Sync. |
|||
Line 437: | Line 437: | ||
== Herbert Ganado == |
== Herbert Ganado == |
||
Contaldo80 - your allegations were deemed to be libellous. Do not pursue to lay such allegations or action will be taken to trace your identity. |
|||
Thanks for your interest in this article - but I would appreciate it if you at least gave me two minutes to tidy things before tagging it etc! [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 10:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for your interest in this article - but I would appreciate it if you at least gave me two minutes to tidy things before tagging it etc! [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 10:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:34, 12 January 2009
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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- 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 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)
How about the way you write it as a matter of fact. Like "overtones have been found" and the "marriage bed" episode. Unless the author called it a marriage bed episode or its widely seen as the marriage bed episode its really skewing things. If its just one later writer who says its like a marriage bed episode then its really misleading. By the way it should be "undertones" not "overtones." Unless the author claims all the things you wrote in that paragraph then its just interpreation and you should say that. Otherwise its misleading to those who don't know better. I have not interest in getting in a edit war either partly because I just don't have the time. This is the extent of my contribution to this article (and I've decided with wikipedia period) so I leave it up to you to make the changes. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melatope (talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits to Akhenaten article
He, just a note to say that I deleted your additions to the above article due to the fact that they were in breach of the copyright guidelines on Wikipedia. These additions [1] were taken from this article [2]. Your later additions are OK, and have references, so they are fine from a copyright point of view. Markh (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In England we use the term 'overtones' rather than 'undertones' - it's a term common to the English language, so do spare me the lecture in grammar. Thanks.Contaldo80 —Preceding comment was added at 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed the article you edited is on an American writer. In America we use the term 'Undertones' rather than 'overtones' - i'ts a term common to the American language. If you want to be spared the lecture "in" grammar then get it right the first time, boy. Thanks and bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melatope (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm aware that Melville is an American writer, I wasn't aware though (as far as I know) that contributors to Wikipedia need to post their contributions in American English! Thanks though for the tip old man - and incidentally I had to no idea what you meant by your comment "And I've decided with Wikipedia period"? Makes no sense to me. Perhaps when you have some time you might deign to translate for us simple mortals. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your impertinence is utterly unacceptable. Do not use that tone with your elders, young man. I ought to take you over my knee and give you a good spanking.
Melville
By the way, I can give this compliment back for your recent Melville edit. --Cyfal (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Melville
Please see my discussion on the Melville talk page. I agree with you that the interpretation of homo-erotic themes in Melville's writings is a valid one but we should not be using references from 1949 and 1950 unless for a specific reason. Within academia doing so is generally avoided. I believe we should still retain some mention of these themes in his writing, but it may be better to do so under the specific novels (i.e., Moby-Dick). --DixitAgna (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Rhodes
{{WikiProject LGBT|class=B|importance=|nested=yes}}
Is that what all this endless debate has really been about? If so, I really think you should have declared your bias/interest.
Personally, I don't think it is entirely appropriate to add this project label to the page. On the other hand, you (obviously) do.
Could I bother you to explain to me why you think it is appropriate? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And just as I was about to hit the "save" button, it occurred to me that if I was going to bother you with a request to explain your POV, it obliged me to explain my POV. Mmmm. This isn't particularly well thought out, but here goes anyway.
I believe (hope?) you have formed the opinion that, in general, I'm interested in the whole story, and preferably a balanced presentation of it. I did not feel it was useful to remove all mention of Rhodes sexuality. But then again, I also did not feel it was useful to go on and on at great length, and in great detail, about it.
Rhodes was not obviously and blatantly gay, nor did he make a point of advertising the fact. But on the other hand, for those who wanted to put two plus two together, it wasn't hard to come to the conclusion that the answer could very well be four. It wasn't obvious, but it wasn't a big step either. On the whole, it really wasn't a big deal. It just "was".
Putting the LGBT label on the page seems (to me) to turn it (unnecessarily) into "a big deal", and hence (in my POV), is not really appropriate.
Looking forward to your response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I have a much better understanding of a number of things now, and I think that's good.
- "Maybe you're very quick to jump to conclusions." - Well, "very quick" is a relative and subjective term, and I (of course) like to think I would never do such a thing (no, I'm not that delusional), but it is indeed entirely possible that I did "jump" rather too quickly. However, my intention was not to make a judgement; it was to try to understand your motivation. My apologies.
- "Adding the article under the LGBT project simply flags up that there are aspects of the article that are of interest to those interested in LGBT issues." - Fair comment. Adding the article to the "Trains" project certainly doesn't mean the subject of the article is necessarily a train!! Yes, it would seem I did jump to a conclusion rather too quickly ...
- "I do think, though, that people are making a little too much about this whole Rhodes issue." - I'm not sure what you mean here.
- "I think it's frankly wishful thinking to view it through the prism of a set of 'manly friendships'." - Agreed.
- "Let's take a deep breath and move on." - Mmmm. In theory, that's laudable. However, in practise, I think that (in general) people (including me) are more interested in pushing their own POV!
- "but have made sure that any edits are sourced from reliable and credible material." - Agreed.
- "I haven't put my 'personal view' in any of the article text at all." - Agreed.
- I was more refering to the Talk page where, as you correctly point out, you are "absolutely entitled to".
- "Incidentally have you been on a Rhodes' Scholarship" - Sadly, no.
- "if so, shouldn't you have declared a personal interest?" - That's a good question. My first reaction was, "How is having been a Rhodes' scholar relevant to discussing Rhodes' sexuality?". Then I thought, "Mmmm. That's a good question. I can't give a simple yes/no answer to that one.".
- Your comments sound fair. By adding the article under the LGBT project I was simply intending to flag up to readers that there are aspects of the article that are of interest to those interested in LGBT issues - so that it's easy to spot from a first glance. I isn't my intention to unbalance the article; so please do revert if it looks a bit heavy-handed. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Given your explanation, no, I don't think it's heavy-handed. And hence, I now neither think I should revert it, nor anyone else.
- (However, I am concerned that others may jump to the (wrong) conclusion like I did ... )
- Again, thanks for your reply. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well thank you!! (Flattery is likely to get you exactly where you want to go!) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh!
Molte grazie. Haiduc (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Restored Material
I restored a bunch of deleted material to the Bacon article. It is bound to be reverted by the "owners" of the article, so you might want to have a look and weigh in/keep an eye out. Cheers! Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For reasons I don't fully understand, I seem to be responsible for creating a page for this guy. (I blame Freud and my parents - they're all dead, so they're all pretty safe targets.) Do you know anyone who'd have some interest and would like to help, or better still, would like to take over from me? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your invite to contribute to this article. I know absolutely nothing about the guy but will take up the challenge! Might be fun! Contaldo80 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you couldn't know any less than I did when I started! Thanks for the response. Clearly, he was a very talented guy. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Conversion therapy
Hey Contaldo80,
After seeing your posts on Francis Bacon (kudos), I thought you might be interested in looking at Talk:Conversion therapy and perhaps examining any ownership issues that might be more apparent to someone not involved in editing it.
Cheers,Conor (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was just cruising through the recent changes and saw that someone had added something about someone being gay. It instantly registered as vandalism (incorrectly, I hope) in my mind and I reverted it. I went back and put your revision back as a Good Faith edit. I let you guys work it out on the talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ndenison talk 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Bacon lives (allegedly)
You asked if Mr Arion met Francis Bacon, but he may well think he has. I see he has done many edits to the Ascended Master articles and other Theosophical stuff, under his various incarnations: Alburesz, Arion, and Arion3x3. He has a habit of removing from these articles any edits which show references to debunkers. The user who added the Faked Death stuff has only contributed to the Bacon article and one about an Ascended Master who apparently reincarnated into Bacon.
Those who believe in this stuff say that Bacon literally ascended from Earth as a Master, so presumably they object to anything said about him which in their eyes detract from his perfection! --Straw Cat (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter |
---|
- Newsletter delivery by xenobot 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Newman
That's helpful information - many thanks for helping clear the debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I am NOT of the Roman Catholic persuasion, I have lived in the immediate area almost all of my life and with some time to spare this afternoon, went looking for the Oratory country house and the graveyard - while I was most impressed by a 'new' walk into the Lickey Hills (I had never realised existed!), I was also amazed by the sheer length of new fencing which now surrounds what must have previously been wide-open land. I cannot blame the RC Church for the planned move for the other reasons cited - but somehow doubt that legally the new fencing can stay in place - without formal planning permission - in what is "green belt" land. Kind regards. "IHS" ps I will try to keep this page updated as the planned move into 'Brum' progresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.209.65 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Henry_Newman"
update 06-08-2008
[[5]]
Oratory planning issue resolved
Nitramrekcap (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
"Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman"
'Contaldo80', is this really the correct form - surely it should be punctuated in some way? It reads as though "Cardinal" was one of his three christian names? I would appreciate your input!
[[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.149.65 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"IHS" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.149.65 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
re:Stuart
Thanks for your kind comments on my talk page. Maybe I'll return to discuss about Stuart and to writing this article but certainly not in the situation when the one side is not a constructive partner for discussion. It's simply wasting of time. As I've already said in that discussion, my private opinions about homosexualism would probably be not very different from that of Sceptik, but I'm not engaged in wikipedia to conduct any ideological war or to abuse the people who don't agree with me, but to look for a truth and to deliver it to the readers in my articles. When someone has no respect for the truth, is not interested in looking for the truth, and abuses his adversaries, there's no sense to discuss with him. CarlosPn (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2008 (CET)
Cellini
Is there any chance of your working through the Cellini rticle with appropriate references? Leonardo is under attack from all sides, so I'm rather tied up, and Benno definitely needs attention! Amandajm (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well done! Amandajm (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: 90.218.111.106
Will do!
He pinged across my radar after vandalising a page that was on my watchlist. I only noticed his edits this morning; he seems to have been most active last night... not seen any movement today so far but I will be paying close attention to his future activity.
Cheers,
OBM | blah blah blah 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Gays Already Can Marry
Why did you delete the below? I was not rude to your or inappropriate. Further, it was not a vandalism. Don't you value intellectual freedom?
"Gays have every right under the law to marry, just as everyone else does. If a gay man wants to marry, he can go marry a woman of his choosing. No one is denied the right to marry."
Sorry if I am not making my comments correctly, or in the proper places.
69.124.185.8 (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Talk pages are for improving an article; they aren't for general discussion of the topic. If you want to discuss the topic in general, there are many interesting discussion forums on the Internet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Stuart and Sceptik
Hello again, Contaldo. I noticed your recent diligent reversions on the Henry Benedict Stuart page; I agree with you that this looks like Sceptik's style. I've just noticed a new anonymous addition to User talk:Sceptik, the timing of which is surely not coincidental. The poster writes as though Sceptik is active, although a glance at his contribs page shows that he's not added a thing since his ban. My personal feeling is that someone has been having a root through the sock-drawer. Any thoughts? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll pursue it. User:Gwen Gale appears to be our ally here, as before; there are also formal channels we can use. Thanks for your response! AlexTiefling (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've discussed this at User talk:Gwen Gale - if anything else suspicious happens, just let me (or Gwen Gale) know! Thanks for your help. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Peter Mullen
Thank you for your recent edits to Peter Mullen. Your text includes some details that are not in the Vardy source you provided. Do you have any additional reliable sources, specifically for the dates and the reinstatement? Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits to David and Jonathan article
Before you smooth the reader's (and your own) path with a stroke of the pen, what about checking your facts ? You would blunder less and avoid making a fool of yourself. Open any decent, scholarly book on homosexuality in the Bible, and you will see that it is absolutely banned for Israel in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 - nobody save for the most extreme devotees of gay theology denies this fact. However, the condemnation itself raises difficult historical issues ; being comparatively late (it is post-Exilitic, ca. 560 BCE), it shall not be deployed against a possible same-sex attachement of David and Jonathan in the late tenth century inasmuch as their story was handled by the redactors of the book of Samuel (whose last revision seems to have been roughly contemporaneous with the redaction of the Holy Code of Lev, where the prohibition of male sexual coupling is contained) and may have preserved age-old traditions about the two characters. In the same way, the personal agenda of a scholar, viz. whether he is openly gay (Boswell, Halperin), openly homophobic (Gagnon), openly gay-friendly (Ackerman) or without commitment (Zehnder, Nardelli), shall not be confined to silence when it shows in their work. This in no way is pulling punches in an ad hominem manner. Last but not least, of course the David and Jonathan entry is less than adequate - the core of the question lies in very subtle shades of meaning in the Hebrew, anthropological and historical probabilities for and against a non-mainstream sexual behaviour, and minutiae of Biblical narratology ; but the article succeeds in providing the reader with a gist of the problem while pointing out where further illumination can be seeked. Is this not the very goal of Wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.69.4.219 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Contaldo80. You mentioned the Bible not being the word of God and not being written by just one person. Ironically that the Bible was written by 40 different authors, most of whom never met, over about 1500 years, in three different continents, and in three different languages, while still maintaining one central theme and internal consistency, is touted by Christians as evidence to the divine nature of the Bible. You are correct that some things in the Bible are intended symbolically and not literally. That in itself can hardly be a reason to one you doesn't believe the Bible is not divine in origin though. Best Regards.192.88.165.35 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
speculation vs examination
I have made a comment at Talk:Cecil Rhodes#speculation vs examination. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter
The Miss Julie Memorial LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter |
---|
This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)
Cardinal Del Monte
I notice you've been editing the Del Monte article. You should include info from Creighton Gilbert's "Caravaggio and his Two Cardinals" - in addition to much info on Del Monte himself, it includes material on Caravaggio in Sicily. PiCo (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Cowboy culture
Have made a useful addition to the article Cowboy. Doubt that it will stand. Visit while it's hot. PiCo (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Herbert Ganado
Contaldo80 - your allegations were deemed to be libellous. Do not pursue to lay such allegations or action will be taken to trace your identity.
Thanks for your interest in this article - but I would appreciate it if you at least gave me two minutes to tidy things before tagging it etc! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- The only time i see article's, is the instant they are created. As of such, the only time i can tag an article is then. Maintenance tags such as the ones i added are not a thing to worry about really; A lot of article's have them. Its just a signal to fellow contributers that an article has a need for certain activities. In case the original contributer does not return, other people can take up the work required.
- Of course, you are free to remove the tags altogether when they are no longer valid. Also, if i am placing maintenance tags such as those added, it is also a sign that the article is in ok shape, as i can be quite generous with placing WP:PROD, WP:CSD and WP:AFD templates at times as well :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)