User talk:Citizen Canine

This is Citizen Canine's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Citizen Canine (March 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Citizen Canine/sandbox/User:Citizen Canine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Citizen Canine/sandbox/User:Citizen Canine, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Citizen Canine! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!

Thanks for correcting my misspelling of misspelling! What an error to make. Good eye! Enwebb (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitoria-Gasteiz changes

Why did you revert my last edition ? I see you never edited any similar page and you're pretty new at Wikipedia. May I ask why this change and what's wrong about using these flairs where they belong? --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is clear, no flag icons in info boxes. Please don't try to undermine my editing choices by pointing out my supposed inexperience, I am reasonably well-versed in Wikipedia editing policy, and no editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. You should not ignore the policy because of your political standing. Citizen Canine (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a clear policy, it is a recommendation. Since most cities from the world and Europe have it, Vitoria should have it as well, and I can't find why no one wouldn't be ok with it except for political ideologies. No, i'm aware i'm being completely neutral, since I added the official flairs which belong and represent the city of Vitoria-Gasteiz removing them shows a kind of aversion to the reality as Vitoria is a Spanish city in the Basque Country region, so flairs should be left there to show additional info. Unless if you want to edit thousands of cities worldwide to remove all of their flairs, I don't see why Vitoria should be exclusively removed within it's flairs?

I added these flairs some months ago and they were there until an anonymous user deleted them for no reason. It's a pity I didn't notice these changes until yesterday, if not, nothing of this would have happened.

I wasn't either trying to undermine your changes because you are new, I just said that because seeing your edition history, most of your edits are petty editions and you never edited nothing related to Vitoria or Spain. Your editions and writing style remind me of an user I reported last month doing very similar edits, who later got banned as he was a sockpuppet of a master banned account. For a moment, it was like a flashback for me, since after not editing any similar article, you appeared on one where I was engaged in a discussion. Anyways, I'm not blaming you for nothing, just saying it's curious. Maybe I am just a little paranoid since I had to deal with lots of clones from that user. Btw, welcome to the Wikipedia and have a nice day! --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Campuzano Polanco

Hi Citizen Canine. Thanks for the input on the article. However, the linked names are not section headings but sub-heading within section headings which is different. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_be_linked "another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question".

Linking this sub-heading names of people and event help readers understand the article better and improves its presention as well. Putting them on a See Also section does not apply since they are interconnected and relevant to the article itself and a See Main article clouds the presentation of the article with excessive repetition and does not make the article presentable.AeroCap (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-sections are still sections, so ideally their headings should not contain links. The links should be placed in the main text (and some of them already are) and articles should usually not redundantly be linked more than once, per MOS:DUPLINK. Otherwise, a {{main article}} hatnote should be placed immediately after the section heading, but only if the link cannot be inserted into the main text without it being contrived (otherwise, like you said, the presentation quality is compromised). Citizen Canine (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that sub-sections are section headings and cannot be linked. The article had good presentation the way it was and was easier to read pointing out the most notable person and events clearly through the linked sub-sectioned names and events.

I will take away the duplicated linked names in the main text and leave the subsections linked to make the most notable members and events highlightedAeroCap (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-sections are sections, like it or not, therefore the guidelines on section headings apply to them. Both MOS:HEAD and MOS:LINKSTYLE advise against placing links in section headings. Furthermore, "Don't put links in section headings" is included as one of the linking dos and don'ts. You are welcome to disregard these guidelines as long as you can come up with a good reason why this specific article should be an exception to the general rule. Citizen Canine (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Citizen Canine. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings "Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked" I think an exception can be made in this case since the guideline doesnt say a sub-section should NEVER but NORMALLY shouldnt be linked.

I think in this case an exception can be made since adding various See Main Article under various sub-headings within heading sections doesnt look presentable on this article which contains a high number of sub-headings. For simplicity, efficiency and ease of reading I believe an exception should be made here. AeroCap (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you think that's the best way to insert the links. Just remember that you should always avoid placing links in section headings unless there is no better alternative. Citizen Canine (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for the inputAeroCap (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Lust

Hi Citizen Canine. Thanks for the input on the article. However the information being removed/edited is not public information (check the source) and was taken off the public record given the dangers this posed to Kendra's family. The removed information has no effect on the article. J. Hafke Esq. (Attorney for Kendra Lust) Jhafke (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhafke (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Hitzges

The edit was originally made on air by Norm Hitzges himself, on broadcast radio to millions of people. I have reverted it back after the edit trolls like yourself have been reverting it. I'm reverting to his edit, he can edit his own Wikipedia page if he likes, he is adding information to himself, he is a first party source being himself. I am making sure his own edits stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.192.210 (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, individuals are strongly discouraged from editing articles about themselves or anyone they have a direct connection with. The information being added must be independently verifiable by a third-party source. It you want to have these changes made, please discuss them on the article talk page, in the meantime, they have been reverted. Citizen Canine (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cirsoid aneurysm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Excision (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed – Citizen Canine (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny and mass media

Hi Citizen Canine! I've removed your tag from Misogyny and mass media because there wasn't an accompanying discussion at Talk:Misogyny and mass media. Feel free to add the tag again after you've started a discussion stating how the article violates WP:NPOV. If you have any questions, please let me know! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The world's hardest logic puzzle

Hello, Citizen Canine. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, The world's hardest logic puzzle, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jamez42 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please find my response here. Citizen Canine (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anil Gupta (philosopher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tarski's theorem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Euphoria (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno da Coreca e da Lori Jo Hendrix

Buongiorno da Coreca, ti scrivo per salutarti e sapere come stai, io sto abbastanza bene per ora. Volevo chiederti una cortesia se puoi aiutarmi, quella cioè di ampliare, rimodellando la formula in inglese, la biografia di Lori Jo Hendrix, la quale ho visto che hai partecipato qualche mese fa. Io ho trovato una biografia extra Wikipedia: eccola qui e anche questa qua, che sono più o meno simili, naturalmente se posso fare qualcosa per te sono a tua completa disposizione. un caro saluto dalla Calabria--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie di avermi contattato. Sfortunatamente, imdb non è considerata una fonte attendibile, al meno per le biografe di persone viventi (vedi qui). Inoltre, le fonte secondarie sono normalmente preferite (WP:Biographies of living persons); infatti nella biografia su modelmayhem.com c'è scritto "taken from my IMDb". Allora se vuoi espandere la voce, probabilmente bisognerebbe trovare fonte migliori per prima. Cordialmente – Citizen Canine (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno di nuovo, allora facciamo così, proverò a cercare quel poco di materiale che posso arrangiare, eventualmente scrivo alla diretta interessata come ho intenzione di fare, mi farò mandare qualche stralcio di biografia. Data la tua gentilezza e la conoscenza del tedesco e della mia lingua ti segnalo anche un articolo finito in draft: Draft:Nike Fuhrmann, se per cortesia potresti ampliarlo tu un po'. grazie mille per la tua disponibilità! Se posso fare qualcosa per te non esitare a chiederlo. cordialmente--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Revan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages OMG and WTF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Un aiuto urgente per migliorare Coreca, Coreca Reefs, Coreca Caves, Fanny Cadeo

Buongiorno da Coreca, ti scrivo per salutarti e sapere come stai. Io sto abbastanza per ora, preparandomi per andare a messa. Ti scrivo per chiederti un favore, quello cioè di dare un aiuto alle fonti di questi primi articoli su Coreca, le fonti sono presenti su Wikipedia in francese e tedesco, ti chiedo la cortesia di dare una mano alle voci, anche una leggera traduzione in inglese. Per quanto riguarda Fanny Cadeo, una miglioria generale qua e là. Naturalmente se posso fare qualcosa per te chiedimi pure. un caro saluto e a presto, grazie ancora per quello che hai fatto, fai e farai per me.--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno Luigi,

Tutte le voci che hai menzionato sembrano essere in ordine, allora non sono sicuro di cosa vuoi che faccia io. Potrebbero migliorarsi certo, ma questo è sempre il caso. In ogni caso, non preoccuparti, non c'è niente urgenza. Ricordati, Wikipedia has no deadline. Devi prendere tutto il tempo necessario per migliorare il contenuto. Fra tutti questi articoli, da un breve occhiata, non sono considerevolmente più dettagliati in versione italiana, (contrariamente a ciò che si trova spesso cogli articoli nella lingua più pertinente al soggetto). Se vuoi espandere una voce sulla base della stessa voce in lingua diversa, puoi aggiungere nel primo istante questo template: Template:Expand language. Normalmente è un semplice caso di tradurlo con un computer e poi farlo controllare da una madrelingua. Cordialmente, Citizen Canine (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno di nuovo, Mi spiego meglio, ho intenzione di farli migliorare e tradurre in russo, polacco e altre lingue, ma necessitano di una miglioria qua e là, se tu potresti aggiungere le fonti in inglese dalle lingue che ti ho sottolineato te ne sarò infinitamente grato. Se ti occorre tempo fai pure. un caro saluto e grazie mille per la stima e aiuto--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

un aiuto per migliorare Angela Melillo

Buonasera da Coreca, ti scrivo per salutarti e sapere come stai, oltre a questo per chiederti un aiuto e supporto grammaticale per quanto concerne l'articolo che ho creato pochi minuti fa, sono un po' intontito dalla stanchezza, perciò mi affido alle tue sagge e amorevoli mano, quello che ti chiedo è di dedicare appena puoi 10 minuti del tuo prezioso tempo, per dare una forma più inglese e un senso logico alle frasi, naturalmente se posso fare qualcosa per te chiedimi pure. un caro saluto e a presto!--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kennel (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gutter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry about this – that was unintentional. Thanks to Gogo Dodo for pointing out my mistake. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

un aiuto per migliorare Lori Jo Hendrix

Buonasera da Coreca, ti scrivo per salutarti e ringraziarti di quello che stai facendo per me, ho chiesto aiuto a mezzo mondo per aiutare questa biografia, stamane prima di partire ho inserito la biografia che è presente su Imdb, con un po' di casini, ti chiedo per favore se puoi rimpastare l'articolo secondo i canoni, almeno dando una biografia mezza decente. Io non sono tanto bravo in inglese ancora, sto riprendendo gli studi anche in inglese in questi giorni. spero mi aiuterai o in alternativa, la facciamo tornare alla versione precedente. grazie per tutto e a presto!--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno Luigi.

Come ho detto prima, Imdb non è una fonte attendibile, siccome è creato dai contributori. E una comunità dove chiunque può iscriversi, è l'informazione è solo così affidabile come il suo ultimo contributore. In ogni caso, è proibito semplicemente copiare l'informazione esattamente dalle fonti, non solo perché potrebbe costituire un'infrazione del diretto d'autore, ma anche perche le fonte normalmente non sono scritto in un linguaggio enciclopedico. Ho capito, vuoi che io migliori la voce, ma è un po difficile farlo senza altre fonte d'accompagnarla per verificazione. È stato più facile con le altre voci che hai tradotto perche potevo confrontarlo con la versione originale. Qui sono in grado di suggerire che la dividi in sottosezioni collo scopo della leggibilità, ma oltre di questo, non credo di poterti aiutare pel momento. Cordialmente – Citizen Canine (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Catholic Church

Wall-of-text

Hi Citizen Canine, Why did you block the changes that I made on Wikipedias page about the Catholic Church and then write, "Not seeing any consensus for these changes, just one troublesome user who keeps pushing his POV to suit his ideology?"

Did you not see the fifty sources that I cited?

Did you not read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Catholic_Church ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please...

Yes, I did read Talk:History of the Catholic Church. It really is quite an achievement to find 50 sources and not have a single one support the changes being made. At most, they tell us that the Catholic Church believes itself to have been founded by Jesus. Doesn't mean it was. I believe you've already had this explained to you. More than half of those sources were "THE WRITINGS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS". Reliable sources for recording what those people believed, certainly, but not whether those beliefs were true.

You are editing against consensus, and your changes have been reverted not just by me but by two other editors. To avoid further wasting your time, I advise that you drop the stick and back away slowly.

As an aside, in future please indent your paragraphs. See Wikipedia:Indentation if you need guidance on how to do this. I find it intolerable having to navigate your word soup. Also, sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ so we don't have to check the page history to know who to attribute each comment to. Citizen Canine (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I only need one source but I provided over fifty. Lets look at just the first one:

1. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD...The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning "universal." The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

B. Would you consider this to be a Catholic Source?

C. Can you please explain to me how this citation shows that, "the Catholic Church believes itself to have been founded by Jesus?"

D. If the Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus Christ, then which church was?72.208.204.252 (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did I stump you? Okay, lets skip the first one and go to the second citation(#2 of 50)

2. ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E. (Marriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 )

B. Would you consider this to be a Catholic Source?

C. Can you please explain to me how this citation shows that, "the Catholic Church believes itself to have been founded by Jesus?"

D. If the Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus Christ, then which church was?72.208.204.252 (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what I find to be quite an achievement?

I find it to be quite an achievement that you claimed to have read, Talk:History of the Catholic Church, yet, you cannot comprehend how every single one of the 50 sources that I have cited support the changes that I had made and because of this I now need to walk you through all fifty of them- one at a time so that you can understand.72.208.204.252 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, where to begin...

Yes.

B. Would you consider this to be a Catholic Source?

Clearly not. But as mentioned, all it tells us is what the Church believes about itself.

C. Can you please explain to me how this citation shows that, "the Catholic Church believes itself to have been founded by Jesus?"

I can, IF you can explain to me how I in any way committed myself to this view in anything I wrote previously.

D. If the Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus Christ, then which church was?

Well, if you want the truthful answer, then none of them. What's the issue?

At least you tried indenting your paragraphs. That's a start. Once again proving the famous adage "Trying is the first step towards failure". Citizen Canine (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

So, we have now established that my first source, is indeed, a reliable source.... GREAT

B. Would you consider this to be a Catholic Source?}}

Clearly not.

So, we have now established that this source meets the criteria and does not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy .... GREAT

Then you said, "But as mentioned, all it tells us is what the Church believes about itself." .....WRONG

1. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD...The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning "universal." The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

Where does this statement suggest that this, "is what the Church believes about itself?" Nowhere does it state that this is what the church believes about itself.

the onus is now on you to demonstrate how this passage shows, "what the church believes about itself"72.208.204.252 (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the onus is now on you to demonstrate how this passage shows, "what the church believes about itself"

Um..."for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination". Would have thought that was pretty unequivocal but I guess not.

I don't understand why you're so determined to waste everyone's time over this, including your own. No reasonable person should take issue with the current wording "According to Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ". I don't see that there's anything more to be said. Citizen Canine (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The record shows (hint: re-read your own words) that I never stated that this is what the church believes about itself. My contention has always been that this is what history shows. (don't worry; we'll get there. For some I have to go slower than I would like to, so that they are able to follow along and understand)

You said, "But as mentioned, all it tells us is what the Church believes about itself." .....WRONG

So once again, Where does this statement suggest that this, "is what the Church believes about itself?"

Nowhere does it state that this is what the church believes about itself.

the onus is now on you to demonstrate how this passage shows, "what the church believes about itself"

or

you can admit that you made an error when you made the statement, "But as mentioned, all it tells us is what the Church believes about itself." and then retract your statement so that we can move on.72.208.204.252 (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What's at issue here is how the cited passage supports either of the two statements "According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ" and "the history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings". I'll be interested to see how you extract this from the cited passage, given that it never even mentions Jesus. As for Merriam Webster, all it says is that the RC Church "traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ". Yeah, traces its own history, just as the Emperor of Japan traces his lineage back to the Shinto Sun God Amaterasu. By your logic would it therefore be acceptable to write "Emperor Akihito is descended from Amaterasu", no ifs, no buts, that's just the way it is? I kinda doubt it. I don't know how many times we're gonna have to go through this before you get it into your head that you're fighting a losing battle. Citizen Canine (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. so we now have established that you cannot admit when you are wrong. Nevertheless, we will move on.

I next asked, C. Can you please explain to me how this citation shows that, "the Catholic Church believes itself to have been founded by Jesus?"}}

You said, "I can, IF you can explain to me how I in any way committed myself to this view in anything I wrote previously."

I think it is clear to see how you committed yourself to this view by me using your own words to show you what you wrote previously.

Like I said earlier, "OK. so we now have established that you cannot admit when you are wrong."

Nevertheless, we will move on.

You then said, "OK. What's at issue here is how the cited passage supports either of the two statements "According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ" and "the history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings". I'll be interested to see how you extract this from the cited passage, given that it never even mentions Jesus. As for Merriam Webster, all it says is that the RC Church "traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ". Yeah, traces its own history, just as the Emperor of Japan traces his lineage back to the Shinto Sun God Amaterasu. By your logic would it therefore be acceptable to write "Emperor Akihito is descended from Amaterasu", no ifs, no buts, that's just the way it is? I kinda doubt it. I don't know how many times we're gonna have to go through this before you get it into your head that you're fighting a losing battle. Citizen Canine (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this one sentence you have made two errors and several assertions.

So, in order to discredit you, I will address these one at a time.

Error #1 You quoted the passage to read "the history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings"

The actual FULL quotation reads, "The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus.[1]"

Assertion #1. What's at issue here is how the cited passage supports either of the two statements "According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ" and "the history of the Catholic Church begins with

Jesus Christ and his teachings". I'll be interested to see how you extract this from the cited passage, given that it never even mentions Jesus.

Here's how...

(Hint: The man who founded the religion was referred to as Jesus [Christ]. According to history (as I will demonstrate to you with these 50+ citations) He was on earth in the 1st century

starting a religion).

1. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian [Christ] denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD...The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning "universal." The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

Error #2. You stated, "as for Merriam Webster, all it says is that the RC Church "traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ".

The actual FULL quotation reads, "2. ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E. (Marriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 )

(Hint: The man who founded the religion was referred to as Jesus [Christ]. According to history (as I will demonstrate to you with these 50+ citations) He was on earth in the 1st century starting a religion).

Citizen canine, please do not allow your atheism to interfere with sound judgement. This is not trying to convince you or anyone for that matter, that God is real or that God is not real. Or that Jesus is God or that Jesus is not God.

All this is stating is that, "The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus.[1]"

and secondly,

According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.[8]

Therefore, your unsophisticated analogy about "Emperor [[Akihito] is irrelevant.

Shall we continue on to source #3 of 50?72.208.204.252 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just can't let it go can you?

And still having trouble properly formatting your paragraphs. You know, it'd be a lot easier for me to respond if your comments were at least semi-legible.

Fine, if you believe the two statements "The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus." and "According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ." are supported as reliable assertions by ANY of the sources you cited, go ahead and make those changes again. I very much look forward to seeing how it goes down 😎 Citizen Canine (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You chose wisely, son!

Furthermore, how can you expect me to just, " Let It Go", when Wikipedia's integrity and credibility is at stake? (rhetorical question- no answer necessary)

Nice chatting with you. I will work on "properly formatting" my paragraphs. Take it easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zenadix,

Thank you for your response.

The beginning of the article reads, "According to tradition, the history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian :::community established by Jesus."

I made a change by removing the preposition "according to tradition"

thereby allowing the passage to read, "The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by :::Jesus."

This is what the hoopla is all about.

Can you please explain to me how this somehow changes the meaning of the first line of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

72.208.204.252 (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"Tradition" is, by the definition employed here on Wikipedia, "a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past." So the phrase "according to tradition" makes a rather important difference to the meaning. 50 sources seems a little overkill when 5 would have done. You threatened to go through them one-by-one challenging me to show how they do not support the proposed changes, as opposed to it being your responsibility to show that they do. To avoid the bother I suggested that you "go ahead and make those changes again" (I wonder if this wasn't your intention?). I did not mean that I agreed with those changes, I apologise if you were led to that conclusion. Citizen Canine (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, and for the time being, I would accept Zenadix's compromise at the beginning of this thread, "I agree that the original wording is preferable, and would support reverting back to it. Alternatively, a compromise :::solution would be to change it to something like "The Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus Christ" or "The Catholic Church traces its history to Jesus Christ and the Apostles", :::which could potentially satisfy everyone. — Zenadix (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)."

Hi Zenadix,

Thank you for your response.

The beginning of the article reads, "According to tradition, the history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus."

I made a change by removing the preposition "according to tradition" thereby allowing the passage to read, "The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus."

This is what the hoopla is all about.

Can you please explain to me how this somehow changes the meaning of the first line of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC) 72.208.204.252 (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"Tradition" is, by the definition employed here on Wikipedia, "a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past." So the phrase "according to tradition" makes a rather important difference to the meaning. 50 sources seems a little overkill when 5 would have done. You threatened to go through them one-by-one challenging me to show how they do not support the proposed changes, as opposed to it being your responsibility to show that they do. To avoid the bother I suggested that you "go ahead and make those changes again" (I wonder if this wasn't your intention?). I did not mean that I agreed with those changes, I apologise if you were led to that conclusion. Citizen Canine (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Citizen Canine, you wrote, "Tradition" is, by the definition employed here on Wikipedia, "a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past."

If you quote the passage in it's entirety "Tradition" is, by the definition employed here on Wikipedia, A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past.[1][2] Common examples include holidays or impractical but socially meaningful clothes (like lawyers' wigs or military officers' spurs), but the idea has also been applied to social norms such as greetings. Traditions can persist and evolve for thousands of years—the word "tradition" itself derives from the Latin tradere literally meaning to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping. While it is commonly assumed that traditions have ancient history, many traditions have been invented on purpose, whether that be political or cultural, over short periods of time. Various academic disciplines also use the word in a variety of ways."

The next paragraph reads: "The phrase "according to tradition," or "by tradition," usually means that whatever information follows is known only by oral tradition, but is not supported, (and perhaps may be refuted) by physical documentation, by a physical artifact, or other quality evidence." Tradition is used to indicate the quality of a piece of information being discussed. For example, "According to tradition, Homer was born on Chios, but many other locales have historically claimed him as theirs." This tradition may never be proven or disproven. In another example, "King Arthur, by tradition a true British king, has inspired many well loved stories." Whether they are documented fact or not does not decrease their value as cultural history and literature.

Regarding your answer to the question that I posed to Zenadix:

If the preposition "according to tradition" is absolutely necessary, and apparently it is because each time I tried to delete it someone put it back; then wouldn't it be the responsibility of those who required the preposition to be a part of the sentence in the first place, to document and provide sources that show why this preposition is absolutely necessary in this sentence? Further, how should we go about explaining away what the second paragraph of the "Tradition" article states about tradition in bold letters?

I concur with your next comment, "So the phrase "according to tradition" makes a rather important difference to the meaning."

If, (the phrase "according to tradition" makes a rather important difference to the meaning) and (The phrase "according to tradition," or "by tradition," usually means that whatever information follows is known only by oral tradition, but is not supported, (and perhaps may be refuted) by physical documentation, by a physical artifact, or other quality evidence), then why is there a consensus by Wikipedia editors to leave it in?

I suppose we can edit, censor, obscure, and silence what the Wikipedia articleTradition says about what tradition is, in order to contradict this point that I have raised.

I must caution you though, that if we are to embark on such a mission to obscure historical truths and historical facts in order for it to fit our narrative, we will be embarking on a very steep and dangerous slippery slope which will surely arouse indignation for all of Wikipedia and its editors.

Hello Citizen Canine,

Indeed, it was my intention to,"go ahead and make those changes again", immediately following our dialogue. Unfortunately, because of Wikipedia's WP:EDITWAR policy I was forced to wait the time stipulated in the policy to make the changes. While waiting, I was threatened and bullied not to make the changes (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ad_Orientem). As a result, I will continue my dialogue with the hopes that you, or someone else reading this, will make the changes on my behalf. Additionally, and for the time being, I would accept Zenadix's compromise at the beginning of this thread, "I agree that the original wording is preferable, and would support reverting back to it. Alternatively, a compromise solution would be to change it to something like "The Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus Christ" or "The Catholic Church traces its history to Jesus Christ and the Apostles", which could potentially satisfy everyone. — Zenadix (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)."[reply]

What Church is this wikipedia article referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church 72.208.204.252 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

72.208.204.252 (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words

The point you make doesn't really stack up. Of course someone who can speak German and French is multilingual and it's so obvious that it adds nothing as an example. On the other hand, to claim a multilingual ability for AmE and BrE is nothing short of a lie, and so it isn't a weasel word/phrase - it's an untruth, as claims involving any other language variants would be (e.g. Canadian-French and 'French-French'). The numeric examples are good, and really they are all that's needed. "You say you are multilingual? Great. How many languages is that"? 31.52.166.114 (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The German-French case is added there as a point of contrast, not as a separate example. The point is "I speak two languages" could refer to either. Of course "I speak two languages" is misleading if I'm referring to AmE and BrE, it's stretching the truth, but so would it be if I was referring to Hindi and Urdu. Distinguishing languages from dialects is problematic, controversial and arbitrary. Your preferred version only points out the vagueness of the "multi-" bit, not that of "lingual". This is important as it is largely responsible for why the label "multilingual" is so uninformative by itself. Citizen Canine (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the structure of the current example, but the point I'm making is that you're not multilingual at all if your languages are just variants, and that includes Hindi and Urdu. 'Multilingual' has a very specific meaning and the 'lingual' element means nothing on its own in the overall context. The meaning is a claim to be able to speak more than one language, not including variants or dialects. The only aspect of weaselness (new word?) is that the number of languages is not specified. I'm actually wondering whether 'multilingual' and 'cross-platform' should be there at all. What do you think? 31.52.166.114 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: you might want to move this to the article Talk page, or are you happy for it to be here? 31.52.166.114 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying if I claim to be "multilingual" but only speak variants of the same language, I'm not hiding my lack of linguistic power behind a vague term, I'm just straight-up lying. But on what basis are you calling them "language variants" rather than just "different languages"? Scots, for example, is officially a language in its own right, but many linguists think it is sufficiently similar to English to be classed a dialect. Hindi and Urdu are more similar to one another than are Mandarin and Cantonese, but Hindi and Urdu are officially classed as different languages, whereas Mandarin and Cantonese are officially considered dialects of the "Chinese language". If I claim to "speak many languages" every word in that phrase is vague and subject to debate. Mutual intelligibility is used to distinguish languages from dialects, but even then, it's not clear when its conditions are met. It varies enormously according to accent, context, or whether the language is being considered in its written or spoken form. Languages might be mutually intelligible when talking about food but not when talking about politics, for example. Clearly it's not just the "many" or "multi-" that causes the issue, otherwise why is "multilingual" chosen as a specific example and not just any phrase using the word "many" or "multi"?. I think the entries "Multilingual" and "Cross-platform" deserve their places in the list as they are common and well-known terms which are nonetheless vague at best and misleading at worst.

Though of course, if you think there's valid reason for their inclusion to be challenged, you're welcome to start a discussion on the article talk page. You can always just copy/paste this discussion or add a link to this section. Citizen Canine (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll continue the discussion over there and link to here. I noticed the issue has already been raised on the Talk page, so I'll continue the thread. Thanks. 31.52.166.114 (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Momo Challenge watch

Thank you for watching over Momo Challenge and repeatedly reverting vandalism. I've put significant efforts in getting this page right, separating facts from hysteria, but none of that means anything if vandals shred the page with stupid comments. Cheers (raising my glass of lemonade to you)! Robincantin (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I revert vandalism wherever it occurs and that page has been a frequent target. I finally had it semi-protected. Citizen Canine (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cornish Main Line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St Ives

Cupboard love (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Learning theory

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed – Citizen Canine (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

49.215.129.109

Thanks for keeping the ship afloat! See User:Jim1138/Single use IP for a list of articles that I put together. I asked Oshwah for advice user talk:Oshwah#Anon removing content Cheers Jim1138 talk 11:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some users can be such troublemakers. Won't someone go ahead and block already? Citizen Canine (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The anon will just change IPs. Just look through those articles' edit history. The articles probably need PP. Cheers Jim1138 talk 12:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist to the rescue! Jim1138 talk 12:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Robin

Was Christopher Robin a bomb? 66.31.161.101 (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. Why ask me anyway? The only edit I've ever made to that article was this, all the way back in June. Citizen Canine (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Citizen Canine. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Citizen Canine. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Hydrotherapy

Hi I removed the image because this is not good practice of dog hydrotherapy, in fact its very low standard. I wasn't able to insert a new image as I had to wait for my profile to be validated

There are great standards and codes of practice in the UK. National Association of canine hydrotherapists, of which I am the chair man.

I will remove the image again and leave a not/edit

Thanks

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.10.58 (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unhyphenated "false negative" on Health of Adolph Hitler

Thanks. This kind of tangles are generally very silly, but I do not think I've had met a sillier one than this. 80.182.219.166 (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Almost immediately after I restored the unhyphenated version, JDiPierro was indefinitely blocked from editing as a "compromised account". What's going on there? Citizen Canine (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Might have been a coincidence; it certainly wasn't me. 80.182.219.166 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if you check JdiPierro's editing history, there's a number of interesting details. The bulk of his edits was in 2008 plus a small number of edits between then and now. Today, he started a rampage of reverts with no rule or explanation, a few of which have been revdeleted. It probably _was_ a compromised account. 80.182.219.166 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

un aiuto per Claudia Letizia

Buon Pomeriggio da Coreca, ti scrivo per salutarti e sapere come stai, io sto abbastanza been per ora. Ti scrivo inoltre per chiederti un piccolo aiuto a livello grammaticale su un articolo che ho creato poco fa, riguardante un'attrice italiana. Claudia Letizia, mi chiedevo se potresti dedicarci 3 minuti del tuo prezioso tempo, qui l'articolo che ho dovuto abbozzare, e che non è andato bene agli amministratori italofoni, ti chiedo la cortesia di dedicarci un po' di tempo per migliorarlo in inglese, eventualmente al resto penserò io. per adesso grazie mille e buon pomeriggio ancora--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno Luigi,

Ho fatto quello possibile per ora, ma quest'articolo non c'è in versione italiana. Da dove hai preso le informazioni? Sarebbe più facile si potessi confrontarlo con la versione originale. Per esempio, che significa "the two seasons"? Entrambe stagioni o le prime due stagioni?

Grazie. Citizen Canine (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buonasera, in italiano ancora non c'è per ora, a Dio piacendo non tarderà ad arrivare. Per quanto riguarda two seasons riguarda ambodue le stagioni, Se mi potresti dare un ulteriore mano te ne sarei infinitamente grato. un caro saluto da Coreca--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Citizen Canine, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Everedux (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Yvonne Calment photo and re- reverted to caption on Jeanne Calment article

If the photo is not Jeanne, the subject of the article, and the caption refers to a mistake by no one who you can identify, (ie not the book it is reffed to) then what is the justification for having the photo there with any caption, especially one that does not say who made the mistake or what its relevance to acceptance of Calment's longevity claim is, eh? I think you have explained why the picture should be removed entirely.Overagainst (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne is clearly relevant in that section, as it is all about the allegation she may have usurped her mother's identity. And since the photo was, as the caption explains, previously misidentified as Jeanne, then the photo is relevant to that hypothesis beyond the mere fact that it is a picture of Yvonne. For example, it may explain why no-one noticed the usurpation of identity, assuming there was one, as comparing pictures of old "Jeanne" to the picture of the young Yvonne, mistakenly thinking it was actually Jeanne, would show the expected age progression. Yvonne's strong resemblance to her mother is clearly relevant to the possibility she stole her identity – a resemblance that led to the error in the first place. None of the points you have raised are reasons for removal. If you want to make explicit that it was the Gerontology Research Group that was behind the mistaken identity (they certainly partook in the error even if they didn't originate it), then that's acceptable.
Cordially yours – Citizen Canine (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

French experts in the study of supercentenarians Robine and Allard are the ones who authenticated Calment for a non-profit funded by a French pharma company. The American Gerontology Research Group had no part, and mentioning they made a mistake is undue weight on them in Calment's article. The photo of Yvonne reffed to the book saying it was Yvonne is OK I suppose.Overagainst (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really undue, as the GRG is a global organisation (centered in the US) and highly prestigious in that field, so their mislabelling the picture is noteworthy. And the error was perpetuated by many different sources, including Wikipedia itself. A 1988 article by Paris Match also mistakenly referred to the photo as representing Jeanne. To include the photo and not mention that it was so widely and for so long mislabelled as a picture of Jeanne, especially in the context of the possibility that her daughter may have assumed her identity, would be nothing short of sacrilege. Citizen Canine (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slavery and religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islam and slavery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

for ur hard work

ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for ZuiTube

An article that you have been involved in editing—ZuiTube—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. _Mrwoogi010 ^✉ 17:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re: Giovanni Gonnelli

Thanks for correcting the silly mistake in the title of Giovanni Gonnelli. I tried to fixed this a long time ago, but without success. Leo Uroboros (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

christchurch mosque attack reaction

It's amazing how we even need to argue over something like this. Keep at it. Syopsis (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IKR? Crazy that the opinion of a YouTube celebrity is apparently worthy of mention, yet that of the most powerful man on Earth isn't. Citizen Canine (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope it's just a trump thing and not a country or religion or even race bashing one but i'm not holding my breath. I'm all for talking politics (events like these are inherently political) but you would think people would already know there are some things we just don't need to debate...Syopsis (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please leave the hidden comment in place. Reverts should only be used for blatant vandalism etc. Otherwise you should use the talk page for consensus. As per the talk page, we are trying to minimise WP:recentism. It's a thing.Mozzie (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you removed the tag. I'm just getting sick of being reverted for my {{WP:GODFAITH]] edits. Please leave the tag in place. Reaction sections have a habit of being filled up with newsworthy, but ultimately historically unnotable platitudes.Mozzie (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mozzie. That an edit is in good faith is no safeguard against it being reverted. I just don't see how the tag is helpful. I ALWAYS leave an edit summary when reverting good-faith edits. I'm not aware of any guideline suggesting that we pre-discuss reverts, even if an article is experiencing a high level of attention and activity. If I ever Rollback a GF edit of yours or anyone else, or even just "Undo" it without leaving a custom edit summary, don't hesitate to take it up with me. Cordially – Citizen Canine (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just your reverts, there is a lot of edit warring going on that page. To quote Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary: Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting.

If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.

Basically, reverts are a very, very last resort.Mozzie (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Is that "It isn't just your reverts" or "It isn't just your reverts"? I understand it's frustrating when edits you believe are helpful are reverted, but try to appreciate the other viewpoint. If you really believe there's something wrong with the section, go ahead and change it. Tags are often just a way of saying "there's a problem with the article but I can't be bothered to fix it myself". And by all means edit boldly, but recognise that that means your edits may be reverted. I see the template has now been removed again, and I agree that its use is inappropriate for such a recent event. You may have noticed that Template:Recentism under "When and where not to use this template" itself reads: "Please be aware that some articles and/or sections are specifically devoted to recent events. Be mindful of the topic and context of the article and section in question." (emphasis added). Cordially – Citizen Canine (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why it's "Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand"

See Talk:New_Zealand#Elizabeth_1_or_2 Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thoughts?

At talk TPG I agree a better short cut is a good idea. However, I noted criticisms of OTHERTALK and suggested an alternative phrasing. I look forward to your thoughts about the other wording and if that will work for you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for the assistance at Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! Citizen Canine (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]