User talk:Maurice Carbonaro/Archives/006

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Dialogues of the Gods, Maurice Carbonaro!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

reviewed as part of page curation, interesting,It has references though its auto-showing as needing citations.

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Portugal and Orange (Laranja/Naranja)

Dear Maurice Carbonaro, I do not even know yet the history of Greek terminology for Orange, but I assume that they used the term of Persian origin Arantia / Orange / Oranje (this one of Sanskrit origin) like most or much of the Ancient World who knew the fruit (and most(?) of Indo-European languages who knew the fruit)

In fact Portugal came from the local place and region of Portucale, Portus Galle, Cale (also called Gale). Connection with the Gallaeci etc. (the name itself (not the state) with already more than 2000 years)

And Portugal do have a relation with the Orange:

Even before the official scientific discovery of the scurvy, the Portuguese in their global expansion (especially in the Indian Ocean in this case) in the 16th century, showed a great need for vitamin and refreshments as oranges for the hungry and for this disease, that led to the Arab world (who used "Orange" before) and even much of the Iranians (who were a source of the original word) the adoption of the name of Portugal ( Arabic "Portukali /Portugali/Burtugall" and the Persian "Porteghal") for this fruit.

On the other side was Portugal that eventually spread further into the western world and not only the name of Persian and Sanskrit (before) origin and the West: Laranja/Naranja (Oranje).

Has been a popular replacement of this terminology in the Greek world after the sixteenth century by Ottoman influence, Arabic influence etc.? Maybe?

Thanks for your contribution. Any way it's good the debate and to have new ideas and sources for the etymologies. --LuzoGraal (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of Italo-Turkish War

Hallo,
please revert your move of the article of the Italo-Turkish War. What you introduced is a totally unnecessary disambiguation, since there has been only a war between Italy and Turkey. Unfortunately, in order to revert the move you have to go thorugh an administrator. In the future, before moving an article, please discuss it on the Talk page. Alex2006 (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing attempt of the Italo-Turkish War

Hallo,
I am sorry about it: I didn't know it was so important. I have tried to undo my change... but system didn't allow me.
Sorry again.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, everyone makes errors. :-) But you should understand that what you introduced is a disambiguation, and this is only necessary if there is more than an article that could be described with this title. This is not (yet :-)) the case for the wars between Italy and Turkey, since until now we had only one war. Moreover, undoing the move is complicated, since now the new name (which is the old one) is occupied: that's why the system blocks you. So, in the future please be very careful about moving articles. Anyway, I asked an administrator if he can help. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Maurice, please stop making experiments: you cannot move pages it that way: the history remains by the moved page. An admin will take care of the move. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Alex2006 (talk),

I think I have fixed the problem even if I am not an Administrator...Please check it out: Italo-Turkish War. Sorry about the inconvenience. Catch you later...Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you made only a bigger mess. Please read what I wrote above, and REFRAIN FROM TOUCHING THESE PAGES IN THE NEXT HOURS. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opz... well I just file a Request for comments on the Administrators' noticeboard. Sorry again.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you guys work this out? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo All, yes, via template. :-) Maurice, the reason why you cannot move a page manually via copy-paste is that in doing so you move only the text, but not the history of the article. Now an admin did the move. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, I see... I 4got that... thanks! And sorry again for the inconvenience... :O) Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De facto

Hi. Since you took the trouble to make a request in your edit summary here, a quick response. I won't revert—I don't think it matters much—but I wouldn't link it. While it is Latin, it is English as well (note the lack of italics) and in rather common usage, and I suspect a quick consult with the dictionary would be more useful than wading through an encyclopedia article. After all, it expresses a fairly simple concept. My two cents, fwiw. Rivertorch (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one of your edits on 2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian sea

Dear Mr. Carbonaro, I wonder why you added a link to Operation Atalanta, and not to other similar naval operations by other international organization with the same scope, i.e. Combined Task Force 150 and 151 and Operation Ocean Shield as well. Is there a reason for Atalanta to be more relevant to the article subject than the other naval operations that eludes me?

Thanks in advance

89.97.208.106 (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr/Mrs 89.97.208.106 (talk),

thanks for suggesting me some other articles. The reason for "Operation Atalanta" to "be more relevant" is that I honestly didn't know about other naval operations in the area.

As you can notice yourself I have just added them. Please feel free to discuss about any further relevant issues about the 2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea article in its' talk page.

Please keep up the good work.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks 89.97.208.106 (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Onus of proof (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) 11:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

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.

Agenzia Informazioni e Sicurezza Esterna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to SID and SIM

Oktoberfest terror attack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TNT

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using images on talk pages

Images can be helpful to illustrate a point on a talk page, but make sure it's clear who put them there and why - if an image is just floating next to a talk thread, it can be hard to see which editor it came from. (I've gone ahead and cut your Men in Black picture, as it didn't seem to be related to the topic at hand, but you're free to paste it on your userpage or something if you found it amusing.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please be a bit more thoughtful with images in talk page comments - it's making your arguments quite hard to follow when sentences of them may or may not be outboxed in captions of floating images. If you think other editors may be unfamiliar with a term you've used, it's enough to wikilink it, you don't need to include an image explaining it to them. --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uncertainty principle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonlocality (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) 11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]