User talk:NuncioInter

Welcome!

Hello, NuncioInter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

NuncioInter, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi NuncioInter!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

--

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Troubles?

Hello there! I noticed you are having troubles with features on Wikipedia! I could help! Also, for your editing, are you using VisualEditor? It makes it much easier to edit things! Although there isn't as much customizibility as the source editing, it's much better in a lot of ways. To enable it, click on Preferences in the top right, where you have your Log out button, search bar, and similar things, go to the Beta Features tab, and enable VisualEditor. Also, the Simple English Wikipedia might help you with all the help articles out there. It may be too simple for you, but it is certainly easier in some respects. Good luck! SpeedyAstro (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I enabled the Beta option. I was so frustrated because I'm short on time (the page I was working on had been 'protected' as far as I knew, and I was stunned to find it open for editing this morning, so I rushed in to get my information on it before it was protected again). I went to page after page of instructions, following link after link and even watching a video, but the video started with buttons I couldn't see on my page. Perhaps now they will show up since I've enabled 'Beta.'

As for your comment, 'It may be too simple for you,' so far, nothing about the instructions on Wikipedia have been too simple for me. I maintain a blog (for an organization, not personal) and I'm a university instructor, so I hope I'm not a complete moron, but I find Wikipedia's instructions nerd-friendly and 'ordinary user'-unfriendly in the extreme.

There is this game that I was invited to, and I've done the first level (stuff I had already figured out myself) and I hope that when I go through higher levels it will make some things clearer.

As for today's edits, in the end, I just clicked 'edit' on another section and found coding similar to what I was trying to do, and copied that coding. Frankly, I find that the easiest way to edit or add something to Wikipedia: instead of spending 1/3 of my life feeling my brain melt as I try to follow instructions - following endless links to more instructions - I just look at the coding of someone who has already done it, and follow their lead.

Meanwhile, it's nice to know that sometimes, someone is out there, willing to lend a hand and make Wiki-editing easier. I don't do much on Wikipedia, and I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time learning about it, which also makes it more frustrating when I do want to put something on the site. Thanks again.

You're welcome! Good luck with any articles you may make, edit, or new ones that you might patrol. SpeedyAstro (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of First-class relics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on First-class relics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Kolbasz (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely baffled by this message. Whoever decided that the information should be deleted needs to actually READ what I posted, and then try to find the same information anywhere on the Internet. Or hey, do the sensible thing and follow the link and read the original information. All over the Internet you find that 'there are no first-class relics' of St Maximilian (that's in a book found on google books) or that there are only two first-class relics of St Maximilian, or that the relics came from his beard that would not burn when someone cremated his body at Auschwitz. In short, the Internet is full of lies and legends and pure nonsense on the matter of Maximilian's relics. Thus, it is rather important to correct the lies and legends and misinformation about Maximilian's relics, since his body was burned at Auschwitz and most people who are interested in him - including people involved in churches named for him or writing books about him - simply assume there cannot possibly be any first-class relics of the saint. And yet they exist in the thousands, as it says in my short paragraph. And if readers have the common sense to follow the link and read the whole story, they will see that the research has been done in Poland, that original Polish documents concerning the first-class relics have been translated into English, and even photographs of the relics on that page.

The point of the section is to refute the widely-held belief that there are no relics or the false information that there are only a few, along with other hagiographic misinformation such as the idea - given in every account you read, almost - that Maximilian knew someone was saving his hair as relics and insisted that the hairs be put in the stove and burnt.

For anyone who knows anything about Maximilian and his relics or who has heard anything about them, this is very important information - indeed, for much of the Catholic world, it is completely unknown information (some very 'authoritative' sites have even said that the only way to get a 'relic' of Maximilian is to get some soil from Auschwitz that might have his relics in it).

All I can say is that whoever wants to delete this information knows nothing whatever about Maximilian Kolbe and the controversy and misinformation about his relics that is all over the Internet. Read the article linked and you'll find that it begins by explaining all of the misinformation and then tells the true story with translated documents and photographs of the relics themselves.

People on Wikipedia need to do a little sensible investigation and not be so eager to pull the plug on something purely out of ignorance or assumptions on their part.NuncioInter (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the issue you had here after editing the changes you made to the Maximilian Kolbe page. First off I just did some minor cleanup to your edits. Most of the edits were fine, just needed a little fine tuning, but I also removed the section about where to obtain the first class relics, that portion isn't really encyclopedic. Please don't think I am attacking or anything like that. I also noticed that it looks like you added a page on First class relics and it was speedily deleted. I didn't see the original page so I have no idea why it was deleted. There are many reasons and new users to Wikipedia (don't know how long you edited under your old account) can be caught up in that speed. Just theorizing but the reason may be related to the fact that there is already a page on Relics and they felt the information should be added there or something like that. They listed the reasoning as A3 so according to that there was either no content or just a list of links. If you would like some help feel free to ask. I am a Secular Franciscan so I have a interest in this topic. Marauder40 (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm really confused here, because I don't know who is doing what. I don't mind someone moving a footnote to a better place (I had one heck of a time wading through pages of instructions just to figure out how to put one in; in the end, I just used someone else's formatting and went to my real job). I don't mind if someone says that you shouldn't write where to get a relic in an encyclopedia article. But I also don't have any idea why someone would want to flag that whole section as having no content or consisting only of links. That's absurd. Presumably you're not the person who flagged it, but I have no idea how to find out who did (it's hard enough guessing if I'm even replying to you the right way; I find Wikipedia downright user-hostile for ordinary people; if I'm typing a response, why did I have to click on 'edit' to do that?). If you have any information about how I can find out some specific reason for the content being flagged as useless (or who flagged it and how to contact that person), I'd be interested. When I follow links all I find is a long list of many reasons, none of which has anything to do with what I put on the page.

BTW, why is 'adding something to a page' called an 'edit'? I do editing freelance, and it doesn't involve adding text to someone else's writing. This is part of why I don't know what's being talked about half the time when I read about how to put something up on Wikipedia.

It's possible that I may have accidentally created a page about relics, because I was having the devil's own time figuring out how to add a new section to an existing page. Possibly I followed the wrong directions and for a moment created a new page and then realized that's not what I intended to do. I went through a lot of trial and error trying to create a new section in an existing page. I certainly had no intention of creating a whole new Wikipedia page on first-class relics.

I find this whole process frustrating in the extreme, especially when I've put up something and it's taken down by someone who doesn't know anything about the subject, and who objects for some frivolous reason or calls me a 'spammer' because I have spent a lot of time on only one page (which has happened to me: too many times trying to do something on one page, must be a spammer, so remove all edits. Crazy.)NuncioInter (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did create an entirely new article called "First class relics" and that was what was deleted by someone. From what I can tell based on what you said here, you never intended to create a new article and it sounds like its creation was in error and from what I can tell from the user that deleted its comments there was no information in the new article so the person that deleted the article did the right thing. If you never intended to create a new article just ignore the warning above and move on. Yes editing on Wikipedia is confusing, all of us had our moments trying to figure out things. There is a lot of trial and error, a lot of frustration and other things. There are articles like Wikipedia:Getting started that can help you out or you can ask some more experienced editors for help. Looking at pages that have things similar to what you are trying to do and using that as a basis helps. The reason that you have to hit "edit" on pages including if you want to talk to someone is because under the hood "Talk" pages are the same thing as article pages. So if you want to change your talk page to add more information you are editing it. Feel free to continue making changes to the article itself, someone like me will probably come in and fix it up, don't look at it as an attack but someone just trying to clean things up. In the process you can learn from it. Personally when I first started I created an article in my personal article space then when it was developed enough I moved it to the real article space. Now they have the sandbox under every account where you can play and see what effect changing certain things has on what you are doing. Feel free to ask me any questions. Welcome to Wikipedia. One of the most important things to remember when dealing on Wikipedia is to always assume good faith in people's edits. Since we are only using words to communicate it is always hard to tell people's intents, so assume they are good (until proven otherwise.) I also just added the welcome template to the top of your page, there are a lot of good starting place type articles there. Marauder40 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a brief survey about The Wikipedia Adventure

Hi! Thanks for playing The Wikipedia Adventure, or at least considering it. We'd like to hear about your thoughts and feelings on the game, to help us improve it. Please take this brief survey: 10 minute survey.

--thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 20:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Kolbe

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} 06:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]