User talk:BoBoMisiu/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

FYI... The date template is not to be used in articles. You sure do write some nice articles. Need more of your kind around here. Bgwhite (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You should take your articles to Wikipedia:Good article nominations. I think they would pass GA. If you want to go thru some misery, you should take one to FA. Your articles could be featured articles. Bgwhite (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of delinked {{date}}s used in article?

You recently made corrections to René Vilatte and noted that "Date template is not to be used in a-". Was this done by a script? If it was, it didn't correctly convert the {{date}} to unformatted "mdy" format.

Where do you find not to use the delinked {{date}} autoformat in articles?

I don't see it in MOS. I do see autoformat dates on Wikipedia:Date formattings as something that is developing slowly with thousands of articles transcluded.

I think a better choice is to move {{Use mdy dates}} from near the bottom to near top and use {{date}} with "mdy" toggle to conform to that earlier style. Using {{date}} defines structured, it doesn't just style the date, that may be used in the future. BoBoMisiu (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It was done manually. Per {{date}}, "This template is probably best used internally in other templates." Also notice in Wikipedia:Date formattings the words, "The community is on the whole very lukewarm on using autoformatting". The template ends up adding more characters to the article and slows down the rendering time by having to transclude all the date templates. It adds needless complexity for newbies. Wikipedia:Date formattings is the work of one European editor to rid mdy dates from European articles.

Adding alot of extra work and characters by adding {{Use mdy dates}} and "mdy" to {{mdy}} is extreme overkill. It does not need to be done. American articles should be in mdy. Per WP:MOSNUM, dates cannot be changed from one format on an article to another. Adding all the templates does not stop editors randomly adding a reference or date in another format. Bgwhite (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to change the from MDY to DMY, I find it easier to think in ISO. I prefer to write ISO and let the template do the work. Structured data is just that, if I write it. Not everybody has to do it but if it is easier for me to type numbers than spell out words I think the number of characters is a wash.

Nobody is forcing you to change formats... Choose MDY or DMY. There is just no upside to using the date template and should not be used. Also, you aren't the only one editing the article. I work on so many articles that one format or the other is just as easy. However, I tend to spell out the dates for American/Canadian articles (templates only) and go with ISO dates for others (templates). Bgwhite (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There is an upside to using the {{date|1900-12-11|mdy}} or {{#formatdate:1900-12-11|mdy}} is easier for me to see, while editing, were to add text than looking at December 11, 1900, while editing; the curly brackets do show me where there is a date and I can add more text in the right spot with ease; my text editor highlights and colors brackets; its good practice. I will use it inline but I will not use it inside ref tags. There is no consensus on the use of it except "the community is on the whole very lukewarm on using autoformatting" without the MOS reflecting that opinion. A user sees consistency based on the MOS whether MDY or DMY. The editor sees dates demarcated with curly brackets. I use |accessdate=1900-12-11| in {{cite}} templates because the entire unit of thought is contained in curly brackets which are highlighted in my text editor. I only care about seeing the brackets. It does not take away from others writing plain text just as a new editor may reference something without using a template but someone else will wrap it with the type of {{cite}} used on that page. Again, I only care about seeing the brackets or some other demarcation or syntax highlighting—if one is available.

Thank you for your recent articles, including Alfons Mieczysław Chrostowski, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. This can help you too, as the WikiProject members will often defend your work from deletion and try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome BoBoMisiu/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello BoBoMisiu. I note that you have deleted a number of HGWdeWN's "works" because they are not listed in WorldCat. Have you considered retaining the original list of works, but noting that many of them don't appear in the cat., and identifying those ones accordingly ? Wouldn't this approach have been better, and more informative to readers ? Other readers may be very interested to know (as I was) that HGdeWN wrote about the individuals listed. Also, his works may contain information about these individuals that is quite difficult to source elsewhere.Diakonias (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How would you WP:VERIFY that they actually exist as published works if you cannot physically find them. His works that can be found on WorldCat are reproductions of typewritten booklets and most likely WP:SELFPUBLISHed. Of course "his works may contain information about these individuals that is quite difficult to source elsewhere" but if you cannot physically find them you cannot access his writing. I created a new section on Talk:Hugh George de Willmott Newman#Works not found in WorldCat to discuss what I believe are WP:NOTRELIABLE sources which the guideline states "are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." I also reverted (WP:UNDO) your removal of my {{Clarify}} tag next to "most notable for seeking multiple consecrations". Although you replaced my tag with "in other words he sought and obtained consecration as a bishop from a succession of different bishops", the reason for multiple consecrations is not clear. Please discuss it on Talk:Independent Catholic churches#Multiple ordinations as similar unexplained multiple consecrations are mentioned in other articles but are according to the RCC sacrilegious and I think it is sacrilegious for Orthodox also. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cum occasione, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.rosarychurch.net/history/1653_Innocent_X.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

Hello!

I saw that you're active at the WikiProject Catholicism. I had a quick general question: if the Pope states, for example, that he forgives Galileo, does that mean the government of the Vatican as we know it officially forgives him? Or is it just the words of a Pope? Is there not a legislative council where these things are voted upon in the Vatican? Sorry to bug you bout this, I really am looking for answers. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: The Papal States were an absolute monarchy. Vatican City is an absolute monarchy and has all the features of an absolute monarchy including courts and various advisory councils.

The first part of your question, if the Pope states, [...] that he forgives Galileo,

I am not aware of this happening. I think the 1633 tribunal condemned his work and judged that he was "vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine [...] that the Sun is the center of the world [...] and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; [...]" (a translation of the sentence). He was judged on two beliefs:

1. heliocentrism
2. "that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture"

The second part of your question, does that mean the government of the Vatican as we know it officially forgives him?

I don't know enough about that. A pope is both a "head of state" and the "head of the Catholic Church".

• Hypothetically, before 1870, if his act was an act of state then that would be an act of the Papal States.
• Hypothetically, after 1870 but before 1929, I don't know if his act could be an act of state.
• Hypothetically, after 1929 (when Vatican City was established), if his act was an act of state then that would be an act of the government of Vatican City.

According to Christopher M. Graney, in The Inquisition's Semicolon, the Inquisition exonerated Galileo in a 1615 investigation, and the Index censored his work about heliocentrism (p. 3). In 1633, his book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was prohibited; and he was condemned to a Holy office prison for an indefinite period of time.

We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy office during our pleasure, [...] Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance. (a translation of the sentence).

I think the sentence was not an act of state, i.e. Papal States, but an act of Church, i.e. Catholic Church.

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. The way the Vatican works is very feudal. The Pope is not very democratic in the strictest sense of the term. I also want to refer to this recent event: [1]. Could we now say that the vatican recognized the Armenina Genocide? Or just that Pope Francis did? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can say that the vatican recognized the Armenina Genocide through that statement. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input. I raise this issue because at the Armenian Genocide recognition article, Vatican is listed as a state that recognized the genocide. Perhaps we need a note to clarify that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not post machinetranslations. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

See reply on that page. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem really obsessed with Archbishop de Paulo, analyzing every single line and every link, why so obsessed? You seem like you have a pretty negative bias against him. But, keep in mind that we have to keep a neutral point of view. This subject is clearly a notable person: he is a the primate and archbishop of a Church, he is a scholar who has published many serious titles that are listed in the Library of Congress among other places, founder of a university...Wikipedia does not exist for personal attacks, it is not the play-ground of the envious. Give it a rest! WP:BLPCOMPLAINT JustTryintobeJust (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What personal attacks do you say BoBoMisiu has made? I realise you're new, JustTryintobeJust, but if you have a complaint about a particular edit somebody has made, it's very helpful if you can supply a diff (a unique code which identifies that edit). The Simple diff and link guide explains how to create a diff. Note also that it's pretty much a personal attack on your part to imply that BBM is motivated by "envy" in his editing. Kind of silly, too, frankly. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

Dear User:Bishonen (not even sure if I did that correctly), but if you review the history of the comments by User:BoBoMisiu, you can see how negative his remarks are and that this user has repeatedly questioned the notability of the article subject Craig J. N. de Paulo, that reveals a bias against the subject. I am not quite sure how to do a diff so this limits me in my ability to respond adequately. But, I hope you will see the talk page of this subject, where BoboMisiu ridicules the article subject and his credentials, honors and awards routinely. Further, BoBoMisiu seems to be connected with User:OCCUSpriest, whose posts on the article and the talk page opened revealed a personal hatred for the article subject. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bishonen, please see User:BoBoMisiu's comments on Craig J. N. de Paulo's talk page under section Request Edit on 15 January 2016, where a number of defamatory statements are made by this user in connection with User:OCCUSpriest. Since I do not know how to use the diff function, I cannot cite the statements here, since that appears to be against Wikipedia's rules. But, I need help and this seems unfair to me. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Questioning the notability of an article subject is something that's done all the time around here; it doesn't in itself speak to bias. We have a whole set of guidelines about notability; the relevant one for this is probably WP:NACADEMICS. I don't have time to dig into de Paulo's academic notability (I'm posting here more as an administrator, to explain to you about personal attacks and the important Wikipedia principle of assuming good faith), but I'm glad to see BBM says here that he will look. He's an experienced editor and I don't see any reason to suppose he's not neutral on this issue. I certainly don't see any "defamation" or "libel" anywhere on Talk:Craig J. N. de Paulo. You shouldn't throw such words around lightly — compare the policy WP:No legal threats. Please assume good faith. Incidentally, may I ask if you have perhaps forgotten to log in sometimes? In other words, are some of the IP edits on the talkpage yours? (That's not an accusation; it wouldn't be surprising or heinous if a new user forgot to log in.) If they are, you may want to take ownership of them by posting a note on the article talkpage. (Finally, I've indented your responses with colons, as is practice here, hope you don't mind.) Bishonen | talk 20:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

User:Bishonen, I first started using Wikipedia without creating a user name. I created this one last night so now I am registered. I am grateful for your assistance and whatever mentoring you can provide. If you look carefully at the subject's Talk page, there has been alot of defamatory remarks and gossip and negativity. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad you decided to create an account. I've posted in response to your report on the BLP noticeboard; if you have anything else to tell me, please take it there, as I think we have trespassed on BoBoMisiu hospitality long enough. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC).

@JustTryintobeJust: first of all, welcome. Next, use of {{diff}} is found there. Finally, I am not obsessed, I went through the existing references today to verify them and found them lacking. They failed verification. I added discussions about each instance.

• My comments are reasonable.
• I do not ridicule the subject but the quality of the content and the lack of sourcing. My annotation is self explanatory.
• No, I am not connected with User:OCCUSpriest.
• What is it in my 15 January 2016 edit that you question? Please respond in the various discussions on the Talk:Craig J. N. de Paulo were they are more visable.

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, BoBoMisiu. Just a detail for future reference: my suggestion to JustTryintobeJust for creating diffs, the Simple diff and link guide (seemingly ignored by the user, but we can only try), is IMO a lot less off-putting than Template:Diff. (In fact I wrote the Simple Guide, ages ago, for the benefit of newbies faced with the mysteries of template:diff, which I've never been able to understand myself...) Bishonen | talk 12:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen, thank you for your kind assistance, and dear BoBoMisiu, thank you for your reply. As you have asked, I will indicate your comments on the Craig J. N. de Paulo talk page. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BoBoMisiu, you will surely be pleased to hear that I have just requested a third opinion for our discussion concerning whether this subject is notable under wikipedia for a profile page.JustTryintobeJust (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@JustTryintobeJust: yes, very good. Please post on the Talk:Craig J. N. de Paulo page so it will be more visible. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear BoBoMisiu, glad to see that we at least have a common interest in liturgy! JustTryintobeJust (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@JustTryintobeJust: yes. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Consider integrating what you've added into the proper sections and avoiding redundancy - there's a reason that subsection is titled "Compatibility of dissent with Catholic belief", not "views on abortion in general." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I will be replying on that talk page. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your good-faith name change of Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, and I have stated my reasons on Talk:Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization. Please join in the discussion, if you'd like! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 18:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@CanonLawJunkie: thank you for the notification. I will continue there. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Witam, zauważyłem, że na swojej stronie użytkownika masz szablon near native PL. Czy potrafiłbyś na podstawie tego, poprawić to, oraz na podstawie tego poprawić to ? Obydwie te strony są wydzielone z sekcji znajdujących się w artykule Paper Soccer (pl:Piłkarzyki na kartce). Nie potrafię ich już bardziej poprawić, najprawdopodobniej ze względu niewystarczającą znajomość języka angielskiego. Byłbym Ci bardzo wdzięczny, gdybyś to znacząco poprawił. Pozdrawiam.

Hello, I have seen you have got on your user page template near native EN. Do you can correct User:Dawid2009/sandbox based on pl:Wikipedysta:Dawid2009/strategia and User:Dawid2009/XrSoccer based on pl:Wikipedysta:Dawid2009/XrSoccer. I canot correct these pages more, most propably due to the fact my English is not actually enaught. I would be very gratefull if you will significantly sorrect these pages. Thanx and regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)These informations have been edited by me second time. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: nie wiem co chcesz. Brudnopis (pl:User:Dawid2009/sandbox) jest pusty. Już są pl:Piłkarzyki na kartce i Paper soccer. Chcesz przetłumaczenie z polskiego? Czy naprawić szablony? Chcesz żeby ja pisałem w twoim pustym brudnopisie (pl:User:Dawid2009/sandbox)? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bibliography section is in good shape.

I have made a complete pass through the references which had few deficiencies.

I don't plan to do much more.104.173.68.20 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the term "same-sex attraction/attracted" (and other variants) "offensive" or "jargony"?? Marauder40 and I got ganged up on over at talk:Courage International by the LGBT...+ mafia (can I call them that?) for daring to phrase a description of the organization in those terms, which CI uses in self-description contexts. Marauder40 came up with some RS for its mainstream use, but they just seeemed to dismiss/ignore them and declare the conversation "over". Thanks for your input. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent: I do not know if is offensive. There might be a style guide for what is NPOV in Wikipedia, but that website uses "same sex attraction". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1