VanishedUserABC (talk | contribs) |
LoveforMary (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:No, that is not the way to do it, I could confirm the 1990 restoration via: ''Journal of folklore research'', 2005 Volumes 42-43 Indiana University, Bloomington. Folklore Institute. I could not confirm the carbon dating. That website is not WP:RS. Period. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
:No, that is not the way to do it, I could confirm the 1990 restoration via: ''Journal of folklore research'', 2005 Volumes 42-43 Indiana University, Bloomington. Folklore Institute. I could not confirm the carbon dating. That website is not WP:RS. Period. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
First of all, you know you do these things to intentionally annoy and aggravate people who don't kiss ass to you. I read your talk page. |
|||
More importantly, the icon has been in historical existence since 1499. It's not like the article is claiming the image existed for 2000 years since Saint Luke the Evangelist. We ALL KNOW its a ROMAN COPY from Turkey. We get that. Should the icon be dated to 1380-1425 is not dramatic. 100 years or so doesn't make a difference. This is not the Shroud of Turin we're talking about OK? |
|||
You should be more upset and micromanaging if some moron claimed that the icon is over 3,000 years and old and dates back from Ancient Atlantis. But for a 100-year old age dispute? Is it THAT SERIOUS?? You're gonna give people a hard time over this? Talk about Micro-managing at its finest. [[User:LoveforMary|LoveforMary]] ([[User talk:LoveforMary|talk]]) 01:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary |
Revision as of 01:59, 3 February 2012
Christianity: Saints / Catholicism Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
Spanish wiki
es:Virgen_del_Perpetuo_Socorro has some material that a better translator could include here, particularly about the virgin's cult in and patronage of Haiti. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Destruction of San Matteo church
Neither of the sources cited supports the statement that churches were destroyed “for specific infantry bases.” One of them only says “one writer reports“ that Masséna “destroyed almost 30 churches.” More reliable sources on what really happened here would be better. Until we have those, let’s just say that San Matteo in Via Merulana was “among the several churches demolished during the French occupation” and leave it at that.
I‘ve also tried to give context to what French troops were doing in Rome in 1798. Tkinias (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- No problem in those edits. But refs 20 and 21 about Haiti seem pretty shaky and less than WP:RS, so that last section needs help too. History2007 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Mariology box layout
Hi, History2007! I moved the Mariology box on the Our Lady of Perpetual Help page because its location there breaks the layout on some browsers. The template needs work so that it properly clears on the right but it really shouldn’t be down in the lower section where it screws up the layout. I’m open to another way of fixing it but please don’t revert my fix. Tkinias (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, the box’s location under “Origin and Discovery” causes it not to clear the infobox on the right, leading to screwy layout. Tkinias (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Update: I fixed the template so it will clear properly now. Tkinias (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I still think the current placement looks terrible, but it is such a trivial issue I will not revert you. Just fix it yourself better than this. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what’s “terrible” about the the present layout? It’s below the infobox, as it was before I edited, just with the brokenness fixed. Tkinias (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Zero encyclopedic difference. But an interior designer will cringe because it smashes too visual boxes together, then lots of text. It is like having too paintings on one side of a all in a room, the other walls empty. But a trivial issue. Nothing "wrong" just basic design. Just move it lower and forget it. I will say no more on this. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what’s “terrible” about the the present layout? It’s below the infobox, as it was before I edited, just with the brokenness fixed. Tkinias (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hypocritical reference on the "1990 restoration" line yet cannot be used for Carbon Dating info????
It is so hypocritical that the same reference is used for the "1990 Restoration" on one of the sections of the article, YET cannot be used for the carbon-dating process initiated by the Redemptorist Order to the Vatican Museum. Who gets to decide which sentence is acceptable for credible source? REALLY?
I read the guidelines. So why use the reference in other sentences if you are going to deny reference to the same source of information? Same hypocritical B.S. based on nitpicking, cherry-picking bias. So aggravating to see that the CSSR website itself is not deemed as credible, yet is used AGAIN in other sections of the article.
If that's the case then just remove it altogether, since its not deemed credible anyway. what the hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveforMary (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is not the way to do it, I could confirm the 1990 restoration via: Journal of folklore research, 2005 Volumes 42-43 Indiana University, Bloomington. Folklore Institute. I could not confirm the carbon dating. That website is not WP:RS. Period. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
First of all, you know you do these things to intentionally annoy and aggravate people who don't kiss ass to you. I read your talk page.
More importantly, the icon has been in historical existence since 1499. It's not like the article is claiming the image existed for 2000 years since Saint Luke the Evangelist. We ALL KNOW its a ROMAN COPY from Turkey. We get that. Should the icon be dated to 1380-1425 is not dramatic. 100 years or so doesn't make a difference. This is not the Shroud of Turin we're talking about OK?
You should be more upset and micromanaging if some moron claimed that the icon is over 3,000 years and old and dates back from Ancient Atlantis. But for a 100-year old age dispute? Is it THAT SERIOUS?? You're gonna give people a hard time over this? Talk about Micro-managing at its finest. LoveforMary (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary