Jump to content

User talk:Antique Rose/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gazifikator

[edit]

Does not this new user - [1] - seem a lot like Gazifikator and its sock Rast 5? Its Armenia-pushing on page Tbilisi and its edits to Karabakh and other Armenia-articles seems pretty suspicions. Some edit summaries do seem legitimate but I think its just a way of establishing a stable sock.

Francesco Borromini

[edit]

See Talk:Francesco Borromini. Coccodrillo (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have no objection to the current wording of the infobox. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 14:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may be helpful or it may not

[edit]

Hello AR. I had noticed the IPs edits that you reverted on the Audrey Hepburn article and it reminded me that I had seen this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#UBL or Plainlist.3F discussion earlier today. Now I know very little about wikiprogramming especially when it comes to how things work in the infobox. On the off chance that the IP was removing the UBLs because of the problem mentioned in the thread (and yes they also made other changes that weren't helpful) I thought I would let you know about it. Again my understanding of the situation is slim so if you know that everything is A OK please forgive me for taking up your time. Thanks for you vigilance on AHs article and elsewhere and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Well, I'm not too familiar with this kind of Wiki layout. Anyway, from time to time misinformed nationalists try to alter the text. Cheers! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 21:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Heydrich

[edit]

Hi, regarding the caption under the picture: I was going with the tab on his collar and after checking it appear that 3 leaves only became the insignia of a SS-Brigadeführer in 1943 so that at the time of the picture, it would indeed represent a SS-Gruppenführer so, sorry for the false correction.Marc pasquin (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. :) But didn't Brigadeführer get 3 leaves in 1942? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 19:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oops, sorry, I mistyped (never a good show to apologise for a mistake with a typo). Yes, to be precise, april 1942 according to "Himmler's Black Order" by Robin Lumsden.Marc pasquin (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages

[edit]

Hi, As stated on my user page, I plan to gradually fade away from Wikipedia. I am still watching some pages, but not as often as before, and the trend will be to reduce involvement. Given that you have been watching some key pages and making sure things do not get out of order, If you could add a few pages to your watchlist and guard against vandalism and crazy edits that will be appreciated. Most of these pages are very stable and hardly get any vandalism, but it would still be good to have someone look at them once in a while.

I think what you may be interested falls into three groups:

Many of the Marian pages were Afd-ed before together and survived intact, and hardly get any vandalism, but still may need occasional attention.

In any case, most of those articles are complete now. There are occasional outbursts by IPs, but if you just keep an eye on them they should be fine. There are also other people watching some of them, but your attention to them will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to hold the fort, even though I'm not so active these days. Sorry to see you fade away. Laudetur Jesus Christus! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. History2007 (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AIV filing

[edit]

Sorry to see the AIV staff deny your request for block. If you are interested in more information regarding the effort to curb this kind of sneaky vandalism you might be interested in checking out WP:SVT. Thanks for keeping a vigilant eye out for Wikipedia! -Thibbs (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 14:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Child to Child Jesus

[edit]

I am new to these workings. No dissent or contradiction is intended. The redirection of Christ Child to Child Jesus is fine. Know that those who are "christ childs" are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16 nails (talk • contribs) 04:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, but I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. Best regards Antique Rose — Drop me a line 20:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...

[edit]
Colossians 1:15-16


Merry Christmas!
History2007 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Maria Antiqua, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Restoration and Antiquity (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Reverting My Edits

[edit]

Why did you revert my edits? --Splashen (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also concerned about your edits to the article on Maria Goretti. She wasn’t actually raped, so should she be included in the category “Rape victims”?TheTruth-2009 (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Maria Goretti wasn't raped, ergo she is not a rape victim. I should have undone the edit instead of reverting it. I'm sorry! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I wasn’t happy with her being included in the category ″Rape victims″, I don’t feel as strongly about the category ″Rape in Italy″: a discussion on that subject could include failed attempts. This is consistent with the categories for St Agnes.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church

[edit]

Is there some controversy with giving the full name of a church with this word? Daniel the Monk (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Articles on Roman churches don't have this "church" addendum. Please see Category:Roman Catholic churches in Rome. Is there any particular reason for naming the article "San Pietro in Montorio Church", rather than "San Pietro in Montorio"? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 23:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geraldshields11/sandbox/Dalminia

[edit]

Dear fellow Fashion Project editor, I am working on a major rework of the artice about Damiani (jewelry company) at my sandbox User:Geraldshields11/sandbox/Dalminia. Please would you add comments or suggest edits on that sandbox page. Thank you in advance. My best regards, Gerald Shields Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

О Тамаре Тумановой

[edit]

Я не владею английским языком. Поэтому только в русской статье я могу размещать ссылки на документы касающиеся Тамары Тумановой. Ссылка на русскоязычную статью поможет увидеть копии документов касающиеся Тамары и ее родителей. Но в принципе Вы правы. Shulyatikov (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

:^ 'I do not speak English. Therefore, only in Russian article, I can not post links to documents

related to Tamara Tumanova. Reference to the Russian article will see copies of documents relating to Tamara and her parents. But basically you're right.' - translated

Maximilian Kolbe

[edit]

I see you were one of the major contributors to this article. I am currently finishing a rewrite, and I hope to nominate this for WP:GAN. One of my major weaknesses is that I am not an English speaker, so the article could use some copy editing. I am also not an expert on Christian topics, so I'd appreciate if a person more familiar with this area could ensure any terminology and such is correct. Would you be able to help? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, but I do not consider myself a major contributor to the article in question. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 23:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you re-writing an English language article about a Catholic figure if you are not strong in English and you are weak in the area of Christian topics, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here ? It sounds like that re-write would be an article better left to others with more expertise. Taram (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Taram: Because I am not seeing said experts do it, and I am an expert on Polish topics. Which presumably said experts are not. You know, this is a collaborative project. Check what it means - it's a useful word to learn around here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here -- Sorry my question offended you. I was and am just really fascinated by why people are interested in studying and working in areas that they choose to edit. You seemed like the perfect person to ask in that regard. I am sorry that I was mistaken. Taram (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Taram: No worries, sorry for being too snippy myself. I am more than happy to talk about my edits, but I read your comment in a way that implied that you think that only experts on Christianity should edit Christianity articles, which ruffled my feathers. I am glad that we could strengthen our misunderstanding out. Btw, if you know a thing or two about Christianity, or are just interesting in an article about a WWII-era saint martyr, please don't hesitate to check it out and leave any comments or do fixes! Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here! I will take a look at the page for St. Maximilian Kolbe, for sure. I know I will enjoy learning from you. I did not know anybody who was an expert in Polish matters until I met you here. So, this will be new for me. Today, I am studying Tra le sollecitudini by Pope Pius X and Mediator Dei by Pius XII (I am writing a thesis and these documents lead up to my topic), so I will only be able to look at your article later in the week, but I promise I will look at it and enjoy reading it! Thank you again! Taram (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus -- I finally got around to reading and coming up with thoughts about your excellent page for St. Maximilian Kolbe. My aopo;ogies for taking so long. Left comments on your talk page rather than taking up any more space on Antique Rose's page. Taram (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback is more than welcome

[edit]

Hi there. Your feedback and viewpoint is more than welcome at this page: Talk:Michael Kors (brand). Thanks and take care. Tinton5 (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 21:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colosseum

[edit]

Hello Antique Rose; Please, what is the reason for deleting the 2 PBS external link videos?

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links, which is subjective, they are allowed, they provide photos and videos not available in the article, and expand the info in the article, and seem consistent with other external links? Thank you,--Jcardazzi (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi[reply]

I do not see how a video preview and a short paragraph of text expand the info of the article. In addition, there is an offer to buy the DVD. Looks more like a commercial link to me. Best regards, Antique Rose — Drop me a line 20:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Antique Rose, PBS is not commercial, it is non-profit American Public television. NOVA is a science program run by PBS.

NOVA has 2 Free Videos: (a viewer may have to wait several seconds to see the play arrow appear) showing animation and video descriptions of the construction and operation of the Colosseum

1. Colosseum Building Blocks: a 2 minute video describing the technique of using repeating arches in the exterior and interior, perpendicularly to build the Colosseum.

2. Colosseum: Roman Death Trap( I dislike the name myself) is a 53 minute video describing the building and operation of the Colosseum. There is a buy DVD link option, provided with most public television programs, the purchase is non-profit, a person can watch the video for free, without buying the DVD.

I found the 2 videos are contained in this 1 website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/search/results/page/1/include-education/only/include-all/Y/include-teachers/N?q=colosseum&x=7&y=12

Wrong notice sent by the user

[edit]

I have showed the consensus built for my content addition and yet false notice of Edit warring is being sent to me. Arjun1491 (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not at all false, as has been explained to you on your talk page. A discussion between two users doesn't mean consensus. Please, do not resume your edit war, or you will face being blocked. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 20:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with your rollbacks on my former IP user talk page

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:78.225.149.66, you may be blocked from editing.

Hi Antique Rose,

This is your third misguided revert with no summary explaining the reason on my former IP user talk page, as shown on the history below. Please leave this page alone now, as this can be considered abuse of the rollback feature (re-read Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback: “Use of standard rollback for any other purpose (...) is likely to be considered misuse of the tool”). My edits are legitimate as per WP:OWNTALK (specifically: acknowledge warning/cleanup). 

2016-07-19T18:55:40‎ Antique Rose        m . . (2,786 bytes) (+802)‎ . . (Reverted edits by VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) to last version by Antique Rose)
2016-07-17T18:17:35‎ VonBlinkendenzwoelf m . . (1,984 bytes) (-802)‎ . . (Undid revision 730146887 by Antique Rose (talk) cleanup once again. Antique Rose please stop reverting, this is likely to start a dispute. Thanks.)
2016-07-17T01:35:37‎ Antique Rose        m . . (2,786 bytes) (+802)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 78.225.149.66 (talk) to last version by Antique Rose)
2016-07-15T15:47:30‎ 78.225.149.66         . . (1,984 bytes) (-802)‎ . . (Undid revision 729892990 by Antique Rose (talk): cleanup. This is a shared IP, I have since then opened an account. Thanks for not reverting again.)
2016-07-15T08:42:46‎ Antique Rose        m . . (2,786 bytes) (+802)‎ . . (Reverted edits by VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) to last version by FoCuSandLeArN)

For now I am going to undo your changes one last time. Any further action on your part is likely to take the dispute to WP:ANI. We all have better to do, so thanks for your understanding and cooperation.

Cheers, VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know that it's your talk page? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 21:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There, singled out for you:
2016-07-17T01:35:37‎ Antique Rose m . . (2,786 bytes) (+802)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 78.225.149.66 (talk) to last version by Antique Rose)
2016-07-15T15:47:30‎ 78.225.149.66 . . (1,984 bytes) (-802)‎ . . (Undid revision 729892990 by Antique Rose (talk): cleanup. This is a shared IP, I have since then opened an account. Thanks for not reverting again.)
Same IP. Is that enough? If not you can check history, there is enough evidence there. If that's still not enough, I can drop you a line from that IP tomorrow.
Cheers, VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I apologize for my faux pas. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for apologizing. That was welcome and appreciated. (You may now remove the warning above or archive this whole section.) -- Cheers, VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Antique Rose. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Revert

[edit]

Why? Its banterous. There was the same for Christmas. Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 20:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Southern

[edit]

She is legally a man. I was simply providing correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.83.24 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 03:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fangusu attacking Tights

[edit]

I noticed you had reverted vandalism on Tights in the past citing that it was User:Fangusu. I wanted you to know that it appears to be happening again. One of the IPs also left you a taunting message on your talk - I reverted it. If I was out of line for reverting stuff on your talk page, my apologies. Let me know and I won't do it again.

Anyways I've requested page protection on Tights, but wanted to keep you in the loop. --KNHaw (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the IPs trolling! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

[edit]

You also appear to have breached 3RR. Do you claim an exemption? El_C 01:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a few more hours. After that, I'll be forced to issue a block. El_C 11:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A block? For what reason? I was reverting edits, that clearly violated the guidelines concerning the "saint" title and the instructions at WP:MOS. I was not the only user, who reverting these inaccurate changes. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 13:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. You violated WP:3RR (almost 10 reverts!), so unless you can cite an exemption, a block is due. El_C 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting edits to align them with the MOS does not count as an exemption from 3RR. You should have gone to AN3 after the third revert, before violating 3RR. El_C 13:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Blocking policy "blocks should not be punitive" and from Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive I read "Administrative sanctions against editors are not punitive, and imposed solely to prevent harm to the encyclopedia". In what way did I cause harm to the encyclopedia? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 13:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You edit warred, reverting 10 times, instead of going to AN3 after 3 reverts. So some form of sanctions are due. Since the disruption is over for now, I'd be willing to sanction you with 0RR on all articles for 72 hours, if you can demonstrate you understand what you did wrong. Otherwise, I fear you would repeat the behaviour. El_C 13:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Point taken. I will stay calm for 72 hours. After all, I've been around for almost eleven years... Antique Rose — Drop me a line 19:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. El_C 23:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Gielgud

[edit]

You clearly have form for warring, so I'll add this to your indictment sheet, too. Please stop warring on the above. If you have issues, discuss the matter on the talk page. Thank you. CassiantoTalk 11:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indictment sheet? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 11:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm likening it to such seeing as you clearly have a MO for such behaviour. This kind of activity will see you blocked and these incidences will form further justification. CassiantoTalk 11:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see... Antique Rose — Drop me a line 03:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antique_Rose/Archive2&oldid=1140808086"