User talk:Contaldo80: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:31, 30 March 2015

Welcome!

Hello, Contaldo80, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! karmafist 03:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:180px-Kard Scipione Borghese.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:180px-Kard Scipione Borghese.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Inquisition and sodomy

Hi!. The terms "dominator and dominated" have been explicitly used by William Monter, Frontiers of Heresy. The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Land to Sicily, Cambridge University Press 1990, p. 290. This is the whole fragment from Monter's work:

<<The details of homosexual activity revealed by several hundred relaciones de causas almost never involved couples of consenting male adults. As even the most sympathetic historian admits, the nearly invariable pattern of relationships was between the older men and adolescents, between dominator and dominated, "whose sine qua non condition was the absolute submission of dependent and paid subject to the will of his overlord"^[1] Power rather then eroticism dominated these relationships. Many boys prostituted hemeselves to older men, alleging to the Inquisitors that they needed the money in order to feed or clothe themeselves. Other adolescents were aggressors against even younger boys. Combining violence from teenagers and older men, perhaps 100 cases clearly involved child abuse. Many other adolescent boys took out their libidos on animals, which were even more defenceless than children. For all these reasons, nearly half of all sodomy defendants tried by the Inquisition were under the legal age of majority, and thus could not be executed rgardless of their degree of guilt.>>

^ Carrasco, Inquisisión y represión sexual en Valencia, p. 188. The only clear example of a couple of consenting adults occured in Aragon, when a French weaver, aged thirty five, and an Aragonese fieldhand, aged thirty four, were surprised making love in a false closet they had built for privacy: Inq., Libro 990, fols. 188-216 (#10-11 of 1603 auto)

As appears from Monter's account, many cases of sodomy were denounced by the adolescent victims themeselves, which, in my opinion, explains these statistics. It was a "crime" rather hard to detect, when both involved men consent for sexual relationship. CarlosPn (discussion) 20 May 2009 11:15 (CET)

That's very interesting indeed - thanks for sharing. It does clearly look like the majority of cases are simply about sodomy - in the sense of sexual gratification, rather than same-sex orientation or homosexuality. The exception looks interesting though. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexually active popes

Hi! I'd like to invite you to discussion about this article. I've recentely made some objections against its current stand (mainly after your contribution) but I'm open for discussion. My main idea is to distinguish the known or highly probable cases from the disputed cases, not neccessarily by removing the latter ones from the list and by limiting the stuff concerning them to their respective biographical entries, possibly in other way. The case of Julius III is not the same as that of Sixtus IV. The title "list of sexualy active popes" is very sugestive and is potentially slandered, since the popes are required to live in chastity. From the past experience I assume that you're a good partner for a constructive discussion. CarlosPn (discussion) 1 June 2009 11:35 (CET)

Left a note for Carlos, as well. IMO, we need to move ahead with your joint ideas asap. We have a two-week semi-protect expiring shortly. Then we have the unregistered guy to contend with again. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David and Jonathan

It's not widely recognised that there's an agenda to the entire group of Biblical books from Genesis to the end of Kings: it's precisely this question of the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty. What seems to have happened was that David was in fact a usurper - Saul was king, he had Jonathan as his heir, Jonathan died with Saul in battle, and a surviving son of Saul became king...and David pushed him over. God knows if we can trust the story in Samuel, but that's the basic outline. So, if that's really the history of it, David then had to legitimise his rule. He, or his supporters, did it in part by playing up the Jonathan angle - Jonathan himself gave up his right to the throne to David, which made Ish-Bosheth a usurper. In fact God himself, through Samuel the prophet, took the kingship away from Saul and gave it to David, so Jonathan was only doing as God would wish him to do. People insist on reading this as if it's just a story, but it's in fact propaganda for the royal house of Judah. Anyway, I'll have a look at the article on D&J. By the way, the "homosexuality is banned in the Bible" line is balony - the laws date from the 6th century, but the D&J story seems to be genuinely early, perhaps 9th century - the laws simply didn't exist at that time. PiCo (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check Leviticus 20:13 PiCo, which predates Samuel by a fair amount. Certainly well before the "9th century". Leviticus was the "law" of the Israelites that David and Jonathan were subject to.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, secondly the angle you're taking re. writing Samuel to establish legitimacy is quite radical and fringe. God took the far bigger Northern Kingdom (all tribes except 2) away from David's line. Jereboam, rather than Rehoboam, became King. It's not as though anointing David rather than a Saul successor was a unique scenario. Unless you're suggesting Jereboam's supporters rewrote the account to legitimise his rule? C'mon. Enough speculation. Just write about what's written instead of POV pushing..--Benson Verazzano (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of scholars date Liviticus to the 6th century. Wikipedia articles in any case can't use the Bible as a source for historical statements. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL We can't use the Bible as an historical source? Since when has the most validated work in human possession been banned from Wikipedia? It's like banning a public library. Some of the books are historical, some are not. Some are Poems. Some are Laws. One can present Leviticus as evidence that homosexuality was forbidden in Jewish society, because Jewish law is based on Leviticus. What else are you going to use when providing information about Jewish society? LOL... you guys are priceless, honestly.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 14:42, 11 June

2009 (UTC)

Hey I guess the whole Jonathan/David article itself should be deleted from Wikipedia, for it's a biblical story. If we can't use the bible to examine the facts if the story, how can we present the story in the first place? ie. Without the bible there's no story of Jon/David to discuss their relationship or use other parts of the bible to support a postion on the same story... Sheesh. Do you say the same thing about the Book of Acts having no historical value in discussions about the development of the early church or Christianity?

Pretty poor show when one is so blinded by the theological assertions, one cannot appreciate the historical value of the most validated work from antiquity--Benson Verazzano (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benson Verazzano is my fan club :). He follows me around Wikipedia, commenting on whatever I comment on - more accurately, commenting on my comments. Charming, but a little weird. PiCo (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, very odd - it's nice to be appreciated I suppose! I did find it strange that a mini-debate on the article sprung up on my talk page..! What you've said above about the legitimacy issue I think has real resonance. It's self-evident that books in the Bible are written not to record history but rather to justify it. In the same way, the gospels frequently refer back to Isiaiah, Ezekial etc to provide legitimacy to the claims made by Jesus.

In light of this I think it's incorrect to conclude that the relationship between David and Jonathan was a homosexual one (at least not in the modern sense). Instead if one looks at the excellent book by Nissinen, one might be able to conclude that allusions to 'dominant' behaviour (David) and 'passive' behaviour (Jonathan) are rather there to underline the submission of the latter to the former ( - parallels to the epic of gilgamesh for example?)

But to follow the points made by Benson Verazzano. Firstly I don't understand what validated means in this context? But more importantly no-one is suggesting we ignore the Bible as a source, but rather that we use modern, rational thought to understand the messages it's trying to get across. The histories are not histories' in the modern sense but cultural stories. And as for the laws in leviticus - well David ignored the one about adultery with impunity when he had an affair with Bathsheba didn't he? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Benson is talking about the reliability of the Bible as history - "the most validated work in human possession" are his words, meaning, unless I'm mistaken, that he believes the Biblical version of events to have been amply validated from other sources. I'm not sure whether he's talking about the entire Old Testament history from Genesis 1 through to the end of Kings and maybe Chronicles, or whether he's just talking about David. Either position would be hard to support - the Creation account, the Garden of Eden, the flood, the Tower of Babel, are all presented as history, but there's zero validification from external sources, quite the reverse. The same applies for David - the Tel Dan stone suggests that by the 8th century the ruling family of Judah were known as the "House of David", but that's about it. And to be fair, what external validification would you expect for an episode like the king's adultery with Bathsheba? It's asking far too much. I like your formulation, that "books in the Bible are written not to record history but rather to justify it." I don't know that modern history-writing is all that different - Croce famously said that all history is contemporary, by which he meant that historians interpret the past through the prejudices of the present. The prejudices of ancient Israel revolved around the role of YHWH in their destiny and daily life, and that's what the history books of the bible keep in the forefront throughout. PiCo (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You people obviously do not operate in the modern legal world. You use stones, carved thousand of years ago by unknown hand to verify, as fact, events we cannot begin to understand. Who knows who worked these stones; who knows what "facts" have been destroyed by time? We cannot, in a court of law, begin to verify what happened 15 minutes ago, let alone what happened thousands of years ago, and people use one stone or cartouche to verify a particular event. Beg your pardon, but we know nothing to little about origin, veracity or provenance to these finds. To lay claims based these finds, this external evidence, is futile because no one can be absolutely certain about the motivation of its creator. Any ancient text must be examined for what it is, but critiques based on random, external finds are spurious given what has been passed down. You're talking about a region of the world that has been barely excavated and, in part destroyed; look at Austen Henry Layard's account of his own excavation for how much of his own excavation was destroyed because he couldn't take it away. It is sickening. Who knows what else has been lost? We can't even figure out what has happened in prior, recent, political administrations given all our advances in modern research; who is to say we can, for sure, know what happened thousands of years ago? This degree of speculation is troubling.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You meet the most fascinating people on Talk pages! Can I have a latte? PiCo (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be my pleasure.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC) - And I am open to persuasive evidence, but gross speculation is too easy and too common for my taste. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the point of knowledge (certainly in the historical field) that you work on the basis of evidence that you already have to formulate a hypothesis. If new evidence emerges you then either confirm that position or develop a new hypothesis. Ideas about how things work and what happened keep developing. Producing conclusions on the basis of the evidence that you have at any one time is not necessarily 'speculation' - unless you are using it to extrapolate or support arguments that in an extreme way. One stone by itself proves nothing but when considered in the context of other evidence about middle-eastern society, other records and other stones - it can act as a useful tool. There is never one absolute real record of history - just a matter of interpretation. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section on LGBT

WP:UNDUE. Sections on LGBT are not standard on country articles. Renata (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country-article sections are more of less standard. In the old days there was a guideline, which I think is now converted to WP:COUNTRIES. Country articles are high-level overview, summarizing basic facts. LGBT did not grow to be that important as religion (80% of population) or sport (a quarter of each news program). Renata (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Eurobarometer survey only 49% of Lithuanian citizens responded that "they believe there is a God". I accept 49% is a sizeable minority, but it is a minority nevertheless (and there are currently 450 words on religion). So I think it would be awkward to jusitify removal solely on the basis that LGBT issues are a minority interest. While country profiles are broadly of a standard - they do not all cover the same issues or topics. There is a fair degree of difference - and LGBT is covered in some. If more country profiles had a LGBT issue then that by it's nature would make it 'standard'. As it stands I don't think the 3 or 4 sentences (or 48 words) I have added gives undue weight. It was after all one of the issues upon which Lithuania was permitted to join the EU, provided that it had implemented existing EU legislation on equal rights - and 5-10% estimates of demographics being LGBT or 150-300,000 people is not negligible.

And again I would rather we conduct this discussion on the main article talk page rather than my own talk page so that others may join in should they wish to do so. At the moment the feeling, I regret to say, is one of intimidation. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Contaldo80, I am sympathetic to your cause, but Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy, please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX. It's not standard to have a whole paragraph on a country article dedicated to LGBT rights. The only country article that do have such dedication to the issue, are Malta and Lithuania, and you added them. USA, China, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and every other major country article out there don't even have one line dedicated to the issue. I did, however, keep the essence of your edit, in a shorter, and more neutral form, instead of reverting your additions altogether, because I was trying to accommodate you. So I am disappointed to see that you ignored my goodwill gesture, and reverted me anyways. In short, one paragraph is WP:UNDUE, 2 lines are sufficient. As per wording, propose something here, and we'll try to reach a compromise. But keep in mind that the wording has to be neutral, non-advocacy, and within the proper context. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks fine now. On a side note though, I have to disagree with you on "national and cultural interpretation" part of your comment. Historically and traditionally, homosexuality has been more widespread and tolerated in Iran, and countries with similar culture in Central Asia, than the other Muslim countries, so this is not as much of a national and cultural issue, as it is a political and religious issue. The problem is Islamic law, and an Islamic government with a maximalist outlook on religion. --Kurdo777 (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also made a clarification that according to the Iranian law, while male homosexuality is a capital crime, female homosexuality is considered a misdemeanor. Cheers. --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergius and Bacchus

The bulk of your edit here copies the wording on David Woods' site verbatim without properly attributing it to him. While you did add some citations you did not clearly indicate that you were quoting him directly. I have paraphrased it to avoid plagiarism, but please be more careful.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on reflection I could have done better there. Thanks for tidying up - I think the whole thing looks pretty good now. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think it's looking pretty good to, thanks for the input.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual vs Bisexual regarding Achilles

Hi. You reverted me regarding this. Achilles enjoyed both women and men which makes him a bisexual. He did not exclusively have sex with men and shunned bedding women which would make him a homosexual. I am building consensus regarding this issue. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moral theology of John Paul I

I think you should take certain precautions before claiming that John Paul I was a friend of the LGBT community. There are many pseudo-leftists and pseudo-liberals in the modern world who are also pseudo-homophobes, notably Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il. As the researcher and expert on the talk page noted, much of Lucien Gregoire's writings are at best dubious, they tend to create a white legend on Pope Luciani, as opposed to the black legend on Pius XII. I myself appeared to be convinced that Gregoire's writings on the subject were credible, but now I am much less certain after reading opposing views that suggest he wasn't really ready to make any drastic changes on contraception, and that he was also highly critical of abortion. ADM (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT

Hey there; reviewing your contributions to wikipedia, it seems fairly obvious you have a vested interest in including LGBT information every/anywhere; this is fair enough, however, it doesn't follow that the Malta article should include information that already exists as its own (linked to) article and as part of a larger in-depth series. Which other country articles did you have in mind when you said such distinct section inclusion is normal? Perhaps, if it is indeed justified, similar sections should be created detailing other minority views as part of an enlarged discussion of demographics. Alternatively, something could be written and included (not as a section but as part of the existing information) and the LGBT Malta article linked to, rather than copy-pasted (which is all that section was anyway). Thass all :) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deliberately tried to keep the LGBT text in the main Malta article as short as possible simply to trail that this was an issue that could be looked at in more depth in the main item. Hence it repeats slightly - but simply to summarise the most pertinent issues. Each country profile is different and will have different sorts of headings covered. It seems fair to me to reference LGBT issues in the article if we are to reference religion for example. If you think other similar sections need to be created to cover other minority views then please go ahead - happy to support this. Alternatively, if you think it's better to include LGBT in the demographics text itself rather than a separate sub-heading then I'm also happy to support. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again; I've attempted incorporating the text in a relevant portion of the main (Population) text. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right - looks ok. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's regrettable that you've criticised me for stalking. But then again is there an obvious link between Malta and Sergius and Bacchus that I've perhaps missed? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I believed you to be another user who was regrettably involved in such activity. As to any possible link between Malta and Sergius and Bacchus.... they're both interesting subjects. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Georg Berger

Wikipedia needs an article on this major cultural figure. Please create it for me. PiCo (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to oblige. But who is he? Why me! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not you? He's produced some photos that make me roll my eyes - if I did them I'd get arrested for producing porn, but he does them and they're art. I first became aware that I was sharing a planet with him when the editor of the magazine I was working for decided he was going to feature him as the lead article one month - he was visiting town, he was launching a book, so that was it. And they were beautiful photos, of monks (Buddhist ones) doing the sort of spiritual things that Buddhist monks are supposed to do - mostly sitting cross-legged under trees while holding lotus flowers in a thoughtful way. They struck me as totally fake, but Tass the editor thought they were the new Michelangelo. Anyway, you do it, as if I did it it wld ruin my reputation as an other-worldly geek interested only in Old Testament subjects. PiCo (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds intriguing - will give it a go as you suggest! PS - never underestimate your scholarly work on David! Contaldo80 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made a start (Hans Georg Berger) - but I'm going to have to work hard on my sources otherwise it's going to be deleted I'm sure. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Macdonald

Add Hector Macdonald to your watchlist. I found it an attempt to whitewash his reputation - totally misguided, as he was undoubtedly the victim of British caste-prejudice at the time, and now seems to be becoming the victim of sexuality-prejudice. Some editor concerned to preserve the good Hector's red-blooded heterosexuality is bound to try to revert, but I have a very sound book for reference (it's in the footnotes). PiCo (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage in Heaven

Why do you think the section doesn't work? G00labek (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? G00labek (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most appropriate forum for this discussion is on the talkpage of the main article - where in fact I have left my thoughts - rather than my own user page. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template discussion

A template that is in my opinion of importance to the LGBT wikiproject is in need of attention from editors of this particular subject matter. Your opinion can add value to the resolution of the discussion here Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Joseph Flores (Maltese politician)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Joseph Flores (Maltese politician), please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://books.google.com/books?id=9KA7_1s6w-QC&pg=PA138&dq=Joseph+Flores+Herbert+Ganado&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20Flores%20Herbert%20Ganado&f=false. As a copyright violation, Joseph Flores (Maltese politician) appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Joseph Flores (Maltese politician) has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Joseph Flores (Maltese politician) and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Joseph Flores (Maltese politician) with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Joseph Flores (Maltese politician).

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. James' Catholic School

Please add references to your article. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dun Gorg

would be so proud! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Min jaf. Death can do strange things to a person. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Italian Maltese

Hi Contaldo80, I've opened an AFD for Pro-Italian Maltese. Note that deleting the article doesn't mean we can't salvage its (few) valuable parts to expand more generic articles, and that deleting it is not the only option on the table.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes

It's all getting a bit tedious, isn't it! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Most appreciated. I was composing a very unambiguous reply in my head when I clicked the diff and saw your much more polite and much more effective response. (Some people don't know how/when to cut their losses!)

Cheers & thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human nature is interesting, isn't it. After just having said to you that "some people can't leave 'well enough' alone", I'm still positively itching to meterphoricly "tear a strip" of of our smug friend ...

Ho hum. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is tempting especially when they didn't look at it properly in the first place and then starts quoting the guidelines! Contaldo80 (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wicked ;-) Contaldo80 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's only the half of it! If your polite intervention had not caused an edit conflict, I would also have posted more sarcasm (supported by facts and addressing the specific points.) However, I have now decided to delete it. But I must admit, I took GREAT pleasure in writing it - it was PURE self indulgence!
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. It's bedtime here - I wonder what will be awaiting me tomorrow ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sadly we won't get an apology. I don't mind that everyone makes mistakes. What I don't like is when people start quoting the rules at you even though they themselves have got them wrong! Ah well. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh woopy do! He's started posting rubbish on my talk page. Boy, aren't I the lucky one! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten out of hand. What a mob of uninformed delusionists! I think it is fast approaching the time where I get a life and start interacting with real people. Well, if I don't return, let me say I have enjoyed interacting with you, and Best Wishes for the future. Feel free to send me email whenever it takes your fancy.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! A bit of appreciation is ALWAYS welcome, and I'm pleased to read your comments. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day! (4 years!) "Long time no see!"

It's not a matter of any importance, but I was interested by your removal of "but this is purely speculation with no factual evidence to support it", and the associated comment "Removing odd sentence that seems to conflict with rest of the section".

On my first pass, it does indeed seem to me to be lots of speculation "with no factual evidence to support it". Am I missing something? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to speak to you again! What have you been working on? I'm having a terrible time at the moment on the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article. With regards to Rhodes my main reason for removing the sentence was because it was part of a bundle added to the section by a non-registerd user who implied that this was all some sort of "gay conspiracy" or the like. So I wasn't minded to view the change as particularly constructive. But secondly also felt the point about not being able to reach certain conclusions was already made (and more elegantly) with the references attributed to Richard Brown. Over-emphasising the point that it is alll pure speculation was a bit much I felt - it is speculative, I agree, but there are reasonable grounds for making the inferences as set out in the article. Anyway, let's hope to cross paths again! Contaldo80 (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks.

On more general matters: I'm having a terrible time at the moment ... - My dad used to say "Steer clear of conversations involving Politic, Sex or Religion". Of course, I didn't pay much attention, but I did decide to only be involved in one at a time. I think you are very brave to be involved in two at the same time ;-)

I've mainly been involved in Adelaide history & biographies, and the Australian honours system - see my user page for excessive detail.

Anyway, let's hope to cross paths again! - Indeed. And hopefully before another 4 years elapse! Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Islamic economic jurisprudence. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Wasell^(T) 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On the whole I try to but don't always succeed. This particular change seemed self-evident as it was a dead link. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson

Of course the next issue is whether we add anything into the Jameson article to show the links with Rhodes. - Why wouldn't you? My opinion: "Go for it". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is tempting. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ravel

You might like to see the article Maurice Ravel, where I've added a para on his personal life. A fascinating and, I think, tragic life. PiCo (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ssempa

Hi. Regarding this edit, there are two things to keep in mind: First, you need to cite a reliable, verifiable source per WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS when adding or re-adding material to an article. Second, mentioning that someone was born out of wedlock, if pertinent to their notability, is fine. Mentioning it if it is not relevant to their notability, and/or calling them a "bastard" is not, as it is a pejorative word. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, in which you state in your Edit Summary, "Now provided source for verifiability and notability. The term is a proper one and not perjorative in this context.", first of all, you provided no source whatsoever for this, as you simply reverted the article to re-include the passage. Second, the term is not proper, and is most certainly pejorative. It is easy to simply state "Martin Ssempa was born to a single mother." This behavior of yours constitutes disruptive editing, and if you do it again, you will be blocked. Nightscream (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided and source and I have justified it. Try looking at the talk page. The edit is not disruptive and the term is legitimate. Please stop making threats or I will ask that you be blocked for harassment. Comments relating to the article should be made on the relevant article talk page and not personal page. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the above posts are warnings, not "threats". Giving warnings to editors for disruptive behavior is a standard procedure on Wikipedia, and when issuing them, they are to be given on the individual editor's Talk Page. Not an article Talk Page. Since you've been editing here since August 2005, you should know this. So please stop painting yourself as a victim.

Second, you did not provide a source. You simply reverted the passage, and made no indication of any source or Talk Page discussion in your Edit Summary. Only now are you indicating that you made a post on the Talk Page. As for the link, if you bothered to click on it, you'd see that it was indeed a non-viable link. However, I looked a bit more closely at it, and noticed a pipe divider for some reason at the end of the url. I removed it, and now it works.

Lastly, your position is without merit. The word "bastard" is more commonly used in a derogatory fashion, and the article you linked to mentions this, as does the article for "mongrel", which is mentioned in the bastard article. Since the passage already says he was born to a single mother, adding "as a bastard" to it is not only inflammatory, it's redundant. It is these reversions of yours that are "disruptive", and not my removal of them, which is entirely legitimate. Nightscream (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have checked the talk page first instead of reverting and you could have then seen the source. I've also had no problem accessing it (with or without the pipe divider) so odd that you had such difficulties. A person born out of wedlock is technically called a bastard. The language itself is neutral, factual and correct. You were wrong to seek recourse to my exclusion for "disruption" before you had engaged in debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it. Happens to the best of us. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about LGBT history

Hi. Thanks for adding all that material to this article. One question though: Does the source cited at the end of the second paragraph of this section also support the first one? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - all relates to the same. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Creation according to Genesis

Contaldo, Talk:Creation according to Genesis has an active WP:RfC "Request for comments" that may interest you. It concerns the dispute over calling Genesis 1-2 a "creation myth." Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will take a look - thanks for thinking of me. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pete doherty

my concern, in regards to the potentially contentious information you are attempting to add, is whether such claims adhere to WP:BLP as far as sourcing goes. per the BLP policy we have on wikipedia, only the strictest sourcing should be used when making any possibly contentious claims about living persons.

our first obligation in BLP matters like this is to make sure the claims we are making are verifiable via strict sourcing. i am sure, if the claims are true, then the information is out there in other reliable, mainstream coverage, besides this one book or gossip sites. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse scandal in the Salesian order

Although I prefer having these specific entries about abuse in certain orders and dioceses, I think that this one about the Salesian order is just too small and should probably be merged. Unless you are able to add about three paragraphs that cumulate to at least 7 or 8 distinct sources, there is really no point in having such a tiny article.

However, I do appreciate the article about the Sexual abuse scandal in the Passionist Order. This one has quite a bit more text, although it could use more sources, like what I said above. Also, please add links from appropriate pages, such as abuse by members of Roman Catholic orders, or else the page becomes an orphan and cannot be located by clicking on links found in existing articles

ADM (talk)

Sure - have added a few more paras now and will continue to so. The evidence seems to suggest that the Salesians had one of the worse records on abuse. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Jan Moir being a biography of a living person, please can you provide links to your sources when adding things like this? Thanks. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 14:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought I had - but instead had only included the source in the PCC amendment I made. Have rectified. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia

Contaldo80: regarding the issue of how the homophobia category should be applied, I think it would be helpful to look through the revision histories of Iris Robinson, Fred Phelps, and Anita Bryant. It has been made clear in edit summaries there and elsewhere that the category must not be applied to individuals, regardless of anyone's view of whether they are homophobic. There is no reason why groups should be dealt with any differently. UserVOBO (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disciple whom Jesus loved

Copyright problem: Disciple whom Jesus loved

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Disciple whom Jesus loved, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://books.google.com.au/books?id=iQpHAAAAMAAJ, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Disciple whom Jesus loved and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Disciple whom Jesus loved, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Disciple whom Jesus loved with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Disciple whom Jesus loved. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Disciple whom Jesus loved saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Radagast3 (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Brett

Thank you for your contributions to this article. However, each of the editors either reverted your editing or re-inserted your editing with reversion. Currently, it is semi-protected, and references to his sexuality is deleted. However, you are not the only one who has done LGBT references; there are others who have done this, but I assume that some of them were in self-interests instead of being helpful. Every time the reference does show up, it is always deleted, and the article every time becomes semi-protected. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Brett&action=history (or go to the article, press ALT+H and then ENTER) and notice many edits.

I apologize that your efforts have gone to waste. If you have concerns, please go to Talk:Jeremy Brett and create a new section rather than reply in an existing one. I think it would be best to discuss this first, but I think you should seek approval from others first if you want references inserted again. --Gh87 (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found out that Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) was solely responsible for removing the references. You may want to talk to this person in his talk page. --Gh87 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I appreciate your advice and thanks for helping with this issue - much appreciated. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homo-eroticism in the disciple whom Jesus loved

Hello, Contaldo80.

I was hoping to say a few more words about your section regarding homo-eroticism. From an academic standpoint, I thought the article itself wasn't worthy of being written in an encyclopedia. I understand that the objective is to provide the reader with possibilities as to the unnamed person in John might be, and that it is a good idea to include all possibilities.. But the idea that Jesus was a homosexual is so entirely outside of the realm of possibilities, and bears with it an enormous amount of controversy that, I feel, the controversy by itself was the only reason it has even been entered into people's minds. Yes, there is a history of people proposing such a theory.. But the only reason those stories are written down is due to the (obvious) controversy they stir up, not because they are just as plausible as the next theory.

I know it may seem as though a double standard would be made for the Mary Madelene theory. It seems just as implausible and controversial as the homo-eroticism. However, the enormous amount of publicity that that idea has generated in our modern-day society (the DaVinci Code has sold more than 80 million copies) unfortunately thrusts it into our encyclopedias as noteworthy.

From a personal view, though, it was my sincere prayer that that section be removed and stay removed, because of its ability to poison the minds of believers or unbelievers seeking to obtain academic knowledge on the subject. I would also urge you very strongly to consider before the Lord even entertaining such thoughts, concepts, research, and accusations. Satan wants us to eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I am not judging you, not in the slightest. But just cautioning you, these are murky waters and there is not much light to be had in conveying thoughts such as those in that homo-eroticism article. I pray the Lord would shine His light on you concerning this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.77.95 (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prayers but really I feel I should pray for you. That the light of rationalism, tolerance and wisdom shine upon you and clear away the cobwebs of ignorance, intolerance and superstition. "Murky waters" indeed. What nonsense.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward, I will assume that your accusation of intolerance is regarding homosexuality and/or homosexuals, and the rest I will just consider aimless insults shot with the intent to stir up anger. I have nothing but love and compassion for homosexuals and I personally mourn for the bigoted typical conservative-American attitude regarding homosexuals, but I mourn equally so for those who try to reconcile homosexuality and Christianity together and their apparent lack of understanding about sin and what the Bible really says about sinners.

It's clear to me that there are many homosexual Christian believers and I pray for these that they would see the truth: Homosexuality needs to be overcome no more or less than heterosexual fornication and adultery. I feel that we are all in the same boat, essentially, as sinners on this Earth, and homosexuals are no different than everyone else. That being said, heterosexuals need the Overcoming Spirit to overcome their lusts of the flesh, just the same as homosexuals need the Overcoming Spirit also. Am I intolerant of heterosexual fornication? I mean, I pray for everyone, fornicators included, but I wouldn't consider myself "intolerant" of anything or anyone. I was once a fornicator myself, do I despise myself? I despise my flesh, but I love the Lord within me. It is no different for homosexuals.

But the Word makes it quite clear, homosexuality is something the Lord hates. It's not imperative to salvation or living in the spirit to know this as thoroughly as religion (unfortunately) likes to spew their bigoted views, but the Word should abide in us, and this is part of the Word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.77.95 (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm really not interested in your views. I think you've said it all when you admit that you were "once a fornicater". It might ease your conscience to treat gay people as sinners so that your own sins don't seem so bad. But I have to tell you that I might be guilty of many sins but being gay isn't one of them. The point on intolerance still stands. You do not "love" people who are gay because you make absolutely no effort to understand them or to consider God's word in an inclusive way. You do not show compassion, but rather demonstrate pity and superiority. You hide behind a narrow sense of the Bible because to do otherwise would be to challenge your very state of being and understanding of who you are. And that frightens you. It is you who need to find the courage to find the truth not me. I have already done this. And I pray that you will. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, you are far too reliant on your insightful intuition, or lack thereof. You very much expressed your interest in my personal views the moment you began attacking my "intolerance" and "rationalism." I am not treating gay people as sinners, a repentant homosexual is no more a sinner than the repentant heterosexual. I have the law of sin and death within me, it is in my flesh. I make no claims or even suppositions of superiority or pity. Pity is certainly NOT what I feel. I have no pity for the death of sin (read Romans 6). But out of love and compassion, as someone who has God living inside of me, I wish for all men to come to the full knowledge of the truth. This is not said with a superiority complex and it is not said with a view "I am better than you hahaha!" I am here in the grace of our Lord by His mercy, and I want everyone to share in these riches I've received. This is certainly not pity or superiority.

I am hiding nothing. I let the law of the spirit of life operate freely throughout me. It is Christ that cannot listen to the lies from Satan that causes BELIEVERS (not unbelievers, but believers) to say that homosexuality is something other than very, very unfortunate and disgusting to God. It is not people, it is not hate. God loves His people, and He hates fornication, and he hates homosexuality. These truths are so basic and easy to see that spending more than a few minutes on the subject just causes everyone to get upset. I am not judging, I have no authority. But I do charge the saints, the believers in the Body of Christ not to partake in such... filth. I reckon a Christian-viewpoint that validates homosexuality as ok to a Christian-viewpoint that validates fornication and adultery as ok also. A "Christian church" filled with people having sex is entirely Satanic. This is very basic. Arguing with this is like arguing 2+2 =/= 4.

There are many beautiful verses in the Bible. I particularly like this one in 1 Corinthians, Verse 13: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways." Food for thought. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living Stream Ministries

Some really interesting stuff here for those that are interested: "While Living Stream Ministry and parts of the evangelical community affirm that Lee's teachings are part of the Christian tradition, there has been some debate over whether or not his Recovery version of the Bible and some of his major teachings do in fact adhere to orthodox Christianity. Some evangelicals and mainstream Christian theologians and ministers have criticized Lee's theology as being a departure from essential doctrines of the Christian faith". Contaldo80 (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Spada

It is imperative that you reference your articles. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks I know. Give us 5 minutes.

Articoli Albanesi

Contaldo ma che e' sta storia che vuoi metter le referenze che Ali Pasha era gay e che il poeta Bokshi si debba cancellare? Non lo capisco proprio e mi dispiace. Scrivimi nella mia talk page cosi ci parliamo, non sono molto felice che un italiano prenda delle iniziative simili.----_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 13:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Italian, I'm English. I haven't said Pasha was "gay", I've argued that we include text that covers the widespread accounts of him keeping a male harem. On the issue of Bokshi I am concerned that articles are being created that are not about notable individuals. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I saw many articles with Italian content and also noticed your name. And I thank you for putting the page numbers on Ali Pasha references. Bokshi is a poet and so far the article has a stub status. I am an autoreviewer and to me that passes BLP: he's not self-published. And I'll stop there because I am (helas!) Kosovo topic banned until next month, so I shouldn't talk about Kosovo people. Anyways, I just wanted to create a climate of collaboration through dropping these lines. Thanks for your contributions and please don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything. ----_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 13:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. With Bokshi I think if we can be reassured that he's not self-published then that might resolve the difficulties. It would be better still if we can find another source that refers to him by name (other than the kosovan distionary). I appreciate that it's not always easy with stubs as it can take time to build them up. Good luck with it. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disciple whom Jesus loved#John the Apostle

[1]

Any objection?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - very happy with this. Thanks for being so diligent. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell...

Is wrong with edition summary? That's what it is. Also note that the "Sexuality" section of the Albus Dumbledore article is filled with unproven speculation (that he is gay where no source provides proof of this) and opinions that are irrelevant and come from non-notable people. 188.80.59.174 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are too many opinions from non-notable people. They should go. The author has stated that he is gay - that's cited and that's enough to dispel concerns over speculation. I must confess, however, that I don't understand what you mean by "edition summary"? Apologies if I'm being thick on this but it is not clear to me. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore

Sorry friend, I undid your edit by mistake; was meant to do the two previous edits only. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no worries. Thought I had better ask as wasn't sure what the problem was. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT and Islam

Hi. Apologies for taking so long to reply. Anyway, one of these days I'll learn to Assume Good Faith... partially because it's the rule, but mostly because of how often I regret it when I don't.

But anyway (again), I'd like to emphasize that I didn't call the edit I undid itself as right-wing, though I think they objectively were, even if accidental. I specifically called your sources right-wing (or at least a couple of them), which is clearly the case. Further, even if it's basically factually accurate, phrasings like

Male and female prostitution and same-sex practices — including abuse of young boys by their older male relatives — have been rampant in Islamic societies from the medieval to the modern period.

which speaks of prostitution and abuse of young boys as part-and-parcel of same-sex "practices", which is described as "rampant" and the result of a "'corruption' of morals", can't be justified. Some of the sources, like The Sexual Rage Behind Islamic Terror, are War On Terror-era interpretive analyses of just what's so evil about Islam from hawkish, hard right sources like FrontPage Magazine. Maybe you consider that to be an acceptable source of information, but I certainly don't.

So, that summarizes my objection. I'd be happy to discuss it further if you'd like. --MQDuck (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - helpful. Having taken a second look at this I now recognise your concerns. I think the most problematic section is the "Modern history" bit where I agree it does come across as a bit heavy-handed and over-generalised. I'll have a go at restructuring/ taking out dubious sources. Likewise feel free to do the same should you wish. I agree we could also nuance some of the phrasing in other sections of the article which come across as too judgemental eg "corruption of morals". Need, though, to think how we cover the stuff that relates to pederasty without it seeming to suggest child abuse.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonathan Doria Pamphilj

A tag has been placed on Jonathan Doria Pamphilj requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cindamuse (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Jonathan Doria Pamphilj

I have nominated Jonathan Doria Pamphilj, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Doria Pamphilj. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cindamuse (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me - I will feed in my comments. I am a little curious, however, as to your approach on notability towards this article (which cites several sources from the mainstream and international press) contrasted with the article on Tim Hughes where the sources cited are all from a relatively narrow set of Christian US publications?
- The Tim Hughes article was nominated due to a presumed lack of notability, rather than lack of sources. The sources cited are reliable and include mainstream, global publications. The notability of Hughes has been established through documentation provided in the discussion. Upon completion of the Hughes AfD, the article will be deleted or edited accordingly. The established notability or lack thereof pertaining to Hughes is not indicative of the notability of Pamphilj. Notability is established according to separate factors, independent of other articles. Cindamuse (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm well aware that notability is established independent of other articles. It just struck me that you were being inconsistent in your approach to notability. Incidentally, the notability of Hughes has yet to be established beyong reasonable doubt. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Newman

Thank you. I might add: concise. Let's see how long it lasts. (You do know, don't you, that Wikipedia, like Keats's epitaph, is writ in water?) PiCo (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC) See also: BANG! and eyepik (I'm trying to drum up business).[reply]

Jonathan Doria Pamphilj

a) Don't close an AfD for an article of which you are the author!

b) The discussion is supposed to run for seven days, and the present situation cannot be construed as sufficient consensus for a premature closure.

Favonian (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that I couldn't close an AfD is I am an author. That's fine. But the discussion has run for 7 days. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It started on August 31. Today is September 6. That makes 6 days. Favonian (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Fine - my mistake. It was also (incorrectly) on articles for speedy deletion for a couple of days before the 31st - but I accept these are different categories for assessment. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Contaldo80. You have new messages at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 11:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Prince Jonathan Doria Pamphilj

A tag has been placed on Prince Jonathan Doria Pamphilj, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cindamuse (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedily deleted the article, as it was very similar to the Jonathan Doria Pamphilj article which was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Doria Pamphilj, and this decision was upheld by the Deletion review at Wikipedia:Drv#Jonathan_Doria_Pamphilj (closed). If you recreate this again, I will consider blocking you from editing Wikipedia for disruptive editing. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Contaldo80‎. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argument in favour of restoring Jonathan Doria Pamphilj

The following was removed (likely rightly so) from the AFD nom page for Jonathan Doria Pamphilj. I've decided to post it here for posterity and so that it might be used in support of a user-page recreation of the article for future admin consideration.

I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier - I would have made a contribution. My "vote" most certainly would have been Keep. Jonathan Doria Pamphilj has received significant coverage, though most is related to his fight over inheritance. The Pamphili are a well-recognised Papal family (see: Italian nobility) and, despite legislative changes which removed their Government-recognised peerage, they are still recognised for their contribution to the Roman Catholic Church) (see: Pope Innocent X). Please also note the following articles:

UK orphans Rome inheritance fight in The Guardian (12 October 2009).
Prince Jonathan Doria Pamphilj: Restoration of palazzo led to unusual loan in The Washington Times (16 June 1996) (Article no longer available online).
Which Royal Siblings Are at Each Other's Throats Over Their Mother's Estate? in Vanity Fair - VF Daily (13 October 2003).
Who will inherit the Doria Pamphilj family's legacy? in the Telegraph, UK (17 October 2009).

While a significant amount of the coverage relating to Jonathan Doria Pamphilj is about his claim to the Doria-Pamphilj-Landi legacy, I don't think his notability is reliant on the court case, nor is it a matter of him inheriting notability from the court case (rather ironic considering the court case is about his inheritance). He is notable as the last claimant heir to the Pamphili / Pamphilj lineage, the notability of which is not in doubt.

I agree he is not notable for his "management" of the family art collection, nor is he notable as a gay rights activist. But this is not a matter of him inheriting notability from the art gallery. Nor is he inheriting notability from his family members - he is notable because he claims to be the last of his family; a family of noble heritage. Like other nobility claimants (pretender or not) he is notable because of his lineage. There are countless other heirs to peerage who are notable for no other reasons than that they are or claim to be heirs. See:

Alexei Tammet-Romanov who claimed to be heir to the Russian throne.
Dafydd ap Dafydd ap Llywelyn illegitimate heir of the Prince of Wales.
Princess Isabella of Denmark who is 3 years old, is not heir (her brother is) and who has done nothing of note as an individual, other than being born into the Danish Royal Family. (For the record; I don't disagree with her having an article, but you get my point).
Lord Frederick Windsor whose only individual achievement seems to have been a fleeting experimentation with cocaine.

Anyway, that's probably enough of that.

My point is that I think it's probably worth restoring the article; I'm happy to contribute to it's rebuild.Stalwart111 (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

An image or media file has been removed from St James' Catholic High School because it was licensed as non-free. Wikipedia's non-free policy states that Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image, and only if no free equivalent is available. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people.. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's non-free content policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of non-freeimages. Further use of these images will be considered vandalism, and shall be treated as such. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:13, 4 April 2011 (UT

September 2011

Your addition to LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Hut 8.5 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Heath

I am sorry, but I have reverted your edit [2]. This was discussed on Talk:Edward Heath#Sexuality again in November-December 2010.

If you feel strongly that it should be in the article, please could you read the previous discussion, and then make a case for what you want on the talk page. If no-one objects within a week, feel free to re-insert the material.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homoeroticism

You've moved some sections in to article Homoeroticism, but now the article is strangely disjointed. The section "Examples in the Visual Arts" is now followed by the sections you moved, which is followed in turn by the sections "Examples in Writing" and "Example in Cinema". This leaves the sections you moved stranded in the middle of the examples. Please review. Ross Fraser (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tristessa (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Contaldo80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Hectorthebat". The reason given for Hectorthebat's block is: "Repeating behaviour that led to previous block".

Blocking administrator: 212.137.36.228 (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Autoblock found and lifted. Weird stuff going on with autoblocks today. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again!

Removed the request. Seems to be ok now. Thanks James. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Contaldo80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

212.137.36.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Hectorthebat". The reason given for Hectorthebat's block is: "Repeating behaviour that led to previous block".

Blocking administrator: PeterSymonds (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: I nhave released thwe autoblock for you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Contaldo80 (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disputed content in a BLP

disputed content in a BLP is much better kept out while discussion occurs. Please stop warring it in. - Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be intimidated by the Melanie Phillips fan club. There is no need to give me warnings on my own talk page. This can be done on the article talk page. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice, re: Pope John Paul I

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Pope John Paul I has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.

May I ask if you are an administrator? Your edit summary here[3] is inappropriate under any circumstances. Please refrain from threatening to "block" users. If you see vandalism, you can report it or you can request semi-protection for an article. Your vigilance at the article is appreciated and I hope you'll use proper restraint and language. Thanks. Djathinkimacowboy 18:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, may I add one further piece of advice? Any editor may post warnings or advice to you on your talk page. You may delete what you like from your talk, but you cannot chase editors away when an editing issue is involved. Thank you again. Djathinkimacowboy 18:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't friendly advice - this is interfering gobbledegook. I've heard some nonsense in my time on wikipedia, and this is high on the list... Who said I was chasing any editor away? Keep your advice to yourself thanks - for what it's worth. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may complain all you like. I am not harassing you and you know it. Using terms such as "gobbledygook" and "nonsense" is not helpful. Addressing a problem at a user talk page is not harassment and it is not a personal attack either. But I will inform you that your behaviour so far may be interpreted as a personal attack. Just so you know. Your defensiveness is not a very helpful thing. I did not object to the edit you made, it was very good. But you must guard what you write in your edit summaries. That is all. I will not appear here again. [This notation because user's talk page was CC'd by me with this post.] Djathinkimacowboy 15:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to interpret my comments as a personal attack then I will have to insist that your earlier comment to me is considered as a personal attack. You suggested that I hid comments I did not agree with and was chasing away editors who wished to leave comment. Neither of theses accusations are true and I would ask that you provide evidence for them or retract them. Otherwise they remain nonsensical, and I stand by that comment. I have no problem with the initial point you made that I should provide specific comments when making edits or reverting. You should, however, have left it at that. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One warning since I feel generous this Christmas

Are you completely stupid[4]? Can you not read the advisement not to change or alter the archive... especially when it is someone else's? Why did you not post this on the talk page? Stay Away from my talk page. This is your one and only warning. Unlike some editors here, I do not suffer this kind of effrontery. Djathinkimacowboy 09:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes shouldn't have done that. I realise I was in the wrong. Will leave you in peace. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ficino

Hi there. I was going to remove some things on the Marsilio Ficino's article but I saw there was a kind of discussion regarding Kent's quote. As you're the only one with a talk page and you seem to support the quote, I thought it best to reach an agreement with you. I've checked out the reference given by Kent, but it's wrong. There's nothing like what she's arguing in the Supplementum Ficinianum, and the reference of Poliziano's work is quite ambiguous. I think it should be removed then, because it seems to me to be diffamatory. Ipsumesse (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I wouldn't wory too much about anything being defamatory - Ficino is long dead to worry about that. The quote attributed by Poliziano to Ficino seems to be genuine - the problem is the translation from italian into english (italian sounds a little less abrupt). I don't know whether it's found in Kent or not but certainly in other sources. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Catholic marriage, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Heretic and Dispensation (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) 11:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon

Don't know if you've noticed but the Bacon article has been edited and added to by one user - almost non-stop - over the past 36 hours. His user account has not added anything else to WP. While he has not taken anything out that I'd noticed, and not all of what he has done is objectionable, some of it is the familiar occult Rosicrucian stuff, so I wondered if it is our old friend is back under another "incarnation"! Straw Cat (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging - will take a look! Contaldo80 (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

My first barnstar! Thank you so much, I've wanted one for such a long time! Asarelah (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved I think. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Jim Burgess (producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siegfried (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) 10:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved material from Monogamy in Christianity to Christian views on marriage

This is a courtesy notice to you as a frequent editor of Christian views on marriage. I moved some material to the article. I placed a summary of my thinking on the Talk page. In brief, I think the moved content would very much benefit from integration into Christian views on marriage, as well as stylistic reformatting to the style of that article, removal of interpretive components (unless they represent cited viewpoints), and redaction of primary source material. Perhaps you will be able to edit the material to bring it up to snuff. Regards,FeatherPluma (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks for flagging. Will certainly take a look. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Erasmus

You are a long time editor with lots of experience. I'm writing this as cautiously as possible. I find the persistent insertion of a history category into an biographical article, after attempting to explain it, tantamount to vandalism. I wish you would find a category appropriate to the biographical topic. Isn't there one?

The other concerns are at least, discussable. Student7 (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I think it's vandalism to insist this isn't history. I have explained it as carefully as I can. If we add a category to describe him as an "LGBT person" we will then have a whole host of critics telling us that LGBT is a 20th century term and can't be used!Contaldo80 (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bernardino of Siena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Bernard (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) 10:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Peter de Rome

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.

A tag has been placed on Peter de Rome requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Kate Hoey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stonewall (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) 13:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Hi, when moving pages you can't just cut and paste a page into a new location. You have to go through the correct procedure so that an admin can also move the page history. If you want to move Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches, please use Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok - I hadn't realised there was such a formal process. Will take this route then. Thanks for clarifying. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.145.236 (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. When you recently edited Pope Julius III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giovanni Carafa (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) 12:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pepi II

In your recent edit of the article about Pepi II, you write "dating from the Middle Kingdom, about a thousand years after Pepi II's reign", this cannot be correct since Pepi II reigned from ca 2280 to 2180 BC so that a thousand year later is 1280 to 1180, that is the late New Kingdom, not the Middle Kingdom which stopped ca 1650 BC i.e. 400 to 500 years before. Furthermore, it is known that the papyrus fragments do not date to the Middle Kingdom but rather to the Late New Kingdom (i.e. indeed ca 1000 years after Pepi II) as indicated in the article. It is not clear if they were copied from a Middle Kingdom story or if the constitute a new kingdom tradition. For the same reason, it is not clear whether the Neferkare referred to in the papyrus is indeed Pepi II. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right - probably best to go wih late New Kingdom then. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julius III

You've been fighting the good fight and it's an honor to help out. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOVN

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Contaldo80. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

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.

Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tivoli

Pope Julius III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Farnese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Note

I assume the ip who left me a comment on my it.wiki page is you. While I mentioned in the Project Catholicism that there was an ongoing discussion in the voices on Pope Paul II and Pope Julius III, I have not followed up, and here I suggested to Bellae artes to simply mention in the talk pages whatever data or sources he found questionable, and I write to you as a sincere advice the same thing I wrote to him: wikipedia is not a place for the truth, but only a place where we collect information that is found on reliable sources. The nicer we are with each other, the better things will go, because none of this is personal.

I do not know about en.wiki's policies in detail, and I do not know if in it.wiki we have anything like this policy. However, I would be very careful when mentioning this policy, because you cannot be sure that a user is tracking your edits to inhibit your work vs. simply being another user contributing to the same pages at the same time.

Regards, --RCarmine (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The editor has been tracking my edits. There is no doubt at all about that as the subjects are too disparate for them to have contributed coincidentally within such a small space of time. With regards to the articles I do not disagree with the approach you set out - and that's the one I have taken. And I agree all editors should do the same. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Martin

Dear Sir, I am disputing and re-editing your unfair and bias attack against Malachi Martin. Number 1 he was not a conservative -- he believed non Catholics could find salvation. Also his claims about the Church were for the most part proven true. I will appeal to the Wikipedia process if you keep re-editing the opening line.

PHILO617 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You don't need to come to my talk page to dicuss this issue in the first instance. I would rather you raised the issue on the talkpage of the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Malachi Martin". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Malachi Martin". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Malachi Martin, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_in_Islam#Modern_day 203.129.46.253 (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Desiderius Erasmus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brabant and Luther (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) 12:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN topic

- Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:James_Buchanan.E2.80.8E - hi - A thread is opened here that you have some involvment in thanks - Youreallycan 18:44, 25 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 Pope Julius III, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Giovanni Carafa and Ganymede (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) 10:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-phallicism

Now that's a new phrase for me!

"I suggest we make a reference somewhere to hyper-phallism. Several commentators I have read note a connection between the curse of Ham and the influence of European beliefs (early modern period onwards) in the highly sexualised appetites of Africans (contributing to rumour about large phalluses)."

Having carried out some field-based research on this vexed subject, I can report that it ain't no rumour. PiCo (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lord, what must I do to remove the curse of eternal boredom?PiCo (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True Pico - I think it is more fact rather than theory ;-) Incidentally if you are bored why don't we think about how handle the sexuality of Caravaggio. It's been bugging me for a long while. The issue is complex but at the momentI don't feel wedo it justice. Would welcome your thoughts, as ever. Contaldo80 (talk)

Caravaggio's dead. He's no longer bored. If he ever was.

C's sexuality is a matter between him and his God. Seeing as we're not running a gossip rag about the illustrious departed, the only possible relevance to us of his psychosexuality is how (if) it impacted his art. Maybe it did - there was some debate re this question in the late 20th century. Could be mentioned. But surely his art is more about religious themes than sex.

I could rent one of these. http://www.balispirit.com/resorts/bali_house_for_rent_sale.html Wanna join me? PiCo (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malachi Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima (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) 11:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Barberini

Hi mate! I had a quick chat to CarlosPn last night about that change (see his talk page) after I undertook a mid-peer-review clean-up of the article. Both "alleged" and "scandalous" are actually used in the source. Given I was already directly quoting from the source half a line later, I chose to use scandalous (a paraphrase) rather than alleged (almost a quote). My choice of words didn't have a lot of thought behind it, so I didn't quarrel when he amended them (also because I don't WP:OWN the article). I actually suggested a better paraphrase of that whole sentence would be a better solution than picking one word over the other. Thoughts on alternate wording? Happy to discuss on the article talk page if you prefer. Cheers, Stalwart111 09:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decided just to start a discussion thread here. Would appreciate your input. Cheers! Stalwart111 10:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution. Thanks for your consensual approach. Also like the other changes you've made to improve the article. Contaldo80 (talk)

No worries, and thanks. On Prince Aribert of Anhalt, User:Pgarret went on a POV spree, adding that essay to a bunch of article talk pages to justify his removal of LGBT cats. There's more on his talk page. Eventually he lost interest and with a bunch of people suggesting he was flogging a dead horse, he left it alone and hasn't edited since November. So you probably won't get a response to your query. Thought you should know. Stalwart111 10:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for letting me know. By the way keep up the good work mate - I've noticed your improvements to many articles I've come across! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Likewise! Stalwart111 10:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pastors in the RCC

Hi, while I agree with your removal at Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches, it isn't true that there are no pastors in the Roman Catholic Church. In American usage at least, it's very common to refer to a parish priest as a "pastor", because he has pastoral responsibilities for a congregation. Other priests who don't lead a parish aren't called pastor. But the term isn't exclusively Protestant. Angr (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying - helpful to know that the term is common in the US. In the UK it wouldn't be used. To be honest, my main concern was that the paragraph that had been added looked a bit clumsy and didn't really add anything useful. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Beneficio di Christo

The article Beneficio di Christo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

without any references

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Javad |Talk (16 Farvardin 1392) 10:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should go ahead and delete this article as it was mistitled. The other article I created on Beneficio di Cristo will have references. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Beneficio di Christo

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, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Beneficio di Christo. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Beneficio di Cristo. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Beneficio di Cristo – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cindy(need help?) 18:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juan de Tassis, 2nd Count of Villamediana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sodomite (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) 14:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators noticeboards

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mehmed_the_Conqueror_discussion DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at WP:AN3

[5]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

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.

Two Greedy Italians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to ABC and SBS

Timeline of LGBT history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Notre Dame

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

If I see you making an edit like this [6] one more time, I will seek an indefinite, full topic ban from all LGBT-related edits for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classic example of WP:HOUNDING.--В и к и T 19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source was simply taken from the Spanish language wikipedia article (where incidentally no-one has challenged it). It's not my own. I would have thought you would have been better of challenging the source and questioning its robustness rather than removing it completely, but then as an "administrator" I'm sure you know better. I wouldn't have thought personally that not all "queer study" sources are invalid in all instances. Unless of course you are out to make a deliberate case against me. But then you haven't succeeded so far have you, despite your best efforts. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are now saying you inserted that claim without even checking out and reading the source? And you are saying this in a tone as if it was an excuse?! When you're in a hole, stop digging. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you read my comments above carefully I didn't say that. I checked the source and felt it met WP guidelines. Indeed I further researched the claim and found an additional source which states, "The gorge d’enfer double dildo fashioned during the "upper paleothic period" is obviously designed to be used by two women while having ‘intercourse’ with one another": Rhawn Joseph, Sexuality: female evolution and erotica, University Press (p92. You were, of course, absolutely entitled to contribute your thoughts that the source used was not sound and briefly state why. But you chose rather to dismiss it as invalid, simply because it dealt with "queer studies", and then compounded this by asserting (again without evidence) that the addition was made because of my personal "agenda setting". Is this really good enough, I wonder. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally could you let me know what guideline I contravened when I posted on your page supporting the argument made by another editor, and which you removed? I don't doubt you know the rules much better than me so would appreciate clarification so that I can avoid making the same mistake again. You didn't explain, you just wrote "out".Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you "checked the source" and "felt it met WP guidelines", that only goes to confirm how utterly unsuited you are for this project. For an editor who has been around as long as you have, there is no excuse for such an error of judgment. And your insinuation that I dismissed it "simply because it dealt with queer studies" is ridiculous and insulting and won't help your case. It, too, just goes to demonstrate the mixture of passive-aggressiveness, incompetence and disingenuity so characteristic of your tactics here. Oh, and that pamphlet by Rhawn Joseph is of course not a reliable source either. A self-published [7] work by some person who also publishes on "Astrobiology, the origin of life and the death of Darwinism" and "The Transmitter to God" and obviously has no qualifications in paleoarchaeology. Zero references to it from reliable sources found on Google books. Ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more charming and thoughtful comments from one of the "best" administrators around. It seems you can't actually engage in a discussion without personally impugning my competence at every opportunity. How sad. And it's odd that I'm taking lessons on passive-agressiveness from a person who seems to have written the book. Incidentally your grasp of the English language is most lyrical - almost poetic in its qualities. I must commend you. If you're not too busy - and I'm sure you are - but perhaps you could: (i) set out clearly what you continually infer by describing my edits as having an "agenda". I'm guessing it's something to do with the suggestion of pushing "gay propaganda", but it would be nice to hear it from you; and (ii) why did you remove my comments from your talkpage agreeing with another editor that I did not think you had the appropriate skills to be an administrator. You may well have been right to do so, but I'm very keen on transparency all the same. The cardinal rules of WP as I understand it are to be polite and to assume good faith. You have not extended either to me from the start. Let's see if you could try at least one response that put those into practice. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, do you know what? Don't bother. I'm tired of wasting energy each day reading your feed of abuse. I admit I may not always get every edit I make right, but I do it with good intentions. I've put in a lot of time and effort over the years to work on and improve articles so that the people reading them have access to good quality and balanced information. I act in good faith. To have someone then tell you that you're incompetent, unsuited, and deliberately malicious is pretty hurtful - and unwarranted. I'm as happy as the next man to have a reasonable and polite discussion about how edits can be improved. I encourage it. I am always willing to learn. But what I hate is the inference that anything "gay related" is automatically suspect and that I'm just here to ruin articles with a cavaliar approach. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Administrator - a reminder

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities...Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gay bishops may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Archbishop of Genoa]]). In the 19th century Cardinal [[John Henry Newman]] remained close to [{Ambrose St. John]] and was attacked by contemporaries for his "lack of msculinity". The two were buried in the same

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SAQ

Hi. I recently made a minor edit on the 17th Earl of Oxford page, simply to support what the text said with a source that not quite all Shakespeare academics reject non-Stratfordian/Oxfordian authorship. That's a matter of fact. It's the first edit I ever made on a Shakespeare related page. All hell let loose. I'm appalled by what goes on there. I don't have strong views on the authorship, I just believe in fairness. I have left my details elsewhere so would support any complaint. It seems that wiki administration tolerate bullying in certain areas, or perhaps rather are unable to act. Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But asking in a friendly tone, what's it to do with me? I haven't edited that article in the past as far as Im aware. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got your name from smatprt's talk page. Sorry you were referring to something else. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

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.

Filippo Buonaccorsi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sodomite

Trofimena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ulysses

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alcuin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sodom (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) 10:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting speedy deletion

From WP:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion: "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page." Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's what the guidance said then fine. But I thought you were meant to press the big button that said "conest deletion" and then offer your thoughts on the talk page. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the creator of the page to contest deletion. Anyone else can do so by removing the template, as is clearly explained in the template itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken block - please undo

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Contaldo80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

62.25.109.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Highwaysagency". The reason given for Highwaysagency's block is: "This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username does not meet our username policy. Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing. A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by: Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username. If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ".

Blocking administrator: John (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: I have lifted the autoblock, which does seem to have been a mistake, as a username block should normally have autoblock disabled. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria Pia of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (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) 10:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Catholics and SSM

Thanks for your additions - US-centrism is always an issue that must be confronted so the comments from people elsewhere are good - –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been trying o tidy up the article elsewhere as well. I think it's been put together over the years in drips and draps and needs a bit of reordering. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salto (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) 11:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mary Faustina Kowalska may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Allen Jr, "A saint despite Vatican reservations" (''National Catholic Reporter'', 30 August 2002)]</ref> translation of the diary. Nevertheless, it was with Ottaviani's approval that Archbishop [[
Congregation… declares no longer binding …the quoted 'notification' [from the time of John XXIII]."><ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2070%20%5B1978%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf ''Acta

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chrétien and Frederick Henry (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) 10:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Please don't directly lift language from a source without attributing it as a quote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! My mistake. I'll watch this happening again. I had meant to go back and tidy it up but I was so drained from responding to "another editor" that I must have forgot. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RSN

You may be interested in recent questions raised at WP:RSN. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stonewall and James Hickey (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) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Send me an e-mail?

I think you have e-mail disabled - if you shoot me an e-mail I'll write back. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese, I'm not sure how to enable it but my address is [email protected] Contaldo80 (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, you may be blocked from editing. Introducing such false claims also raises WP:BLP issues, since the relevant document's credited authors/signatories are living persons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. As soon as I saw your name in an edit I changed I thought a personal threat wouldn't be far behind. It's your style isn't it. "Disruptive editing, vandalism, incorrect information". If you can't argue a point through rational discussion, much easier to try and denigrate your opponent. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miles Huggarde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Mary I (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) 11:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

You may find it helpful to note that WP:REFPUNC indicates where to put punctuation in relation to ref tags - before the tags, not after them. Esoglou (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll bear it in mind. But I tend not to spend to much attention on those things - although I try - I rather prefer to get material in and get the help of others to tidy up. I know some editors feel very strongly about it; but I'm afraid I can't get that worked up. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hinge and Bracket, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drag (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) 11:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

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.

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Council of London

Jephthah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tempest

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyrano de Bergerac, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sodomite (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) 08:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of situation comedies with LGBT characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (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) 08:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newark (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) 13:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

Stop using the article talk page as a place to do anything other then addressing the content of the article. I have requested this several times on the page. Please refer to WP:TALK for what is appropriate on a talk page and what isn't appropriate. If you suspect a COI, bring it up through the appropriate channels. Mainly the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard board. Otherwise stop bringing it up on the article page. As I said before, your repeated bringing this up is similar to people that accuse homosexuals that edit homosexual pages as having a COI. But be prepared for a possible boomerang scenario if you decide to pursue this. Nobody is under any obligation to tell YOU what they do or don't do within an organization.Marauder40 (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree that no one is obliged to tell me anything about what they do within an organisation. But they are obliged to follow guidelines about declaring a conflict of interest. There is a strong implication from material on an editors talk page that has raised legitimate concerns about employment by a specific organisation (if substantiated). That in itself is not a problem. But it becomes a problem if he is editing controversial aspects of articles dealing with the Catholic Church. If someone was an employee of the UK gay rights organisation, Stonewall, for example then I would expect them to follow the guidelines in the same way and be transparent. I am gay and have declared that on my talk page, but I am not employed by a gay rights organisation and do not have a declared agenda other than to improve content relating to homosexuality in an objective and balanced way. What boomerang scenario are you implying? I note for example that you are a member of the knights of Saint Columba. I credit you for declaring that, and have no problem with that. If you were a paid employee of that organisation, on the other hand, and were editing an article that aimed to put that organisation in a purely positive light then I would be concerned about COI issues as well. This is simply a case of following wp guidelines. If you think I have misunderstood the guidelines then I am happy to be advised. Thanks also for clarifying the procedure for brining COI cases to wider attention. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The boomerang scenario I mention is that if you read boomerang one of the things mentioned is that whenever you report someone, you have to also expect your own personal actions to be put under a microscope. Many times on Wikipedia, a person that reports people to the notice boards end up finding themselves sanctioned, banned, etc. because they find out their own actions were at fault or worse then the person they reported. No matter what, stop addressing COI on the article talk page. Article take pages are only for improving the article. Marauder40 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, but I have nothing to fear from any of my actions. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominican (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) 09:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Midge Decter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commentary (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) 08:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "young man"...

Contaldo, just to say thanks for catching the way that I'd used the phrase "young man" in an historical article. It certainly wasn't meant to suggest anything seedy, but you are absolutely right that it could have been read that way by some. Thanks for spotting it. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Nice editor for a change. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

Hi Contaldo80. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDAHO (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) 08:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On your mind

Perhaps I should be flattered to know I am so much on your mind that you attribute to me edits by others. Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh it's amazing isn't it. My mistake. I naturally assume those sorts of interventions are always by you. I must be more careful. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander III (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) 08:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of sexually active popes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal. 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) 08:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting

Contaldo - while adding page numbers to your references (which is something you should be doing when you add content, please), I'm finding that you're using a lot of language that's more or less directly from the sources. Please paraphrase, or use quotation marks if a quotation is really necessary. Copyright violation may result in your additions being removed regardless of their value as content. I'm asking you to go through your additions now and fix them; we can't host plagiarism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese I completely understand where you're coming from. I don't really like quoting at length but as you'll see from the talk page it is often the case that Esoglou forces me down that path by insisting on me setting out enitrely what such a source has said (doubting the accuracy of my summary) or otherwise putting in a whole section of primary material himself in the hope that this "clarifies" the situation to the reader and avoids secondary sources scandalously misinterpreting what such and such a cardinal has really said. This makes for a stilted and very legalistic read, I agree. With regard to page numbers I will make more effort to put these in, but it's increasingly difficult in an age when a lot of material is sourced straight from material on the internet (including books) and pagination is not always available. Plus I get some of my material from books on my kindle and the numbering of this can differ, so I'm not convinced it's particularly meaningful. But I will try.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to blame others; no one is making you do this but yourself. You might be misinterpreting me - I'm not talking about quotefarming here (which is also bad). I'm talking about cases where you use words directly from the source without indicating that they are a quotation. This is plagiarism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese - on the one hand I've been trying to present material in a balanced and summarised way without the need to block-quote; while at the same time having to constantly justify that summary when challenged by some other editors who think the source has been "misunderstood" (ie potentially too critical of the Church). That has been a difficult line to tread, and I admit I've struggled with it. But I accept that I shouldn't really be making excuses - and will indeed make a greater effort to sharpen some of this up and avoid any suggestion of plagiarism. Thanks for the advice. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 16 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Knights of Columbus page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What just happened?

Did you just restore an old version of the article? Perhaps you could explain which parts of my version you think need improvement - I notice you undid some re-arranging of parts that I did, as well as paraphrasing and so on. It may have been an accident (or if not, let's talk about it) but in undoing Esoglou's destructive edits, you also undid some constructive ones that I'd made. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that. I'll take a closer look at what I did. I was concerned that some of the more salient points had been stripped out in an effort to make some Vatican documents seem less controversial than they are. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. I've restored an earlier paragraph about the Pastoral Letter being aimed though at a US audience as I think this is important. Esoglou wants a narrative that shows the Catholic church consistently saying the same message at all stages of history in all contexts. That's clearly not true and that's why I think it's interesting for the article to flag some of the wider issues - eg the Vatican responding specifically to an emerging threat that it perceived in the US and other developed countries. But let me know if you think I've wrongly taken out any other of your edits. Sometime it's very difficult to keep track as Esoglou's edits are very disruptive.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

On my return online, I find that you have promised to report me to the 3RR noticeboard if I again undo your reverts of this morning. Perhaps it is fortunate for you that I do not care to report other editors, and prefer to believe that, with patience, I can get them to reason. Otherwise I might have been tempted to report you for the following:

[8] – 07:47, 6 August 2014‎
[9] – 07:36, 7 August 2014
[10] – 07:59, 7 August 2014‎
[11] – 08:04, 7 August 2014‎

I trust you will now stop your insistent suppression of the abundant evidence about the true date of publication of Homosexualitatis problema and its destination, and that you will instead discuss calmly on the article's talk page why you think it must be deleted or perhaps even accept that it is (very) reliably sourced pertinent information. Esoglou (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits were made by three separate editors and doesn't count. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you force me to bring it to the noticeboard, especially since I see that, while I was putting together the above message for you, you did it again. Esoglou (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. It may also be helpful to remind ourselves of the policy relating to sock-puppetry. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that, before you return to reverting, you will attend to the request posted on the article's talk page to explain what grounds you see for suppressing the information, based on many reliable sources, that Homosexualitatis problema was not really, as Allen mistakenly said, printed, distributed, and published on 1 October 1986, the same day it was signed, and that it was not really, as Allen mistakenly said, released at first in English alone, although with a Latin incipit, which would be curious for a document whose original was in English. Such curiosities could perhaps be ignored, but not the reliable sources that you suppressed. Esoglou (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Toronto. 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) 09:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raymond Leo Burke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gerhard Mueller. 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) 09:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Cohn

I had written "LGBT historians" on the Cohn article, because that is what one of the sources had said, but I agree with your change and reasoning. I also agree that the ebay citation for the Pixie camera is OR (another editor contributed that to the article), but I do think, without that context, the double entendre of the exchange is completely missed. Ideally, we could find a reliable source for the Pixie camera. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I'm not sure the meaning is missed as a reader can link through to pixie to see that it's a type of camera. But if you think this needs to be done better then happy to go along with that. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deckers

Would you field this one? As you know, I no longer engage with Esoglou after getting fed up with his jabs about my sexual orientation, and I have no desire to get sucked into his trolling again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Although to be fair it was Elizium this time. I'm detecting an insidious group of editors that club together and feel the best way to get to Heaven is through their labours on Wikipedia. They're in for a shock I fear. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imprimatur (book), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Plague, The Herald and The Betrothed. 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) 14:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. El Huinca (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality

Due to your involvement in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your own section, and reply to other people's statements in your own section. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February.. If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee. If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Christianity and sexuality

Hi Contaldo - we really need evidence on the evidence page, material backed by diffs. Your edit is more appropriate on the talk page until you can provide them. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just seconding Dougweller's comment here. Your evidence makes specific accusations against two editors and alludes to their being more involved. Per the instructions on the top of the page, you need to provide specific diffs showing the conduct you allege, so that your statement can be properly regarded as evidence in the case. You refer to conduct that has occurred over a long period of time, so assembling diffs mag be a lengthy and tedious exercise - apologies for that, but it is the way Arbcom cases work and is necessary if you would like the matters you raise to be considered.

If you don't wish to assemble diffs and are instead making a general comment about other editors, that's fine and thanks for making it. However we can't let unsupported allegations stand on the evidence page, so it will be necessary to hat your comment and/or move it to the talkpage. It may also be necessary to edit it to remove the specific accusations against others.

Will leave it with you as to what course to take. Happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. I don't have time at the moment to dig through the evidence. I agree therefore my comment might be better on the talk page as you suggest. I'm not sure, however, how to do that so any help would be much appreciated. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Sexuality case: workshop phase extended

Dear Contaldo80, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks

While I still can, I thank you for being ready to discuss our disagreements and to accept that what reliable sources say may be reported objectively in Wikipedia articles. I wish you well in your future less disturbed editing. Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closed

An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place:

User:Esoglou and User:Padresfan94 have been site banned. Both users may appeal their bans after one year.
User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. They are also prohibited from making rollback-style reverts without providing an explanation, and from engaging in conduct that casts aspersions or personalises disputes.
User:Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for edit warring. In addition, they are restricted to one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss content reversions on the article talk page. This restriction may be appealed after twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for a workhorse article contributor. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Contaldo80 might be perfect for Editor of the Week. A 10 year veteran of the encyclopedia with 75% article edits and most of the rest in article talk with 32 articles created. This editor quietly builds consensus and content. Not super active, not flashy, but rock solid work in difficult areas and a very calm demeanor that seems to encourage cooperation. Not to many accolades over the years but very deserving. Contaldo80 is exactly the kind of editor we want to recognize and encourage to stick around.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 02:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Carrasco, Inquisisión y represión sexual en Valencia, p. 188. The only clear example of a couple of consenting adults occured in Aragon, when a French weaver, aged thirty five, and an Aragonese fieldhand, aged thirty four, were surprised making love in a false closet they had built for privacy: Inq., Libro 990, fols. 188-216 (#10-11 of 1603 auto)

[1]

@@ Line 1,170: / Line 1,170: @@
 For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 10:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC).
+== Editor of the Week ==
+{| style="border: 2px solid lightgray; background-color: #fafafa" color:#aaa"
+|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[File:Editor of the week barnstar.svg|100px]]
+|rowspan="2" |
+|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
+|-
+|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] for a workhorse article contributor. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
+|}
+[[User:Buster7]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
+:Contaldo80 might be perfect for Editor of the Week. A 10 year veteran of the encyclopedia with 75% article edits and most of the rest in article talk with 32 articles created. This editor quietly builds consensus and content. Not super active, not flashy, but rock solid work in difficult areas and a very calm demeanor that seems to encourage cooperation. Not to many accolades over the years but very deserving. Contaldo80 is exactly the kind of editor we want to recognize and encourage to stick around.
+You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
+<pre>{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}</pre>
+Thanks again for your efforts! '''[[User:Go Phightins!|<font color="blue">Go</font>]] [[User talk:Go Phightins!|<font color="#E90004">''Phightins''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Go Phightins!|<font color="#008504">!</font>]]''' 02:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)