| Revision as of 16:45, 18 January 2010 editNightscream (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,534 edits →Martin Ssempa: No worries.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:11, 21 January 2010 edit undoAfaprof01 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,632 edits →Question about LGBT history: …using wikEdNext edit → | ||
| Line 310: | Line 310: | ||
| :Yes - all relates to the same. ] (]) 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) | :Yes - all relates to the same. ] (]) 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==RfC: Creation according to Genesis== | |||
| Contaldo, ] has an active ] "Request for comments" that may interest you. It concerns the dispute over calling Genesis 1-2 a "creation myth." Thanks. ] (]) 02:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:11, 21 January 2010
Welcome!
Hello, Contaldo80, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 05:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
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" 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- A lot of scholars date Liviticus to the 6th century. Misplaced Pages articles in any case can't use the Bible as a source for historical statements. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- LOL We can't use the Bible as an historical source? Since when has the most validated work in human possession been banned from Misplaced Pages? 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
- 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)
2009 (UTC)
Hey I guess the whole Jonathan/David article itself should be deleted from Misplaced Pages, 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)
- Benson Verazzano is my fan club :). He follows me around Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You meet the most fascinating people on Talk pages! Can I have a latte? PiCo (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- You meet the most fascinating people on Talk pages! Can I have a latte? PiCo (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)
| The Miss Julie Memorial LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter: Special Pride 2009 Booty call edition | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||
- Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Section on LGBT
WP:UNDUE. Sections on LGBT are not standard on country articles. Renata (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Dear Contaldo80, I am sympathetic to your cause, but Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- Good point. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
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 /c 21:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- No problem. I think it's looking pretty good to, thanks for the input.--Cúchullain /c 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Right - looks ok. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Hans Georg Berger
Misplaced Pages needs an article on this major cultural figure. Please create it for me. PiCo (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Always happy to oblige. But who is he? Why me! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Marriage in Heaven
Why do you think the section doesn't work? G00labek (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
Copyright problems with Joseph Flores (Maltese politician)
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Joseph Flores (Maltese politician), please note that Misplaced Pages 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-en
wikimedia.org. See Misplaced Pages: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).
- 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-en
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. Misplaced Pages takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
St. James' Catholic School
Please add references to your article. See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Dun Gorg
would be so proud! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Min jaf. Death can do strange things to a person. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
Rhodes
It's all getting a bit tedious, isn't it! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You are wicked ;-) Contaldo80 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
(P.S. It's bedtime here - I wonder what will be awaiting me tomorrow ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
November 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. 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 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- It is tempting. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- First of all, the above posts are warnings, not "threats". Giving warnings to editors for disruptive behavior is a standard procedure on Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
Don't sweat it. Happens to the best of us. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
- Yes - all relates to the same. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
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)