsections before throwing in a host of titles, so as to give the reader an idea what belongs together.
As I'm hoping you might be willing to do some usefull, but somewhat tiedeous work in the field of court titles, may I suggest also someone could do an excellent job going over the (mainly red) links in Medical Household and create/elaborate the necessary stubs, all to be marked with the category Positions within the British Royal Household, and -if not to specific for non-British equivalents- also Court titles; many -including some other already in the category- need to be turned unisex, as both previous and presumed future Monarchs are Kings: the best way is probably to create the article as a redirect form the form including Queen to one with King, and specify both possibilities in the text of each stub. Are you game? Fastifex13:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created both the Hereditary titles and Court appointment articles in response to red links on other related pages; although they may not make that much sense as topics, I just thought a page of some kind would help to 'fill in the gaps'. Most of the content of both pages consists of links anyway. As for the Medical Household page, I can take a look at it and see what I can do. Walton monarchist8909:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see we are in agreement that Bignole's weird def of punishment, which excludes retribution, is invalid. There doesn't appear to be any point to talking with him anymore, he's just trolling for a fight. You can remove any weird def he has put in, and I will support you. Or, if you prefer, we can get an admin involved. StuRat01:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One should be mentally very sick indeed to agree with Bignole on anything I ever wrote from his hand. Either he enjoys getting on everybody's nerves (a psycho form of vandalism) or his mind is utterly poisoned, as occurs more often with some 'Wickedpedians' who often terrorise pages related to physical punishments- there's no reasoning with them, and in my experience one gets preciously little support from reasonable Wikipedians- your noble intentions are therefore greatly appreciated. I can only hope that to be coincidence, but my experience with some admins (while I have nothing but praise for others, like Essjay) in such matters aren't very encouraging, some actually make things worse, blindly adhering to mindless literal versions of conventions as if it were a constitution or even abusing one's position as Adam Bishop did to me by lying blatantly in order to ban me himself for using the self-explicatory word countship (definitely in articles concerning the feudal era he's party to) in stead of the ambivalent county, while I didn't even re-revert; so I'm not leaning to starting a procedure, which I fear will only be a waste of time, but if you do I will of course testify the truth about Bignole, if the point isn't made best of all by his own unencyclopaedic hate prose- his last 'answer' was amusingly pathological, all ad hominem and besides the point; however it may be more effective to simply ignore him on Talk and see if he simply gives up as his ausience seems to loose interest, I found that worked better the previous round. Fastifex06:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can wait and see, too. I notice there is another person on our side confronting Bignole now. However, his "Psychology" section definition is still at odds with the rest of the article, and common sense. StuRat01:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edit you made recently is a link to a dis-ambiguation page. Are you familiar with the style guidelines of dis-ambiguation pages?? Please read them. Georgia guy20:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I reverted to the sensible link of Man and reworded the text above in the Man article. However, I want to know what to do with the phrase "in contrast to...woman". Do you know what to do with it?? Georgia guy23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you bannish every matter covered by military law to that article, it is in danger of becoming the size of a law library, needlessly. Logically you should then do the same with other fields of law. Mutiny is a crime, ergo defined and to a large extend dealt with by law. If you say any passage not releant to mutiny, remove it; otherwise, I don't see why any explanation should be given to treat a subject under the more precise heading. Fastifex11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused; I thought I did remove the not very relevant passages the last time I edited the article. As far as I can tell, the Britannica text mostly deals with the transition of control over the armed forces from the sovereign to Parliament and constitutional issues with laws pertaining to the armed forces. All directly relevant content which I found I have summarised in the first paragraph of that section. Did I miss something? As for the rest, where it is relevant to mutiny, it is not exclusively so, but rather in the same way as to any other offence specific to the military, and therefore better treated in an appropriately named article; if that should be a problem because of length, articles can always be split and their subjects narrowed. (However, Military law is still a stub and has quite a lot of free space for a more detailed treatment of the general issues discussed in the Britannica text.) —xyzzyn12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are you going to keep the text there indefinitely? Because, you know, it’s still largely irrelevant to the article. —xyzzyn12:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent “white man’s burden.” And in the United States, empire does not even exist; “we” are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide." Quoted on: American Empire
I hope my edits will be satisfactory. Let's not name America an Empire. Lets just name it: United States. Is that okay?
Empire is an ambivalent term, even more then its Latin root imperium; the meaning and connotations depend on the context. The inevitably in part ideological debate in American Empire is open to widely different interpretations, and cannot be settled objectively; I hadn't seen that page before, but may stay out of it, especially as long as the Iraqi episode (only time wll tell whether that turns imperial despite the original intentions, let's hope it doesn't) makes it all to emotional to hope for a serene debate.
In the template Colonial empires, the term is clearly used for all colonial powers, benevolent or not, while only those which have been ruled domestically by an empire are designated here explicitly as colonial empire to avoid confusion with (usually phases in) their internal constitutional history; so either we include 'US empire' as such (there probably could be a point made to link to another article, but I'm talking about the captions in the template only), at least on account of the former Spanish colony Philippines that was neither a short occupation nor a territory about to join the US but saw its aspirations of independence suppressed for decades (at a time that all colonial empires were still rather hand-handed), or you might claim (I'ld have to diagree, though) that the US never would have colonized and consequently leave it out of the tamplate alltogether, probably taking Russia out as well (technically that never was colonisation, but -apart from temporary/preliminary protectorates- annexation to a rather feudal true, dynastic empire, in name transformed to a federation under the Soviet yoke). Fastifex03:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Fastifex. I am reverting your edits, and here is why:
1. The change to the line about Polynesian nobles do not make clear that one link is to the Tongan version and the other to the Fiji version. The previous version did.
2. I cannot see the difference between a "word" and a "name" so have put those two categories back together again. How is the name of a bird or a beer a "word" but not a "name"? How are acronyms not "names"? Therefore the previous wording made more sense.
3. The previous version had wording that was more consistent.
I accept the reinsertion of the TUI merchandising system reference.
Mona-Lynn05:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And on it goes, because:
1) There are more then two Polynesian states with Tui's (the spelling varies, possibly rather by source then by culture), and far more cases, so referring to only two is wrong, if deliberate would even be a lie
2) use a dictionary or English course, if you really don't know, but that's elementary grammar- a rule of thumb is names generally require a capital, other words rarely; I had however failed to check the beer, which turns out to be a brand name from one brewer, so I rectify that; acronyms can be names or not (depending on what they abbreviate), but are put apart because they are spelled with capitals only (some contributors even use a separate dab-page)
3) that's too vague to mean anything, so no comment needed Fastifex05:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - I thought that Tu'i specifically went to a page on the Tongan version. I will modify the text to remove all references to particular countries. I am still not convinced that proper nouns and common nouns need to be differentiated, but since you feel that they do, then Tu'i is a proper noun since it tends to be capitalized. Also the Wikipedia standard for disambiguation pages is to put entries with links to articles first and ones without links afterwards so I'll fix that. Another thing: Wikipedia standard is that when you reply to someone's message to you, you reply on THEIR talk page, not yours. Mona-Lynn05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you reverted my change. I have two objections. First it would be American empire or US-American empire. The adjective generally goes before empire, like British Empire, French colonial empire, Spanish Empire, etc. Secondly, the template used to link to American Empire but the term used there is different than what the template is using, and may cause confusion. The case on the template is describing U.S. colonialism, while the other term controversial usage of "American empire" refers to U.S. global influence. Lastly, American empire, also ignores U.S. mainland expansion. If you believe the template is sufficient in explaining that then I have no objection to American or preferably US-American empire being used. 12.220.94.19902:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no objection against US-American Empire, as it accomodates both the homogenous use of empire and your Anglophone feeling (I'm an allophone, I'll take your cue there) and I already suggested myself to send the link elsewhere, your suggestion seems a valid option to me. Fastifex05:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, wondering if you could explain your project here a little further. It's not every day that someone comes along and roughly doubles the history of an article about a city by copying a slab of material about the "ecclesiastical history" of that city. Mind dropping a note at Talk:Lyon? Stevage09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't challenging you. Anyway, the length of that section is really far too long for the Lyon article (as it stands now anyway) - it should be moved to Ecclesiastical history of Lyon or even History of Lyon - we certainly don't need pages of this stuff in the city article itself.
Hello - I'd like to second the above. I left a note on the BordeauxTalk Page about your Ecclesiastical history input. Just how many articles was this added to? I'm sorry but a subject like this can only be encyclopedic under its own heading, that is to say "Ecclesiastical history of ____". Please create the corresponding articles so that your contributions can have their proper place. THEPROMENADER23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is always under its own heading, but as a section- as a historian I'm amazed how the primordial importance of teh church (its institutions often more then matters relating to faith) tends to be underestimated or even ignored, even for the Ancien Régime and the missionary/colonial era outside Europe. It's a matter of appreciation when such section is big enough to deserve a separate page- Lyon as a major primacy is a fair candidate, most bishopric ee articles are (still?) so stubby as a whole and/or can only be given a short Ecclesiastical history history, so that the while stll remains shorter then encyclopaedic. Fastifex08:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, leaving that aside, the problem is that the masses of text you're reading are barely comprehensible, and just not that useful. If you were taking the time to refactor this text, selectively including the most relevant bits, that would be really useful. But adding such unselective, bulk contributions, with sentences like When Felix of Urgel continued rebellious to the condemnations pronounced against Adoptionism from 791-799 by the Councils of Ciutad, Friuli, Ratisbon, Frankfort, and Rome, Charlemagne conceived the idea of sending to Urgel with Nebridius, Bishop of Narbonne, and St. Benedict, abbot of the monastery of Aniane, Archbishop Leidrade, a native of Nuremberg and Charlemagne's librarian. to Lyon doesn't really serve any purpose. At the very least you could add some sections to these masses of text so that we could attempt to dissect them and determine what should go in the main article.
If you are a historian, as you say, then help us out here - add relevant, selective, informative, useful, information to the appropriate History sections of these articles. Don't just dump these chunks of text everywhere. Is that a reasonable request? Stevage08:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that the goal of these top-level city articles is to give an outline of the city's major points, outlines that would link to more detailed articles if the reader is interested. Please be so kind as to move your contribution to a proper namespace, and if you like include a link to this from the 'history' section in the main city page. THEPROMENADER09:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I see that you are quite active today - but give correcting the French city articles priority please. If you are unable to find time to tend to this I can do so tomorrow, in following the examples of your other contributions. Thank you. THEPROMENADER20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it; I certainly didn't mean to, in fact I added a code to it this weekend! I've had a horible time with failing uploads on this page, perhaps related to its size. Attempted to put the key back, now, but bizarrely he content table seems to double itself. Fastifex23:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a word missing from the lead sentence of Divan. I checked the history and I think you wrote the sentence, or moved it from Diwan (title) (though I csn't find it in that hsitory either). If you have any idea what should go there could you please fill in the blank? Otherwise I'll re-write the sentence. Cheers, -Will Beback
I deleted ecclesiastical history from Otranto for two reason:
Otranto's bishopric had never had any relevance in history. For example, the Patriarchate of Aquileia has every right to stay in Encyclopedia. I'm Italian and history expert: believe me, Otranto's bishopric has never had any importance...
It is hopelessly out of date. Maybe add it back when we will have some info not limited to 1911.
I think sometimes we have here unuseful things only for the sake to have them, or because some guy once copied them from an ancient Encyclopedia when Christian stuff was considered more important than any other one... but this is an opinion of mine, of course. Let me know if my explanations were clear or not. Ciao! Attilios
I disagree. Your philosophy seemS to be: "it interests me, then it is relevant and I add it". I think you can take 200 books about Otranto or Apulia history, and never find anything about the bishopric of the city. There are surely so many details about history that we have left away and that maybe were more relevant to the city, instead of facts about bishops who nobody cared at the time. For example: why don't you find something about the siege of 1480, which was an event of European importance? Anyway, if you're so stuck with your opinion, at least add historical things that are not out of date (i.e.: the number of parishes in 1901... when no data is available for today). Let me know. user:Attilios
The only modus vivendi will be to agree to disagree - your attitude seems to be "I don't care for it, delete it", but an encyclopaedia is to cater for all tastes, so I often add things, and usually let in things, that I couldn't care for in the least, and expect the same form others. Whether I, you or any number of individuals care for something is NOT a valid criterion for exclusion, at most for what I go to the trouble of adding to. Obviously updates are welcome, and possible for dioceses, but that will have to wait till another round, I don't have the time. Why a contributor does not contribute on anything is his business, I don't order you what to research and will never take anyone's orders myself- if yiu find it so important, do it yourself, or find someone who doesn't set other priorities. Fastifex09:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fastifex, I see you have reinserted zoological epithets. I am sure you mean well, but if you would examine the ICZN you will find that these do not exist. The internet (and wikipedia) contain a lot of pure myths. Let us not add to the latter? Brya07:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fastifex, I see you have reinserted zoological epithets (again). I am sure you mean well, but if you would examine the ICZN you will find that these do not exist. The internet (and wikipedia) contain a lot of pure myths. Let us not add to the latter? Brya 07:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC) repeat Brya06:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there's a difference in angel of approach: you focus on the ideal way for a zoologist to use a standardized jargon (if it is that, but I suppose you know better there), as is probably most appropriate on a specific page on, say, biological nomenclature, while I and probably the average reader of the Epithet article look at any major application of the general notion Epithet, which has its universal linguistical logic, regardless whether there is any authority sanctioning it or an alternative term as 'official' jargon.
I would say the difference is between trying to build an encyclopedia and just gathering odd facts. If you want to put in something about usage of "epithet" in the zoological world you would first have to research who is using this, and since when. It would also help if you could establish why? Then you would have to place this in a pattern of other such aberrant usages of other terms in the zoological world.
After you have done this, and after you have written separate pages on all cases of such usages you might begin to build a case for including it in the page "Epithet". You would have to show that there is a significant amount of people to do this and you would also have to document who these people are. Of course you would still have to make very clear that this is a form of aberrant usage, in defiance of the official norm.
The statement as you made it is patently false. You refer to usage on a single website (one PoV) and raise that to be the standard to be followed. Very much at odds with the policy of Wikipedia. Brya07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you changed my heading up top. The most common use of Barca is relating to the football club and therefore there should be a direct link there. I took example from the page: Arsenal which lists Arsenal FC and the Arsenal disambiguation page up top.
You cannot equate both cases: Arsenal is exactly the same word as the team's name, but Barcelona is NOT exactly Barca, nor is that even the actual abbreviation, which is Barça (which has a separate redirect), not BarCa. P.S. Please sign you entries on talk pages (with Fastifex 05:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)), otherwise one doesn't know who to talk back to, and it ay be taken as suspicious by some - if you didn't put my Talk page on you watcglist, you may not even read this yourself Fastifex05:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, however, most people do not have the ç character on their keyboards and therefore would search for Barca and if we could check for statistics I'm sure we'd find that most people aren't looking for the ancient city. Yonatanh15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my change to Lado Enclave where I removed the following information about the names of the Belgian commanding officers:
15 January 1897 - 1898 Louis Chaltin (b. 1857 - d. 1933)
+ *1898 - January 1899 Hanolet (1st time)
+ *January 1899 - 1900 Josué Henry (d. 1948)
+ *1 May 1900 - 1902 Louis Chaltin
+ *March 1902 - 19.. Hanolet (2nd time)
+ *19.. - 10 June 1910 ....
As you can see, the missing information I referred to includes when this chap named "Hanolet" (first or last name, I'm not sure) finished his term in office and the name of the next commanding officer and when he or she began his/her term in office. As it stands, the information is incomplete and looks unencyclopaedic. If we can find the missing information then it would be great to include it. --Roisterer16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just done some editing on Pammachius. Problems I notice with stuff copied from Catholic: I think that work was meant for people that had a certain kind of education, and then things were given without further specification, which were deemed obvious. An example: the original articles speaks of Tiber and Porto, considering obvious that a Catholic (probably priest) scholar knew they were located in Rome. The same for the church of SS. John and Paul. Check the modifications I made. Another note: don't forget to add the categories, otherwise the article will be less easily reachable by other users. Ciao!! --Attilios23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been brought to my attention that you are continuing to insert large swaths of text from the catholic encyclopaedia into city articles and titling them "Ecclesiastical history of...". You and I have had an explaining over this practice once before, and I believe you then saw reason my suggestions why you should discontinue that practice, yet I have been told that elswhere you have even continued into an edit war: for the sake of Wiki and reason, please stop this.
It doesn't matter who may be 'for' or 'against' the content of your contribution; the reference you are citing from is a secular point of view of a single movement's influence on world matters; this is hardly what one could call a mainstream reference appreciable by all. Again, I suggest you continue to create new articles in the same naming scheme you created before - and there's absolutely nothing wrong at all with linking those articles to main city pages through a category or "see also" link. Anyone interested in such information will find catch on and follow, and, thanks to the search function, they will be more easily found this way.
I attempted to integrate your changes, and yet you still revert to a badly worded, unwikified template. Its like you're ignoring any attempt at consensus at all. Please do something other than revert. Thank you. Cwolfsheep15:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of colonial, imperial and otherwise controlled foreign territories by dominant power;
Hello,
I noticed you reverted the changes to the above article. While I would agree that some are debatable, some are outright silly. Let's take Salzburg for example. How is Austria a foreign/colonial/other power in relation to that city ? There are numerous others. Travelbird12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fastifex. Saw your work- most of which I think is good. This article had previously been in a pretty disorganised state - and still pretty average from my POV. It still needs lots of referencing to bring it up to scratch. But I disagree with two things you have done - and it would have been helpful to have a longer edit summary (preferably on discussion page) to know why you have done it the way you have. The two things I queary are:
1. Restoring the title "India-based Religions". The correct nomenclature is "Eastern Religions" (I'll find references if you need them)- but further to this, the list seems pointless - sort of an afterthought for later development. That's why I deleted it altogether. I think it should just be deleted- and have done so again - but you restore and improve if you want.
2. Restoring "other Christian Religions" as a sub-heading for the JW's and the LDS churches. I had removed the specific heading "Christian" because this is disputed, indeed mainline Christian groups teach that neither the Latter Day Saints nor the Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian at all - but that both are "sort-of" (neither practise the defining Trinitarian baptism). I had left them under the general heading "Christian Missions" but had removed the pointed reference to "Other Christian Religions" - and I did this a way of being more neutral. Your restoration is I think unecessary, because it now looks to be driving home a point that is certainly disputed (vigorously). I suggest we leave them under the general heading, but remove it from the subcat. heading.
Hi again. Point taken about the multiple saves. I'll try - but I spend a lot of time in media editing and doing computer stuff where failure to save results in the loss of hours of work! My prejudice is always save, save and SAVE again. I'll try to change my ways to prevent wasting wikis memory. I am becoming less dissatisfied with the missionary article (though it still needs some serious academic references). I think we are improving it. My understanding of redaction criticism tells me that it probably grew like topsy as a means of actually getting the LDS and JW references in (rather than as a comprehensive article on missionary work and methods in general). It's going in the right direction now - but I wonder if it might benefit eventually from being compared closely with the article on proselytizing- perhaps they are trying to achieve the same thing?
I also meant to say the psychology of wiki is still a bit of a mystery to me - but your notion of putting a teaser in is rather hilarious. You are so right. It is amusing to think of hundreds of obsessive-compulsive religious wikipedians twitching away at their computers as an ERROR is detected in a religious article. I'll remember this one. Sort of like burley in fishing?
Can you verify that more than even 0.1% of hickory wood production is destined for the uses you claim to be significant? I doubt it very much, and certainly nothing remotely like the 50% of the wood use description space you are taking up with it. They are vanishingly minor uses, and not ones for which hickory, rather than any other woods in particular, is specifically important. Any wood can be used for the purpose, is that sentence going to be added to every tree page on wikipedia? - MPF10:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The specific punitive device term in the text is hickory stick, obviously not just hickory; only very few wood species get such mention, if memory serves me right the other ones are willow (willowing means birching), birch, hazle (the 'Manx birch') and tamarind (switch). The percentage of production used is utterly irrelevant, such blind quantitative reasoning would be a carnage among woods uses (e.g. golf sticks) and is arbitrary as one use may well dwarf all others, nor would it take account of value or socio-cultural relevance. If other uses are not getting more lines, that's either because nobody considers them worth elaborating upon (which would make them apparently not even as important) or probably because nobody got round to them yet, wikipedia after all is only a few years old, countless pages and must sections are in fact still stubbish or even absent Fastifex10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, though I think the coverage is still a little 'over the top' - I'll think of some slightly more compact wording and post it here later for your thoughts before I make any changes - MPF13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Say, Fastifex... we need to talk. What is with this "Spanking implement" stuff in the pointing stick article? Is it REALLY necessary to have that in there? Its kinda ridiculous. Thanks. --CoolFox17:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Fastifex- I think we are editing the same article at the same time: Canons Regular. I have just restored the contemporary new stuff to the top of the article. Hope you don't mind. It's the journalist in me...
Hello! I once again removed the paragraph on child spanking and erotic spanking that was put in the hairbrush article. The paragraph has nothing to do with brushing hair and seem quite ridiculous in the article and was longer than the brushing article itself! If you would like to add a short sentence about spanking then please do so, but the entire, detailed text belongs in the "Spanking" article. Thank you! loulou01:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with loulou. A short sentence mentioning that hairbrushes are sometimes used for spanking is appropriate and encyclopaedic. A paragraph about bare bottoms, and about whether the child is bending over or placed over the parent's lap has absolutely nothing to do with hairbrushes, and makes the article look ridiculous. Please respond to the points on the talk page rather than constantly re-adding that stuff. Thanks. AnnH♫19:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected your move of the article, it is not an Abbey, but a monastery. I don't know if there is a great difference between both terms, but the second is the most common. Cheers! Mário22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By definition you cannot 'correct' what but you own admission you don't know yourself; but I do know the 'difference', and they overlap: every abbey is a monastery, but many monasteries aren't abbeys, the criterion is whether the head is styled abbot, which is a high clerical rank, in some senses comparable to a bishop. So, monestery is not wrong, but abbey is, in this case, the precise and better term; in fact it is a bit misleading not to use the precise term, because one rarely is so uncurtuous as to use the vague term is stead of the prestigeous one, so monastery is normally only used as a generic term (about abbeys and other moasteries), for variation within a same text (one it has established to be about an abbey) or in other cases for a non-abbey, a bit like a precise rank is better then just officer or field officer; formal texts would only use abbey for one, it is the 'correct' term, monastery just one of many tolerated alternatives. Fastifex05:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't undersant your first sentence. My point is that I never heard about "Abadia da Batalha", I always heard about "Mosteiro da Batalha", along with that, UNESCO calls it "Monastery". And how do you know this is an abbey? Actually, the building is not the house of a religious order anymore. Searching for "Abbey of Batalha" in Google gives 89 results and searching for "Abadia da Batalha" gives 1, while "Monastery of Batalha" gives 20,000. Mário09:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved another of your masterworks to Bishopric of Uzès... Maybe it'd need some copyedit from you. A note: if consensus had been reached that ecclesiastical histories, if not relevant to the generel history of topics, must be in separate articles, why don't you follow this procedure in your new additions? Another advice: please don't limit yourself to paste-and-copy work, search the Internet for updated news about the dioceses you're adding, all dioceses should have an official website (see Diocese of Gaeta for example). Keeping data from 1905 or so is totally absurd. Ciao! --Attilios12:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And please avoid to add back "and episcopal see" etc. in the abstracts. Otherwise we should add all the other things the cities are seat (why not university seat, for example? Don't you think that it should be more culturally relevant for users here than Catholic administration things?)--Attilios12:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that yet again you are dumping unorganised catholic encyclopedia exerpts 'en masse' into what are supposed to be summary city articles - you know quite well how disruptive this is. I've noticed that you've even begun replacing articles created for your content with a redirect to the main city page - this is not only disruption, but disruption planned in advance. For what I hope is the final time: please desist. It would also be quite kind of you to repair the damage you've done instead of leaving this quite unproductive work to others. THEPROMENADER15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also noticed that you're a bit overzealous in your page moves - moving "departement of Ardèche" to "Ardèche" ? Ardèche is indeed a departement, but was once a historical region - your move cancelled someone's efforts to dispel ambiguity! THEPROMENADER15:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your corrections - if there are any other "missing" bishopric or diocese city articles, you can most likely find them under one of these terms appended to the city name. Regards. THEPROMENADER07:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fastifex, please stop spamming the encyclopedia with perversion material ("Pervertible" - your word, not mine).
Just about any object could be put to some kind of perverted use, couldn't it? Does that mean that every encyclopedia article should have references to that perversion? I don't think so.
The comment for your latest edit to Pointing stick says "(restore original and still main use)". Let's take a closer look at that. I will grant you that the term "pointing stick" may be used to refer to a wooden stick, but is it still the "main use"? Please check the following references:
Then come back and tell me that your definition of pointing stick is still the "main use". Not even close. But it did allow you to get the pervertible reference back into the article. (Which I then removed - again.)
I'm sorry if I sound hostile about this, but I'm pretty upset. You have made a lot of great contributions to Wikipedia, but some of these edits in articles like Pointing stick, Ruler, and Broom are appalling.
So please, stop it. I'm not the first person to have to ask you this. Hopefully you will stop and I can be the last.
Hey, I'm sorry if I laid it on a bit thick with all those search references. I wouldn't claim that a topic needs to be mainstream to be included in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a big tent. You can even have your pervertibles - somewhere.
Here's what this is really about: When I'm sitting at the computer with my 9 year old daughter and she asks a perfectly innocent question like "Daddy, what's the red mouse button on my ThinkPad called?" or "Why are some rulers in inches and some in centimeters?", shouldn't we be able to look it up on Wikipedia without throwing obscene material in her face?
In fact, I did just that (or close to it) last night. Since nearly all the incoming links were to the TrackPoint meaning, I left that on Pointing stick and moved the wooden stick definition to a disambiguation page. Of course, anyone can create a new article from there if there is more to say about the original pointing stick.
xyzzyn was kind enough to inform me that Wikipedia is not censored, and offered the suggestion that the best approach is usually to simply avoid the material I consider inappropriate.
Fair enough, and point well taken. But it's a real shame if that's the whole story. Who buys more encyclopedias, people buying for themselves or people buying for their kids?
And does this really mean that any page on Wikipedia is fair game for this kind of material? Where would you stop?
Not really. You can, of course, be reasonably certain that that e. g. Category:Algorithms won’t hold (much) pornography and detailed explanations of techniques of using common items for sexual activity. Beyond that, though, anything that is relevant to the topic of an article, is not an extremely marginal point of view and is verifiable can appear. As far as I can tell, this is a conclusion from policies which represent a wide consensus; you can voice your objections to them on the relevant talk pages, but do not expect any results. You will definitely not achieve much on users’ talk pages (with the possible exception of WP:JIMBO, and that guy used to sell porn (just kidding)). —xyzzyn20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fastifex! Before you revert the "how-to-spank" manual on the "Hairbrush" page, please write on the Hairbrush discussion page why you think the manual should be in the article. It's best to discuss calmly than to have a remove/revert war! loulou01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fastifex, I was crying last night after I saw what you've been doing to the Hairbrush article. Me, a grown man. Crying.
You know why? Sweet Loulou. She's 12, Fastifex. 12.
Like my daughter, she probably likes to brush her hair. With a hairbrush. You know, those things that are made for brushing hair? She probably started contributing to the hairbrush article because of that interest.
Do you think when she was younger she imagined, "When I am 12, I'm going to be defending an encyclopedia article on hairbrushes against sado-erotic spam." I guess they grow up fast these days.
And AnnH. She is being so nice, trying to reason with you, asking why you continue to add this material to the hairbrush article, asking you if it would be OK to please tone it down a bit.
I beg you, sir. Search your heart. Somewhere in there, isn't there a place where you can see that what you are doing is wrong?
The paragraph you keep adding to Hairbrush describes spanking a child's bare buttocks, the various positions in which the child might be placed, references a "similarly popular posterior discipline", and concludes with a reference to "erotic spanking." The act is performed "generally at home," indicating that the parent is doing the spanking.
Now, if this were an article about spanking, then a similar description, without the drooling enthusiasm, and separate from the sado-erotic part, might be appropriate. But in an article about hairbrushes? How could this be intended for anyone other than those who might be aroused by it?
If it's not child pornography, it's awfully close.
Also, I wonder if you realize that spanking is not "popular" among parents. No parent with even a hint of moral character enjoys spanking their child. It is at best a last resort. "This hurts me more than it does you" is no joke.
You said in an edit comment that "spam is posting the same thig at many places, not similar things each on one" [sic].
Let me try to explain this one more time, not because I really hope to convince you, but only because making up these stories is the one part of this debacle that is any fun for me.
Like you or anyone, I have a number of personal interests. Two of mine happen to be Star Trek and harmonica (I am a harmonica player).
If I did the same thing you are doing, I would make these kinds of additions to articles:
Towel
Use with Harmonica
A cotton towel is an ideal implement for cleaning [harmonicas]. [Harmonica players] often say that it seems to be made for the job. It can be used wet or dry to clean the outside of the harmonica without harming the finish. The towel can also be used to clean the [reeds] and [reedplates] of a disassembled harmonica, but great care must be taken to avoid snagging the reeds, which would render the harmonica unplayable.
Use in Star Trek
Curiously, towels are never seen used by the crew of the [Enterprise]. Star Trek [canon] states that they were not needed because of the ship's [microwave showers]. The actual reason, however, is that [Gene Roddenberry] could not afford towels. Borrowed hotel towels were used in a few episodes of [The Original Series], allowing viewers tantalizing glimpses of attractive young women.
A small hairbrush with fine bristles can be used to clean the [reeds] and [reedplates] of a disassembled [harmonica]. Brush gently across the plate parallel to the reeds, starting from the [rivet] toward the [free end] of the reed. Brushing in any other direction will damage the reeds and render the harmonica unplayable. (Compare with [Towel].) Most [harmonica players] do not recommend using the same hairbrush for your hair and the harmonica, although some claim that that the hair oils help the reeds [vibrate] more smoothly.
Use in Star Trek
[Lt. Uhuru] has been seen in several episodes of [The Original Series] brushing her short, fine, wavy, black, lustrous hair with a hairbrush. Some [fans] claim that [Dr. Beverly Crusher's] name is a hidden reference to hairbrushing. [Jean-Luc Picard], captain of the [Enterprise] in [The Next Generation], and [Benjamin Sisko], captain of [Deep Space 9], have never been observed to use hairbrushes.
Tell me, do those important and verifiable facts belong in the Towel and Hairbrush articles?
Would something like this ever be relevant? Sure:
Chair
The most expensive chair in history was [Captain Kirk's] command chair from the original [Star Trek] series, which sold at a [Sotheby's] auction for $37,000,000.
Now that is significant and relevant to the Chair article. Do you see the difference?
Here's the last thing; you are taking all the fun away for Wikipedia contributors and visitors alike. Who wants to put their time and effort (and it is a labor of love) into an article, only to find that you've come along and trashed it - again? It's no fun for anyone (other than giving me a chance to write those parodies).
We would all like to get back to other things.
So I beg you, again. What will it take to get you to stop?
I had to move back Cività Castellana to Civita Castellana. I must again adivce you to avoid to make such moves basing from Catholic Encyclopedia. It is often unrealiable, at least for what concerns Italian language, history, etc. And please be more accurate and coherent in editing. You added your usual unrelevant sub-article about this mysterious Cività Castellana, but left all the remaining article with the former spelling. You should do more than simply past-and-copy. Next time you're doing something regarding Italian stuff, please ask me advice. Further notes:
"XXXX is a town, commune and Catholic see...". Please refrain to cite secondary things in the very beginning of the geographical abstract. A good solution is that in Crema, Italy, where the existence of the see is cited later as "It is also an ecclesiastical see".
I've hidden the ecclesiastical history in Civita Castellana. Please move to a SEPARATE ARTICLE as per general agreement gained.
Please stop to add or rewrite stuff concerning early 20th century data. What's the meaning to have this stuff when modern data is absent? Have you ever seen a decent encyclopedia saying "population of Gaeta was 11,355 in 1911" without saying anything about the current one?
hello Fastifex, how are you?
It has been brought to my attention that there seems to be some disagreement about the wording of the entry of the article Freiherr. It baffles me why this is seemingly spinning out of control with an edit fight. I am inviting you and Charles to post the views on the talk page of Freiherr. I don't want to put in a block on the article because of this disagreement yet. I hope that the discussion on the talk page will help defuse the situation. looking forward, thank you.. Gryffindor15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I noticed your edits on the Security Guard page and I had a question regarding the grammar usage that you used on the Security Agent portion of the page. I quoted the supporting documentation directly when I originally added it and I do not believe that your usage here is correct. Your thoughts on this?
Since I cannot find Dreadlocke on the history page between my last two edits, your message on my Talk passage didn't specify the actual grammar points and your last edit only carries the edit commentary sp(elling, I presume), I'm afraid it's not clear to me what exactly you mean, so I couldn't possibly answer to the point either. However, being an allophone, I realize I may well get some things (on occasion horribly) wrong in the grammar department. So please specify your concerns or simply correct them, I have no intention to jealously defend my fallible English grammar. On the other hand, I seriously doubt whether the quoted documentation is to be presumed any more of on infallible authority when it comes to grammar, who really takes the time to double-check that thoroughly? I'ld rather trust an anglophone who really cares, as you apparently do Fastifex 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think you might have me confused with Captain Jasonabove. I merely fixed a minor spelling error on the article [5] and made no comments about grammar. On your talk page, I just thanked you for finding a good link! [6]Dreadlocke06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, actually, I only read the Security Guard article because I noticed Capt. Jason's message on your talk page when I came back to thank you for finding the style link. Then I noticed the spelling error there and fixed it. :) Dreadlocke06:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting. You should actually see the needed context of this article at WP:CHINA. This was a requested article for a while, (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China), one that needed its own article because the articles covering the individual concessions in Shanghai and Tianjin were too specific and the concession article was too general. The onus is you to prove why we need merger, not the other way round. You didn't actually say anything on the talk page. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 12:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"rv- and not by 6billion orthers, so what? nobody ever gives a reason, just subjective scolding, usually even terminologically absurd"
I would just like to say that it is very untrue.
On the contrary, we have given you many reasons. Here is a sample: it's sick, it's off the subject, the details add nothing important to the article, the description has nothing to do with the article, and it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous.
loulou17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'bull's eye' was used when [the whip] hit the tender areas between the buttocks. Naughty boys were ordered to bend over on the spot, presenting their posterior to be lashed with it for such minor offences as taking too long to get in or out of the bath tub, boys who would then still wet and stark naked.
Greetings, Fastifex. Regarding our recent edits to the "over a barrel" section in Barrel, I posted a note on the talk page asking other contributors which version they think is more suitable for the article.
BTW, your sentence in Barrel about "whipping posts", "ritual apparatus", "lashes to the posterior", "bend-over culprit", "whipping naked boys", "strapping juveniles", "lashes above the waist", and "a whipping pole" weighs in at 117 words. Remarkable! --Michael Geary17:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slipper had a lengthy section about "slippering", the punishment. I moved this material into its own article and listed it in the "see also" section of Slipper.
You know, old buddy, just the other day I was complaining that you had taken the fun out of Wikipedia. I take it all back. I busted out laughing when I saw what was in Willow (emphasis on was).
Thanks for fixing my ToP Dab; i had the feeling someone else could have worded it better, and no doubt you have. (I didn't notice who put Castellans under a Cat "domestic workers, but i was surprised; are you, too?) --Jerzy•t03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was no ambiguity in this disambiguation page.
Belt can refer to the following objects:
* A belt (clothing) is an article of clothing worn around the waist to hold ones pants up or as a fashion accessory, also used as a punitive implement for a so-called belting or for sexual gratification in the form of a spanking.
* …
Belt (clothing) wasn't as bad, but it needed a little copyediting anyway...
Re: [7], [8], [9] - The consensus seems clear that your additions to a great number of articles are unencyclopedic and off-topic. You're free to add details on the history of corporal punishment to an article on the history of corporal punishment. This is not censorship. The reversions are part of the usual consensus-driven editing process, in which you are invited to take part, but so far only tried to avoid it. Please refrain from further personal accusations towards User:Geary. Femto12:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Femto, and obviously I agree with you—up until the last sentence. I actually haven't taken any of Fastifex's comments as personal accusations. He called my edits "censorship", but that's a complaint about the edit, not about me. So no worries on that particular aspect.
Wikipedia has a place for (almost) everything, but the sometimes-neglected corollary to that is that everything should be in its proper place. --Michael Geary16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear you're not personally offended. I don't know if I wouldn't be offended, if my rationale about being not the place for that content was simply brushed away, and reverted only with a reference to censorship. Hands down, you'd make a better diplomat than me. :) Femto17:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your efforts in bringing material from the Catholic Encyclopaedia for various New Guinea articles (most recently Kaiser-Wilhelmsland.
Once again, please don't paste Catholic Encyclopaedia text into the main body text for a Wikipedia article, as if it represents contemporary knowledge.
This text is very old, often badly misinformed, and frequently blatantly and offensively racist. It is totally inappropriate for direct use in Wikipedia. If sections are to be used, they should be placed in the article as quotes with direct attribution. There is no way that some of this content belongs as main body content in a contemporary encyclopaedia - it is offensive and often just wrong, and should be treated with a great deal of skepticism - definitely not treated as a primary and balanced source.
These articles are in dire need of some editorial attention, if anyone else would like to take a turn at it. Cane has a bit too much detail that belongs in Caning (if anywhere).
Caning at least has the virtue of being mostly about its topic, so I'll pretty much leave it to those who are more interested. But it could sure use some cleanup. I couldn't help but notice how bad some of the writing is:
Thus in the Royal Navy the bosun's cane was frequently used on the backsides of boys without ceremony (as opposed to publicly kissing the gunner's daughter, a formal bare bottom flogging on deck ordered by the captain or a court martial, usually involving birch or cat o' nine tails) on the spot or in the gun room, for daily offenses (at least one mid 19th-century captain had every single junior boy given six cane strokes every morning on various pretexts! [citation needed]) considered too insignificant to require written formalities or orders from an officer (who certainly could and routinely also did order the cane, actually wielding it was considered unsuitable for a gentleman), but more severe than the bimmy.
I don't know why you keep reverting that article. The new edits are horribly written and mixed in with lots of original research. Please stop. 172 | Talk04:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reinserting content about male bare-chestedness into the toplessness article; there is an article on barechested and there are clear, obvious and well-documented social and cultural differences between the two. Duplicating the content as you have been creates confusion, and also overwhelms the more common usage with one which is practically unknown in the English-speaking world. Thanks.
I also note that reversion to including content which other editors consider inappropriate, excessively detailed or original research is a common complaint against you. I suggest you stop doing this as it is disruptiove and can lead to your being blocked from editing. Just zis Guy you know?14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hope you will not mind too much my deletion of the Cambridge tondo from the Eromenos article. I thought that it was simply misleading and inflamatory there, perhaps something from the Tomb of the Diver might be more fitting? Haiduc11:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how we see things differently. I went to check the Tonso article and thought the image there was fine, and a perfectly valid example of a tondo. (The choice of the other tondo is amusing too, don't you think?) There is nothing wrong with the Cambridge tondo, I used it myself in the Pederasty in ancient Greece - Sexual aspects section. I just think that it is not as representative of a classical pederastic relationship as a symposium couch picture, since we can safely say that in the formal practice all erastes were intimate with their eromenos, but not all were sexual. Haiduc23:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was visiting the Eromenos article again today, and I had the same instinctive reaction to the image, that it is too specific and not representative of all pederastic relationships but only the sexual ones. Would you mind if I changed to something more representative of the practice, like a symposium image? Haiduc15:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the person who deleted your reference. I'm getting a bit less tolerent of these. By definition "any standard non-sexual object" can be given a sexual context - are we to put links on "fork", "cloth", "buckle" ad infinitum? I'm impressed with the depth of information available here on sexual topics - this is a great resource for that - but I don't want links to that material from *every* other topic.--Snori21:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You would be amazed. Here are some articles where I've personally been involved in cleaning this stuff out:
However there are alternative positions, mainly used for adults (rather too big and/or heavy to put over lap or knee, so the spanker may find it more difficult to hit with full force; also the physical contact with the spankee, who if male often gets (semi-) erect as an involuntary bodily reflex, may be considered unpleasent and/or indecent) but also for more grave and/or formal discipline, even of minors, using an implement.
…
* With nearly all the mentioned positions, one more parameter affects the efficiency of the position: the further the legs are apart, the more the buttocks are tensed, the extra sensitive crack in between more exposed and often the genitalia (if divested) embarrassingly visible. This is why experienced discipliners often stipulate the spankee must assume such a position, e.g. each limb along a leg of a punishment horse or lie or stand spread-eagled (as on a saltire cross).
Why on earth are you doing this? There is already a separate article for erotic spanking.
Don't you realize how you have been antagonizing other contributors? Most of the rest of us want to make Wikipedia a useful resource, with articles that are actually about the topics they say they are about.
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against disruption. Your persistent addition of original research and what can only be described as sexcruft needs to stop. This block is for 24 hours, if you continue this behaviour longer blocks may result. Stop now.. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Just zis Guy you know?16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spanking, by today's definition, consists of striking the buttocks repeatedly, usually as a corporal punishment, with either an open hand or various implements including a cane, a belt or strap, various types of whips (see flagellation) such as martinet and tawse (traditional in France resp. Scotland), switch or other form of rod, paddle (the U.S. favorite), some curious devices as produced for U.S. masonic lodge initiations (such as the electric so-called spanker, and trickster 'paddling machines'), or still various (e.g. 'household') objects designed for other purposes (grabbing for an improvised implement can occur in any punitive context except the most formal punishments when it is strictly prescribed), such as a slipper (common in Commonwealth domestic discipline, also said when other footwear is used), a wooden spoon, a bath brush, wooden ruler or the hairbrush.
Hi rememer to categorize your articles e.g Roman catholic missionaries, or Peruvian missionaries and {{Peru-bio-stub}} etc. This provides links to other articles and makes finding your quality articles easier.thanks James Janderson12:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is crapping on the catholic part of the work, far as I know. Let me tell you, Fastifex already does an outstanding job at ignoring all talk, no need for further support of that. Femto14:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree at all with "Ignore all the crap you have been getting." The reason for all the "crap" he has been getting is his many edits against consensus. I think that "Ignore all the crap you have been getting" is an unwise piece of advice, and that "take seriously all the crap you have been getting: it is an indicator of discontent at your conduct" would have been more appropriate. That said, if he is doing good work in other articles then that is excellent and I applaud it wholeheartedly. Maybe at some level he does not "ignore all talk" and if this is so then I would be the first to express my delight in his developing a more consensus-driven approach to editing. 82.45.248.17708:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have complained several times about the content of Fastifex's contributions, but my comment here is about the poor quality of the writing. In addition to the 134-word sentence above, Spanking contains sentences that are 93, 103, 117, and 118 words long. The 93-word sentence includes seven parenthesized clauses (even (like this one) nested). I'm sorry, but I think Wikipedia deserves better writing than that. --Michael Geary17:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
K. Knight's transcribed pages are copyrighted. Are you transcribing from the original books, or copy pasting the from Knight's pages? -- Jeandré, 2006-08-09t19:56z
Re [12]. I just found catholicity.com which doesn't have a copyright notice like Knight's. Something is fishy here, either catholicity copied Knight's transcriptions copyrighted, or Knight put an "All rights reserved." copyrighted on transcriptions that's not his.
Sorry about the copyvio edit summaries. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-10t11:12z
Hey, I've undone your edit to St. Catald, because they are not actually different people.. the middle paragraph says "On his return home his ship was wrecked off the Italian coast, near the city of Taranto. The people here appear to have encouraged the monk to become their Bishop, and he rose to become thier Arch-Bishop. Some of the miracles claimed in Catalds name include protecting the city against the Plague and floods that, apparently, had had occoured in neighbouring areas." - Which I think/hope explains that aspect of his life. --Irishpunktom\talk08:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, the admin revert I made on the Kat page was made more because of who made the edit, more than the content of the edit. The anon who made the edit also made edits that indicated that it was the Tots TV vandal. This vandal is a subtle misinformation vandal. When identified, generally all edits from that same IP in the same time period are suspect. In general, unless I can be 100% certain they are correct, I err on the side of safety and revert them. So in a case like this, where I had no idea what is right, I played it safe and did not trust what the vandal had done. That he was correct is fine, and it's fine that you reverted me if you know the material and know which is correct. But not knowing, I cannot affort to trust edits from this vandal to not be subtle misinformation. (This comment here is mostly an FYI for what was happening. :) ) - TexasAndroid19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Fastifex. You moved Nicosia, a city geographically in Asia to the European list. I am very well aware that Cyprus is a transcontinental county and it is culturally considered a part of Europe. But it is not the only state with this status and there are others (namely, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkey), yet you only modified Nicosia. The move was based on the clear consensus (under headings Cities outside Europe and Cities in Turkey and other transcontinental states) on the European article's talk page, to base the inclusion criterion solely on the city's geographical location, not the appellation of the host country. Could you please check these? Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin10:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to chime in. I had a dispute some time ago with User:AtilimGunesBaydin about the inclusion of Ankara and Izmir in the list of European cities. So let me reiterate: while the consensus was reached before my time, it says that because of difficulties of defining the borders of Europe culturally and/or politically, a decision was taken to adopt a strictly geographical definition, which means that the Asian part of Turkey is excluded, and that Cyprus and Israel are excluded. Of course you are welcome to discuss changes to the consensus, but let's talk about this on Talk:Names of European cities in different languages first. Thanks Crix10:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to revert the structural changes you made to magistrate. Legal traditions are not typically delineated by race (such as anglo-saxon) since they are inherited independantly of geographical or racial divisions. I am not married to the structure I provided, however, and there are other options. Typically one would consider using a civil law versus common law grouping, however, magistrate is such a generic term with so many localized meanings, I thought it would benefit from a more global perspective. I am going to copy this comment to talk:Magistrate so further debate will be available to others interested in the article. Manney12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can cite an example, you should revert your change -- only archbishops who are metropolitans receive the pallium (titular archbishops for instance do not), and a metropolitan archbishop may wear the pallium anywhere in his province, not just in his own archdiocese.HarvardOxon21:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text already gave a recent example, mind you not ex offico (that normal use IS restricted to Archbishops) but nominatim, of a pallium awarded without archiepiscopal quality, notably of the highest cardinal bishop (without an archbishopric, while outranking any Metropolitan) granted the use of the pallium - I will however put the province back in as the logical level for the 'normal' case of the Metropolitan (the previous versions seemed to equate wrongly archbishopric and province, while only the latter includes the suffragan dioceses; unfortunately I saw no source on this precise point) Fastifex22:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Pope Paul VI's motu proprio 1978, Inter eximia episcopalis ("On the conferring of the pallium" is what it is listed as in English). Please also read the Pontificale (not of Pius X, but of paul VI), available as the second volume of the Rites. Please also see the note on the exception.HarvardOxon07:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the references here so as to save you the embarrassment of making the changes myself to what you have written. If you find it "suspenseful" and you are in such deep wonderment at what the simple Code of Canon Law says, if you are so unfamiliar with the code and the current liturgical books that you consider it "merely postulated" what has been standard liturgical law since the 1970s, if you are so sceptical of my "claimed" updating, t5hen you have no business fiddling around with these articles. Granted, references are always best, but you didn't politely ask that references be added -- you expressed (in rather officious terms and with awkward malaprops) a raised eyebrow scepticism that bespeaks not careful scholarly editing but a self-important ignorance of the subject matter. Having read a century-old encylcopedia does not make you expert enough on a subject to be screwing around with it, and wanting to pretend it is the Nineteenth Century doesn't make you more correct.HarvardOxon13:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I didn't notice you offering a single reference for any of your changes, nor did you bother to even check if the situation had changed since 1911, and none of this was more than the first page of a Google search away from being discovered.HarvardOxon13:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you want to have a vandalism charge filed, please READ the text you revert, as it contained THREE footnotes that you ignored as sources and wiped out...geez.HarvardOxon18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that Negus is a Latin form? Your etymonline source does not say that "Negus" is the latinized form of "negush," and "negush" has never been used in any language. The Ge'ez term was first pronounced "nigūś"; with Leslau transliteration: "nəgūś," from which the modern spelling comes. The "ś" in "nigūś" sounds a bit like a "sh" (at least it merged with the sound in Hebrew), but is distinct as a voiceless lateral fricative, and merged early on in Ge'ez with regular "s." The stem of the word is therefore ngś, later pronounced "ngs," and the "us" is not a latinized ending. See for instance Image:MHDYS2.jpg, where it says "NGŚ" (i.e. "Negus"). It's a little hard finding Aksumite coins with legible vocalized Ge'ez legends (which would say "Negus"), but there are numerous examples from the Middle Ages onewards. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of linking to Ingrid Dahlberg, which is simply a redirect to Dalarna County. What's on the disambig page is all the information available about her, until someone writes an article about her. Anyone looking for information on Ingrid Dahlberg who clicks your link will find themselves at a page that doesn't even mention her. What use is that? Colonies Chris14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the infobox from Adria article? Please keep bishopric stuffs in separate articles as per the unformal "agreement" we reached last June together with other users. Bye and good work!! Attilios09:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to be given the time to revise the article on Amban before you revert it to its earlier version. As it stands now, it is factually incorrect, since there wre several officials called amban in the Quing domestic civil service. If you disagree with this please klet me know how you think.--Niohe14:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I'm not happy with the first paragraph as it stands now, but I'm planning a rewrite soon. Let's keep each other posted.--Niohe14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When an image is available on another wiki then where I'ld like to use it (e.g. the German de.wikipedia) but not on Commons, although it could be as it is not copyright-restricted (e.g. public domain), how can I
copy it to another Wiki (e.g. en.Wikipedia)
and/or -if that is easier perhaps better- copy it to Commons?
Upon reviewing your edits, you seem to be doing this consistently and repeatedly to a number of articles. Please review WP:2R before making any further redirects. Thank you. -- MeropeTalk/Review14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you consider it the "lesser evil", but Wikipedia policy does not agree with you. Please stop reverting these edits. When articles about particular dioceses are created, the editor responsible for that can then change the redirect path. Until then, please stop. -- MeropeTalk/Review15:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bishopric of Città di Castello → Città di Castello
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Bishop of Auxerre. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- MeropeTalk/Review21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have decided to create and sustain a number of double redirects, against WP:2R and several other editors. I've blocked you for 8h to indicate that I don't think you should be doing this William M. Connolley21:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't keep re-adding the info for individuals states to the Aden Protectorate article. Every state has its own article and details not related to the entire Aden Protectorate are better placed there. The info you have submitted is unformatted and filled with misspellings, redlinks, wrong information, and blanks (?) which makes a list almost impossible to read.
Check out the individual state articles (e.g., Upper Yafa, Sultanate of Lahej, Kathiri) and you'll find most of this information already there. Any readers interested the dynastic info of the states can link from the list at Aden Protectorate.
I fully intend to see restored the minimal details you deleted on individual states. A list of Arabic names without any details makes about as much sence as a laundy list in Martian (except to those who already know). Fastifex23:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which list you are referring to but the list at Aden_Protectorate#Formal_treaties_of_protection is in English, not Arabic, and it is just that, a list. All of the names link to separate articles where the individual details are located and anyone interested can click and find out more. There is plenty of room there for info that would make a list too cumbersome. See below for an example of Upper Yafa. - AjaxSmack 00:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Postage stamps in the name of Upper Yafa since 1967 may be found advertised on the internet, but they are from a micronation whose website claims that the capital has been protected by an impenetrable force field since then.
I was sure you would have soon jumped to restore things in Amalfi's stuff. However, I removed back the things about the compass in the Amalfi article. What's the reason to keep that detailed stuff in an article about a city? Put it in the devoted Flavio Gioia article. Again, you continue to keep info about dioceses in the early 20th century? What's the relevance of such dated material today? I seem you somewhat go took stuck to things once they have been written, only for the sake to mantain it: however, I think we should provide informative and quality things here. Do you think is reasonable to give someone demographic info about a diocese in 1911 when NOTHING is said about today? Have you ever read a respectable encyclopedia with such unbalance in info provided? Ciao and good work!!--Attilios09:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take part in the discussion regarding the identity of 'Æthelwold of Ripon d.720' and Æthelwold of Farne d.699. You have supplied no requested evidence that they are not the same person. If, indeed, they are not, I would like to get an article added for the one who is missing. Walgamanus16:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just revised one of your masterworks of paste-and-copy from that bunch of mis-informations, biases and out-of-date stuff that is Catholic Encyclopedia. See Patriarchate of Aquileia. Please do such moves more carefully; in the case of Italian stuff, if you want you can call for my help to revision and updating. Let me know. Ciao and good work!!! --Attilios18:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've left the ecclesiastical history in Avignon. Reasons: 1) Avignon eccl. role has a relevance in history in general; 2) The article as a good lay history, and the addition of a long eccl. section full of detailed info about Catholic things does not obscure the previous section (for a comparison, it was ridiculous that in Gaeta eccl. history was longer than the normal one). Hope I'm clearing the point. Let me know and good work! Ciao! --Attilios11:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you write it yourself: the historical German name for Esztergom. I fail to see why we should use the German name. I have at home maps and books dating back way before ww1 and the turn of the century. I did very intensive research of the name Esztergom, and it was used in Hungary for almost a millenium. The old form of the word is Esztergám, an even older form is Istergám. the German name originates from the river Garam near town, and is not as old. I don't deny that German maps used Gran, but NOBODY ever used this form in Hungary. Not on maps, not in books.
I don't think you speak Hungarian, but just in case: here is a link just for you: [13]
Trust me on this one. The city was the first capital of Hungary, and I don't know why the German should be used. (HUN)Villy11:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, Hungarian sources will be the exception to the rule - in other languages (this is the English Wikipedia, not the Magyar sister), be it in German, French or German, Dutch etc. -I'm a polyglot, but HUngarian indeed is as exotic as foreign to me, as to nearly everyone active on the English Wikipedia- Hungarian is hardly taken into consideration (I hartily approve to see it added, though) before the Hungarian independence while the Habsburg dynasty's (Austrian/HRE) German language is taken as the norm, except for names given a specific form in the various source languages. The same goes for my native language, which is equally ignored in third languages sich as English Fastifex11:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But even the German wiki uses Esztergom as title of the articles regarding the city. Also German was Never an official language in Hungary. Latin was, so 90% of the maps used Strigonium - the latin equivalent of the name. Also why should a Hungarian city that was never in German hands, populated by 96% Hungarians use another country's word for its OWN name. Why not the native? I mean I have tons of newspapers that are more than a hundred years old. Esztergom was Officially called Esztergom, or Srigonium. Furthermore King Stephen of Hungary founded the Archdiocese of Esztergom. At that time it was called Strigonium, Later Esztergom, but it was NEVER called Gran in Hunmgary. Since this is a city in Hungary this should be decisive. (HUN)Villy16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please refrain from editing the title at the top of the 'Sagging' page. As Wikipedia rules state if its dominent of a certain sex, then it will be listed. Your re-adjustments are considered as vandalism. [Theradioguy] 12:08pm, 2nd October 2006 (UTC).
I have restored the subcategories to this categories. As few as they are, I think these dioceses have to be possible to reach navigating downwards the category system from Category:Sweden, Category:Religion in Sweden etc, not just via the Roman Catholic Church diocese categories. That is relevant to somebody interested in Swedish history, and the fact that the lower-level subcategories are small is something we just have to live with. Uppland09:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you'd put back in the external link on the Gauleiter page. This appears to be a link to a Belgium history site. I did say "link" in my comment not "reference" but either way, it appears to have nothing whatever to do with the German Gau and the Nazi Gauleiter. Do you think differently for some reason? Thanks. MarkThomas07:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now looked right through the WorldStatesmen "reference" (wrongly formatted) link that you keep re-inserting on Gauleiter and it has no relevance whatever that I can see to the German Gauleiter, despite your assertion on my talk page that it does. It appears to be entirely about the history of the Benelux countries. Please stop re-inserting irrelevant material and links to the page. Thanks. MarkThomas13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop inserting irrelevant links into the Gauleiter page. The reference you added is simply a list of countries. The Nazi Gauleiters were rulers of individual states, or "Gau"s within Germany. I have explained this to you several times and you persist. I will report you for vandalism if you persist further. Thanks. MarkThomas09:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it seems you like much to have fun taking stuff from Catholic Enc. and pastecopying it here. I admit I found somewhat interesting some of your last additions of this kind. However, can I ask you to spend some further time checking style and wikipedicity of what you add? For example, add categories, and put titles in italics. Good work! --Attilios20:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure you are making redirects point to the appropriate places. I just found out that your recent edit to Bishopric of Cuzco redirecting to Bishopric of Cusco was incorrect. It should have redirected to Cusco, not Bishopric of Cusco. I also recently discovered by going through your contributions that you have made several of these errors. I ask that you please be careful and to not redirect to a redirect (double redirecting). I will go through you're contributions to fix these if I see them, but please make sure not to cause any errors on purpose or otherewise. Regards — Moe21:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going thru your last 50 contributions I found six mistakes and corrected them. Please be careful when making a article redirect. It causes a very serious backlog to occur when trying to correct these. — Moe21:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am being forced to repeatedly delete this entirely bogus and irrelevant link and will continue to do so using popups from now on - this is justified as it is a case of vandalism. Any editor in doubt can check out the contrib history and discussions here - Fastifex has been mindlessly inserting bad links into pages for some considerable time. I will raise it as vandalism if this user does it again. Thanks. MarkThomas14:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop re-instating biblical references to Buttocks
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. DARReNTALK19:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Vicariate Apostolic of Natal. Then you should do one of the following:
Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Vicariate Apostolic of Natal where we can find that note; or
Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Vicariate Apostolic of Natal.
I notice you have changed the text to say that birching was "reintroduced" in Trinidad and Tobago. I am not aware that it was ever banned. As far as I know neither the use of the Cat o' nine tails or birching was ever prohibited in recent times in Trinidad and Tobago - but maybe I have missed something. If you have evidence that this was so I would love to hear it - otherwise I would like to change this statement back to how I had it. Looking forward to hearing from you.
I have added the name section back in to Cusco, with corrections, complete with references to maps, so that it won't be deleted because "it doesn't make sense". Bejnar01:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link repair - You can help!
Hey there, I'm presently working on pages that link to the disambig page Habit I noticed that many of the articles that should be linking to Religious habit were created by you. I just wanted to let you know that when you write about monk or nun's habits and link the word, the article you're going for is at Religious habit. Cheers! Dina14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really understand how can you consider relevant to mantain such 1911 stuff!!! I can't believe it!!! Why, instead of lose time to revert my edits, don't you go to the websites of the bishoprics and insert modern stats? At least the current titular!!! Oh my! --Attilios09:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's in Italian. But you simply have to click in the pop-up menu where it's written "Scegli la diocesi" in the left-centre. When you jump to the diocese, you have the following fields:
VESCOVO = current titular
SUPERFICIE IN KMQ = surface in km²
ABITANTI = inhabitants
PARROCCHIE = parishes
SITO DIOCESANO = click, and have the website address; don't forget to add the {{it icon}} if it is not in English.
Why did you revert the merge of Pairie? The merge tag was up there for the longest time (see discussion on Peerage of France), both texts repeated almost verbatum the same material, and for all intents and purposes the articles discuss the same thing. In doing the merge I acted in good faith and in accordance with the other editors. (A second problem, which I think we have fixed on P of F, is that the text has copy-vio issues) --NYArtsnWords19:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to mumble if you could ever have given a glance to WP:Style pages... Maybe the problem with your poor style articles stands simply there. --Attilios14:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reread all your talk page. There have been at least 10 users asking you to cure better your articles before me, but you NEVER minimally changed your mood in your contributions. You don't ever READ what you add, else I can't explain all the typos and the absurdities you leave!!!!! You look like one who has never read a serious encyclopedia before! Why you're here? Why don't you edit directly to sandbox, where any style, any type of additions is good? If you are here for culture reasons, please give some face of respectability to your edits. Try to imagine other people reading them: will they find 'em useful? Will they understand what I'm adding? Will they like the style I put? Is what I add consistent with other Wikipedia articles (not to speak of the official policies, it's maybe a too hard concept for you...). Let me know and good work. --Attilios15:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been responsible of numerous violation of Wikipedia policies (see talk pages, full complainings by other others about three-revert rules violations, lack of style, mindless additions, copyright violations, etc.). He seem to refuse to give any check to WP:Style or WP:Policies and similar pages, or anyway he refuse totally to accord his editing practice with them.
His contributions consist mainly of Catholic-related articles, mainly copy-pasted abruptly from Catholic or 1911 Britannica Encyclopedias, without any minimal editing or updating process. --Attilios15:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move of comments by Attilios: I moved the last two sections here from Fastifex's userpage. It is not really appropriate to put messages like these on the userpage; they should go on the talkpage. Uppland09:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on this Attilios. There's obviously a long history here of Fastifex not quite understanding, or else deliberately vandalising, the context of pages - typically he will add a link for example to some site he's concerned to get mentioned on a lot of pages that has nothing much to do with any of them. Sort of "bee in his bonnet" behaviour that isn't sensible editing. On top of that he does loads of reverting to try to get it back in there when other editors try to correct it. I actually think he has no sensible plans at all on Wikipedia and is just messing about. I propose we ask admins to permanently block him. MarkThomas09:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fastifex, other motivated users and I are ready to purpose your blocking from Wikipedia if you continue with your revertions and disruptions. So, please, try to conform to Wikipedia policites (I mean in particular the motivated presence of early 20th century data. Be careful. --Attilios11:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are in repeated breach of multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If things don't improve rapidly, you will be reported at WP:AN/I with a request that you be blocked from editing. MarkThomas14:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fastifex! User:Attilios has requested that an advocate look into the case of edits which do not follow Wikipedia policy. I have taken up the case, and would like to request that you take part in our attempt to resolve this conflict. I understand that you are trying to help us out by adding information, but unfortunately some of it has proved problematic. If you could look at the case and respond it would help everyone come to a peaceful conclusion to this matter; we would all much appreciate it (It would also mean no more complaining messages!). Thanks in advance! — Editor at Large(speak)18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HI while I do appreciate your work and enthusiasm for the Catholic Encyclopedia I do agree that much of your work at present is not really written for wikipedia. What I mean by that is that you have consistently written articles of scholars and diocese without putting them into categories or placing them in Catholic history you just used Derived from Catholic Encyclopedia. I did tell you several times to use categories e.g French scholars and to work on making your articles more notable but you ignored my warning. For your articles to be effective on wikipedia you really need to assert the importance of the scholar or Catholic priest or whatever and his work, placing it into a historical and national context. If the scholar or whatever is linked to another important religious or political figure state this linking articles and history together. I must admit that I have read some of your articles and I to be honest I am surpised admin allowed them to be kept because they lacked all of the criteria. While I strongly beleive that Catholic history does need to be covered on wikipedia think about refining your work and MAKE them notable if you want to get other users off your back. Ernst Stavro Blofeld13:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About your reply in Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Attilios. What you wrote shows clearly that you are the wrong guy to participate a collaborative and democratic project; you are a man unable to underestand the value of common policies and guidelines, as long as they do not conform to your way of thinking. Moreover, you ask to be judged about the "content" of what you add. Of course, here you hear my personal opinion, but I give you it anyway: the articles you add here are garbage. Most of those characters are totally forgotten by everybody, and their influence in today's culture is practically 0. Otherwise, it looks that it is a free encyclopedia, so I can leave them here (anyway, do you think somebody will ever read those articles?), but you cannot ask me to leave things that do not conform to Wikipedia standards. Do we want to speak of the language? Of the hagiographic bias in which Catholic people are all saints and heroes and full of extraordinary virtues? Do you really believe in this stuff? Do you really think that a serious encyclopedia can contain such language and sentences? Ah, but I forgot that of course you don't care of any guideline here, WP:POV included. Why so many other users do it? Maybe they are all a bunch of stupids...
So, a question rises in me: do you have any other interest in your life apart pasting-and-copy from CE? Why don't you contribute to more interesting articles, for example in the field of history which is a bit neglected here? Do you have books in your home? Do you read some of them? Well, maybe you can take some idea or information from them and put it here; Catholic Encyclopedia is not the most useful source of culture in this world.
Frankly hoping you will understand that you are nor better nor smarter than other people working here, who strive to conform to rules (or at least read them), yours
--Attilios14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Hun. My first name is "Attilio" (Latin: Atilius), and has nothing to do with "Attila". Again, there's nothing POV in CE in itself. There's plenty of POV in its language, and there's plenty of meaningless in put here early 20th century info (but, I forgot, you content to put here stuff from that period because you like there... oh, what nice when Catholic dogmas ruled the world...). I'm not Peppone-Communist, morevoer. In both politics and life, I try to reason with my head and as objectively as possible. Please stop to make such satires, then, since the one risking to be banned here is you, not me. My contributions here are usually appreciated (I've receveied several Barnstar)... can you honestly say the same about yours? Have you ever asked yourself why your talk pages is full of complains? Further, what you call "deletionism" is simply conforming to the Wikipedia rules that you are so glad to ignore at all. --Attilios15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mate look. I appreicate your enthusiasm but I have to agree with the others that your articles are becoming a problem. He keep ignoring everybody's warning everybody's been patient with you but you just don't listen. We tell you NOT TO CUT AND PASTE DIRECTLY FROM THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, TO MAKE YOUR ARTICLES WIKIPEDIC, TO CATEGORIZE!! AND TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE AND CORRECT LINKS which are creating a great deal of unneccsary work for other users. I don't see a problem with your articles if they are written notably!! and and correctly put in the historical and national context WITH THE CORRECT CATEGORIES AND LINKS. Please comply with Wikipedia guidelines or you will be blocked. Why is this so much to ask. If you don't want people going against you, just do it for gods sake. Ernst Stavro Blofeld15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate if you read these comments Fastifex
I've always read every single entry on my talk page, and save for a few material errors (which I cannot calculate by definition) every edit commentary on my watchlist as well. Fastifex14:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is there any possibility you could accept Wikipedia rules (and edit freely what you want without being harassed by anybody)?--Attilios14:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever thought of archiving your talk page fastifex? It would make your page easier to read and allow easy access to old topics. DARReNTALK20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in some weeks when I have a bit more leisure time I was going to take a look at the various Platini and similar pages (derivatives of that word). As a historian and the creator, yould you mind if i move it to the singular Palatinus? Just checking. --FlammingoParliament19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Anteo Zamboni, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.
Fastifex, thanks for adding much useful information from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia to WP. I am a great fan of old encyclopedias, especially the 1911 Britannica, the Larousse du XIXe, the Grande Encyclopédie, etc. The Catholic Encyclopedia is particularly valuable for ecclesiastical history. On the other hand, it does have (quite intentionally and explicitly!) a particular point of view (namely that of the Roman Catholic church as of 1913) and particular areas of interest.
Consider for example the article on Iasos or Jassus. The version copied from the CE starts with "Jassus is a Roman Catholic titular see", as though the fact that it is a city in Asia Minor is peripheral. It mentions its role in the Roman Catholic church (as a titular see), but not in the post-schism Orthodox church. It does not mention anything about its later Byzantine, Ottoman, or modern Turkish history. The name of the modern town is given in an archaic form, and there is no reference to the current modern name or the standard classical name. Now compare that with the merged article Iasos, which preserves the valuable information in the CE about ecclesiastical history (and some facts about the Ottoman period) but also includes modern information.
Of course, one editor can't do everything. May I suggest that when you do add content from the Catholic Encyclopedia without editing it to better integrate the style and content with WP that you tag it with {{catholic-cleanup}} so that other editors can see that it should be worked on? Thanks, --Macrakis19:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Civil Allegiance, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Audiovideo03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Konstantin von Höfler with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Konstantin von Höfler.
However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Sanfranman5904:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be about a roman catholic saint's day, not about a church
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting St. Peter's chains, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 200:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This year the burly rugby team was in greater demand with softies then their normaly cuter colleagues from non-macho societies at the benefit slave auction, because they looked as cute as funny wearing nothing else then a cute teddy-bear tied to a jockstrap.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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.Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly)18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Mulay, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mulay and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fastifex, perhaps it was you who some time ago first wrote that the Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera is administered from Melilla. I have not been able to verify this information. Can you help, or should we remove it from the article. To my knowledge, the Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera is not part of any Spanish municipality or province, but an area under direct control of the central government in Madrid (same goes for Alhucemas and Chafarinas).--Ratzer (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fastifex. In your 3rd March 2006 edit of the 'Names of God' article, you added the words 'pagan or philosophical' to the following text:
"In the effort to translate the Bible into every language (see SIL), the Christian God has usually been named after a pagan or philosophical concept that was present in the language before Christianity."
I think I understand what you are saying, but, in an attempt to clarify your point(s), I feel that some considerations may need to be explored. Firstly, could it really be so that the concept of God is a 'pagan' concept? I appreciate that the 'word' for the entity commonly understood to be 'the supreme deity' differs from language to language, and that 'god' is the English word for such an entity. I also appreciate that the etymology of the English word shows that it was also used by 'pre-christian' cultures. But are we talking about the various language words for 'the supreme deity'? Or are we talking about the personal name(s) of those entities?
Also, in both Christianity and its predecessor, Judaism, and taking 'the bible' as the basis for those faiths, then we see that the Hebrew (OT) word for god is/was elohim, and the Greek (NT) word is/was theos. The words are identical in meaning, as seen by NT quotations from the OT. However, these words are common language words FOR god, but neither elohim, nor theos, according to the bible, is the personal NAME OF the particular 'elohim' or 'theos' being worshipped by 'believers' in those particular faiths. (both words are also used in the bIble to refer to things other than the 'Almighty Creator'.)
There are many sections of the bible which say that the name of god is xxxx (whatever!) (e.g. See Exodus 6:3). But nowhere does it say that 'The Name' of god is 'God'!
I appreciate that it was not your goodself that first introduced the information about 'naming' the Christian God in Bible translations into other langauges, but I don't think we are actually talking about 'naming the Christian God'!
In the light of the above, I propose to slightly re-edit the sentence in question in due course, to make it clear that the subject matter being discussed this particular section appears to be "the 'word' FOR 'god'", not actually 'the name OF God'. Regards --Lepton6 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a renewed discussion at Belgian Dutch (Flemish) which, until just today, was called Flemish (linguistics). I noticed you entry in the "past years" talk and felt a kinship with your POV (we all have them. we don't admit to them. but...they are a part of who we are)...I can't say with certainty but I think I feel a Dutch pretentiousness holding sway. As a Belgian-American I am distant from, and unaware of, ALL the nuances and subtlety of hegemony. So, I don't have the confidence of my facts. I just want the article to clearly explain to our reader what "Flemish" means. I think the water is getting muddy.--Buster7 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user may have left Wikipedia. Fastifex has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking the assistance of this user on this page, you may need to approach someone else.
de eerste 2 definities in dit artikel dat je destijds hebt aangemaakt, worden die alleen in Vlaanderen gebruikt of ook in Nederland dat je weet? Ik heb ze in Nederland nog nooit gehoord. Groetjes Mallerd (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose moving the article titled Governor-general of Norway to Statholder or, if that is objectionable, to Governor General of Norway. The basis for this move is that there is published material showing three terms: ”Statholder”, “Viceroy” or “Governor General”, are accepted English terms in academic references, while "Governor-general of Norway" appears nowhere in English language print. Viceroy is a generic term, hardly specific to Norway, and should not be used. ”Statholder” is specific to Norway, risking no ambiguity. A survey of usages follows:
Governor General – Jesperson, Leon (Ed.) (2000). A Revolution from Above? The Power State of 16th and 17th Century Scandinavia. Odense University Press. 87-7838-407-9.
Statholder (viceroy) – Gjerset, Knut (1915). History of the Norwegian People, Volumes I & II. The MacMillan Company.
Statholder – Larson, Karen (1948). A History of Norway. Princeton University Press. ISBN none.
Statholder – Derry, T.K. (1960). A Short History of Norway. George Allen & Unwin. ISBN none.
Stattholder – by Stagg: Stagg, Frank Noel (1956). East Norway and its Frontier. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. ISBN none. – Stagg, Frank Noel (1954). West Norway and its Fjords. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. ISBN none.– Stagg, Frank Noel (1953). The Heart of Norway. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. ISBN none.– Stagg, Frank Noel (1958). South Norway. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. ISBN none.
Statholder or Viceroy–Barton, Arnold H. (1986). Scandinavia in the Revolutionary Era: 1760 - 1815. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN0-8166-1393-1.
Governor – Kent, Neil (2000). The Soul of the North. Reaktion Books, London. ISBN1-86189-067-2.
I strongly incline toward Statholder since it is widely used in publications and is the term one is most likely to come to Wikipedia to look up.
You were contacted because you’ve edited the article. Your counsel and guidance would be appreciated… Please comment at Talk:Governor-general of Norway.
Hello Fastifex! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Hi,
I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest:
WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Crossed keys, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. YBG (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pervertible until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DracoE03:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — This, that, and the other (talk)07:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Steel (2013 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2BE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Up and in (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lozon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lauzon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, Fastifex! I'm wondering about the notice at the top of this talk page, saying that you haven't edited in a long time and "may have left Wikipedia". However, you are actually still here and helping to build the encyclopedia - which is great. Since you are still editing regularly, might you want to remove that notice? --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fastifex, I came here to say the same thing. It's confusing to have a notice saying that you haven't edited in along time and may not respond when actually you are actively editing now. LizRead!Talk!12:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Roman Catholic dioceses (structured view), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sachalin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It is interesting that even the "official" Latin names of these eparchies are inconsistent. Holy Protection of Mary (another page move candidate) doesn't say "Ruthenian" or even "Byzantine", for example. Elizium23 (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless how official or (in)consistent the sources one consults, the decisive point is an Aristotelian one: the more general term Byzantine (or Constantinian) refers to a cluster of Eastern Catholic churches, Ruthenian is even only the main one in a few regions, so it's like calling a general an officer or a soldier: not technically incorrect, even an option in certain poetic or other rhetorical cases, but normally too general to constitute a proper element of definition, so I'ld replace it wherever it may lead to confusion. Fastifex (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the use of "Byzantine" for the Pittsburgh Metropolia is simple. In Austria-Hungary the term, independent of nationality or ethnicity, was Greek-Catholic; in the US, "Greek" was confused with nationality rather than liturgical tradition, so the term Byzantine was adopted. As pointed out in the texts, the church has a multi-ethnic demographic and history. However, a problem with the label "Ruthenian" is that it historically includes Ukrainians who have a distinct sui juris church. Finally, it is noted that this ostensible precision has not been applied to Wiki pages of all of the other Catholic churches of Byzantine tradition.
The Archeparchy's name, officially used by Rome, includes "Byzantine"m, not "Ruthenian"; the people who constitute that church use the word "Byzantine" or "Greek" in self reference. I think these usages, particulary the latter, should be respected, even if it offends some sense of category orderliness. The imposition of an alien name should be avoided.
I would request that the pages are moved back to the original.
The anon has a point. The Church is known officially in the United States as the Byzantine Catholic Church. Of course this all depends on what WP:RS have to say, we can't project our own feelings onto it. Elizium23 (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would add, to emphasize the point:
1) the "names" of sui juris churches do not typically appear in the Latin names of the eparchies, exarchates, dioceses, etc. of churches of the Byzantine tradition. (Moreso for Melkites, and Ukrainians, less so for everyone else). "Ruthenian" does not appear in names of the sees of Mukachevo, Czech Republic, Pittsburgh, or Phoenix. (Similiary "Slovak" only appears in Canada). Notably, "byzantine" does appear in the Latin name of the Pittsburgh Metropolia.
2) The legal corporate name of the Pittsburgh Metropolia does not include "Ruthenian", but does include "Byzantine Catholic"
3) No reference has been given to any official Vatican document that imposes specific names on sui juris churches.
Overall, I think that this curation is misguided. It imposes an alien name on an entity that does not, and may deliberately not want to use that name. It reflects a preference of an editor that is not grounded in documented fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.201.32 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. ,
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anguilla may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
di Idioma, pp. 181-189.</ref> The [[Wesleyan]] (Methodist) Missionary Society of England]] built churches and schools in 1817.<ref>Hodge, S. Wilfred (2003). Bethel- the road - and due west.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fiji may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
is now officially called Republic of Fiji|date=3 February 2011|accessdate=4 February 2011}}</ref> ({{lang-fj|Matanitu Tugalala o Viti}};<ref>[http://www.fiji.gov.fj/getattachment/35348ce4-1158-4197-
fj/getattachment/35348ce4-1158-4197-8e12-b27027801d55/Click-here-to-download-the-Fiji-Constitution-(iTau.aspx Yavunivakavulewa ni Matanitu Tugalala o Viti (Constitution of the Republic of Fiji, the
], whose province also includes the dioceses of [[Roman Catholic Diocese of Rarotonga|Raratonga]] (on the [[Cook Islands]], for those and [[Niue]], (both New Zealand-associated countries) and [[
Zealand-associated countries) and [[Roman Catholic Diocese of Tarawa and Nauru|Tarawa and Nauru]] (with see at Tarawa on [[Kiribati]], also for [[Nauru]] and the [[Mission Sui Iuris of Tokelau]] (
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The name "Diocese of London" primarily refers to the current Church of England diocese ~ which should be referred to as "Anglican" instead of "Protestant". "Roman Catholic" includes "Latin Catholic" as well as "Eastern Catholic" and these are secondary. Afterwriting (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadrumetum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page O.P.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've been adding redirects to themselves via circular redirects.... A redirects to B which redirects to A.
Also, please add a space in DEFAULTSORT. This DEFAULTSORT {{DEFAULTSORT:Bikoro,Apostolic Prefecture}} doesn't see the comma. It considers "Bikoro,Apostolic" as one word. This means any DEFAULTSORTS without a space, will come first in the listing. Bgwhite (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I appreciate your intervention in the voice Thuburnica, reverting the abuses of Vito, an Italian admin nicknamed user:Vituzzu. It is sad to note that Wikipedia has huge problems with some admins, who often do whatever they like (even damaging Wikipedia). I invite you to read this blog about who REALLY is this Vituzzu: please go to [15] and click on Manmer2015......B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.29.224 (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm not sure if you noticed but this one was tagged as a "hoax" and my searches found not much better so I would suggest adding any more available sources for weight and depth. SwisterTwistertalk17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'd like your opinion on the issue raised here. "Archdiocese" for the modern Orthodox metropolises is inaccurate as they no longer have any suffragans, and they are simply referred to as "metropolis". I also not that we have an article at Metropolis (religious jurisdiction), so "Metropolis of X" is perfectly acceptable. Constantine ✍ 06:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as an aside, when you add ecclesiastical info on traditionally non-Catholic areas, please take the extra minute to note that when talking about titular bishops etc. you are referring to Roman Catholic ones. And when talking about suppressed sees in the same areas, please make a clear distinction between the ancient see and the titular Catholic see, as between the two there usually is absolutely no continuity. Otherwise it creates a wrong impression on the uninitiated reader that Ios for instance has been only Roman Catholic throughout its history. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Master (order) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pamphylia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to West Timor may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
(8%). From the Catholic missionary [[Apostolic Vicariate of Dutch Timor]] stem the Metropolitan [[[[Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kupang|Archdiocese of Kupang]] and its suffragan [[Roman Catholic
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Numidia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pantheon, Rome may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
On 1929.05.26 this deaconry was suppressed (o establish the Cardinal Deaconry of [[S. Apollinare alle Terme Neroniane-Alessandrine]]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
...You created that article one day afterwards (!). Since you refuse to revert your move, I have now requested it. Since this move-frenzy of yours goes way back, I am hereby giving you a warning for this, so that you be more careful with similar cases.
Hi Fastifex, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please stop doing undiscussed moves. The WP policy governing article titles is WP:COMMONNAME, which often means that the full or official name is NOT the correct one to use. The WP:RM procedure should normally be followed. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your page moves of Bishopric of Brixen and Bishopric of Trent. Per WP:RM, please do not move pages with large numbers of incoming links without first obtaining consensus in a discussion. Also, when creating a disambiguation page, please fix all incoming links before changing the character of an existing page. bd2412T17:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fastifex, I believe a lot of your work on Catholic topics is proving to be a truly positive contribution to Wikipedia. BUT, unfortunately, you're leaving a trail of disambiguation mess behind. A large number of pages on the disambiguation hit list are flagged because of your doing. So, whenever you feel the need to create a disambiguation page, could you also, AT THE SAME TIME, clean up the links to the newly created dab page. If you're not familiar with the process, I would advise you to activate and learn how to use DisamAssist. It's a very neat tool which allows for rapid cleanup of dab links. I'm sure you'll find it very useful. --Midas02 (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reverted your undiscussed page move of Bida. You have been notified that discussion is required before carrying out such disruptive moves. bd2412T05:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the contributions have been positive in the least. The editor is introducing a taxonomy that, whatever its virutes in idiosyncratic, and out of touch with the reality of common names used by people of these particular churches, or even the proper names of them used by Rome. Please revert these changes.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Second Crusade may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
participation in the crusade, the [[Obotrites]] preemptively invaded [[Wagria]] in [Holstein]] in June 1147, leading to the march of the crusaders in late summer 1147. After expelling the
You have disruptively created too many disambiguation pages with large numbers of incoming links without first seeking consensus. In an abundance of caution, I am reverting all of your actions in this arena. Do not move or disambiguate titles with incoming links without first obtaining consensus. bd2412T19:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I noticed you wrote "[bishops] all Roman Rite" in creating the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Barisal. This is incorrect usage. Clergy belong to a Church, not to a Rite. Therefore, when the typical usage might be tempted to write "Latin Rite" or "Roman Rite" the actual term intended is Latin Church. Likewise, when the liturgical patrimony is referred to in a deliberate way, "Latin Rite" should be deprecated and instead use Roman Rite. I have been slowly but surely updating {{Infobox diocese}} boxes to reflect "sui_iuris_church = Latin Church" and "rite = Roman Rite" because many of these have in the past used ambiguous or simply incorrect terminology. I know you create and update quite a few Catholic Church-related articles, especially Eastern Catholic ones, so I would appreciate if you cooperate on maintaining a uniform appearance for them. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Co-cathedral may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* The Roman Catholic Diocese of Teggiano-Policastro|Diocese of Teggiano-Policastro]] has a Co-cathedral of the Assumption in Policastro Bussentino and a Marian cathedral of S. Maria
Hello Fastifex, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Alphabetical List of Catholic titular sees has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You have inserted spaces before colons; we don't normally do this in English for the last hundred years or so. Other spaces you inserted around "==" in headings are quite optional, and it's best to just let them be. Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello. I noticed that you have edited a number of articles on Catholicism. A discussion is taking place as to whether the website Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a reliable source that can be utilized on Wikipedia or whether all references and information derived from it should be deleted. This topic is currently being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [16]. As the website's removal as a reference will affect several thousand Wikipedia articles, I believe that the broadest range of opinions should be obtained before action is taken. Please contribute if interested.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statsminister until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK)20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Atlantic306 (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Mansab requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.mansab.com/company.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JV- The Extraordinary Adventures of Jules Verne until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fastifex. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crux Pectoralis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Not a suitable as a broad concept article or a disambiguation page. This is a list of unrelated religious congregations whose names happen to have "Heart of Mary" in them, but none of them is called "Congregation of the Heart of Mary".
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation of the Heart of Mary until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Commissariat of the Holy Land requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from newadvent.org/cathen/04164a.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓07:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace of the Church until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mission sui juris of I-li until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please see this article - I've just put the above pattern in this article, regarding the norman rulers of the island. The references are are needed not just formally, but also to enable further reading. בנצי (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fastiflex, after, lo, these many years, I hope you are still editing Wikipedia! Whilst surfing the face of a series of writings (from Semicolon: The Past, Present, and Future of a Misunderstood Mark to The Walrus and the Carpenter, revisiting Carroll's use of punctuation, especially the now overused m-dash), I came upon the word divan and looked it up in WP. Finding the unexpected, delightfully evocative statement "All the boudoirs of that generation were garnished with divans.", I sought its source; finding that it sat, garnishing the article, in the very earliest version, I now find myself asking you, respectfully, where did you come upon that small gem of English imagery?
If you can't remember, or suspect you crafted it yourself out of thin Persian air, I will understand, having been there myself. In 2018, somebody challenged a statement I made (in October 2010) in the lede for the Frederick Douglass article: "He stood as a living counter-example to slaveholders' arguments that slaves did not have the intellectual capacity to function as independent American citizens." I could not remember whether I had stolen that phrase from some writer, or come up with it myself. So I googled it. I probably spent an hour searching, and I could not find a single reference to the 'living counter-example' phrase that was not from the Wikipedia article! So I had no way to determine if I made it up, or stole it!
Eventually, I dug some more, and found a book in Google Books with the quote: "Moreover, though he does not make the point explicitly, again the very fact that Douglass is ably disputing this argument on this occasion celebrating a select few's intellect and will (or moral character) — this fact constitutes a living counterexample to the narrowness of the pro-slavery definition of humans." So I didn't just make it up!
21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Fastifex! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Lotje (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catholicism in Canada may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hello Fastifex, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Alphabetical List of Catholic titular sees has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Fastifex. Thank you. No such user (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
