User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2015/December

Speedy deletion nomination of Diplomatic Society of Saint Gabriel

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 Diplomatic Society of Saint Gabriel, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, 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. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bazj (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of 'St.' and 'St' by 'Saint'

Thanks for your contributions. I support fully the replacement of abbreviations by clear informative full names. For your information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=St&namespace=0&hideredirects=1
Peco Wikau (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC).

It's worth pointing out that this user accounted was created on 5 Dec 2015, and is voting positively on 5 of Chicbyaccident's move requests. Rockypedia (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

P.-S. to Chicbyaccident: for your information, see also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Replacement of 'St.' and 'St' by 'Saint' in titles.
Peco Wikau (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC).

Please revert all your changes from 'St.' and 'St' to 'Saint'. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, it appears the reverts have already been done. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No, they have not all been done. You seem to have a habit of just stating things here that aren't true. Please stop that, and please revert your changes that have not been done yet. Rockypedia (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Your objections have been taken into account. Feel welcome back when you have either other edits to object to or, preferably, when you have positive feedback to provide for contributions that you consider improvements. Thank you and have a pleasant weekend! Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits speak a lot louder than your superficial pleasant words. Rockypedia (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

RC Templates consistency

I know you are going through every RC template and making them the same colour, in some cases that is fine, where you are changing the default colour to the RC gold.

However, as per WikiProject Catholicism, templates with specific colour schemes have done so for a reason (they are not random), e.g. all Regnum Christi templates being Red. There are common, local and association themes that you are ignoring. The colours for the Jesuit education associations in the U.S. for example, use maroon and gold. The Diocese of Leeds has blue and gold. Please restore those colours. Pjposullivan (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I did ignore those specific exceptions. If I did a mistake, please correct it. Thanks for pointing it out. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries, will do. I'm glad you changed the templates from the default Wiki pale blue. Many look a lot better with the gold colour - especially the Canadian and British seminary templates. Happy editing! Pjposullivan (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just following through the in consistence to what other users have initiated, indicating the subject of templates by means of colour. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Historical noblemen

It will be much easier to explain why these articles belong in WP if you include enough information to tell why this particular person was significant. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Birger Ulfsson

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 Birger Ulfsson 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 credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 18:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. More information of relevance has been added. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sir John Morgan

The article Sir John Morgan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not a nobleman--no personal notability

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. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

British Noblemen are Barons and above, not knights. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about that. Nontheless, more information of relevance has been added. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

OESSH

Thank you for your additions to the page on the OESSH and the page/templates about papal orders. I have corrected some typos and rearranged a few pics/paras to make reading a bit easier. I have noticed for some time that the arms of the order on the Wikipedia page (and elsewhere) are not correct - I wonder if you can find a version which is correct and that can be used. I have found one (finally) but it is copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.83.32 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you too. Sorry, I don't have access to that. As for templates, objects are usually put in long horizontal rows rather than vertical columns. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Moves

Hello Chicbyaccident, I see that you've moved a bunch of pages from versions with "St" to versions with "Saint" spelled out. I know I already said as much in the requested moves you opened, but there is no Wikipedia policy preferring non-abbrevations to abbreviations. It's all WP:COMMONNNAME, aka "use whatever everyone else uses." For one very famous example, the city in Missouri is always St. Louis, not "Saint Louis." I'm not familiar with most of the various orders you moved, so it's possible that some of them were good moves! I'm not sure. However, they're good moves if the official documents & usage spells Saint out usually, and they're bad moves if they're not. Some of the RMs you filed were cases where even the official websites only seemed to use "St." so changing it to "Saint" would be just as wrong as saying "Saint Louis, Missouri". SnowFire (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Certainly. Therefore only names that are only spelled "St" or "St." in sources and never "Saint" might as well be left as they are, Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No, only names that are usually spelled "Saint" should be moved, per WP:COMMONNAME. A number of your recent undiscussed moves, for example round St peter's Basilica, breach this, so please stop them. Launch an RM before just moving them. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, but where in the sources that you refer to is it explicitly stated that its name should be "St" rather than "Saint", other than as means of an abbreviation? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't refer to any particular sources. If you want to move things, it's your job to research sources to demonstrate your case, which you have clearly not done. Anyway, I see your changes have been reverted. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Yet, it seems most of them have in fact maintained. However, I welcome your objection about specific moves and won't insist on moving them contrary to your opinion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of them have maintained only because it's been less than a day. It's going to take time to undo all the damage you've done. Please don't make unilateral moves like this in the future. As Johnbod (talk) said, you've got to provide reasoning and the sources behind your reasoning to make such moves. I'd appreaciate it if you'd undo those moves yourself. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, sorry about your criticism, but I have intendendly only moved a few articles which were to be considered clearly abbrevations. For instance so city of St. Louis, that's not the case. Then perhaps there have been a few single examples which you have objected to, and I leave that to you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet, for a few examples that have now been reverted, clearly the name indicates "Saint" with no reservations made to that reference, other than more nominal examples. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. If you want to make a move, you have to have a reason for doing so. What you've done is to unilaterally decide that you're going to move all these pages, without stating a reason - and even if you had stated a reason, you'd still need sources to back up that reason. I'm asking you again to please revert your changes back. Will you do that? Rockypedia (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed the huge changes you're also making to templates all over the place. I don't know anything about templates, so I thought it best to get an admin involved. Rockypedia (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sure. Reasons have been stated. I see that you have reverted articles that I'm really not sure if you have support for, now that the change is done. However, I will stay idle on the issue and see if any other users have opions in individual cases. Sorry, albeit agreeing in general, I take it we have differing opinions in individual cases. As for the templates you mentioned, there is a background colour added in consistance with major templates in the same subject. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you're still not getting it. We don't have a difference of opinion. What you are doing is wrong, for this reason: You're taking pages that have been worked on for years, for which a consensus spelling was established, and you are unilaterally changing them all, without asking for input from anyone and without providing reasons. You just stated "Sure. Reasons have been stated." but that's just false. This isn't a contest between two people's opinions - these are violations of your doing, and you alone are responsible for them. If you refuse to fix them, fine, I suppose I will take up more of my time and fix them myself. I wish you would commit to helping, rather than hurting. But if you won't, I suppose there's nothing I can do about that. Rockypedia (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The edits done were of course with the intent of making the articles better, not hurting anyone. I'm sorry if that is the case. I initiated a discussion about it on several discussion pages, noticed positive feedback, and so pursued were I perceived there would be little or no objection. I now notice you do object and I do take that into account, so won't repeat any more of those moves until further discussion. Yet, if there is only you advociting the previous spelling in individual cases were I don't, including other users I perceived gave positive feedback for the move in general, I'd prefer to wait and so for more opinions. Thanks for your comments! Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to explain this. I normally don't type in BOLD, but I have to get this through your head somehow, so listen: This is not about who is advocating the previous spelling. If you want to make a major change like this, you need to have BOTH a reason AND a reliable source to back up that reason.

Do you understand that this is not about a difference of opinion, and in fact, it's about Wikipedia policy? Rockypedia (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that major changes require that. I'm not sure whether this case qualifies for that definition and thus that reaction, though, as other uses have requested these moves other than I have. So in fact there seem to be other users viewing your reverts as hurting. You, however, have been most verbal in your opinion that these are major and controversial moves, something that I in fact see little change in, so I leave the case to you for the time being. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"as other uses have requested these moves other than I have. " what other users? Can you provide examples? I'd hate to think you were just making this up. See below. Rockypedia (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding this statement: "I initiated a discussion about it on several discussion pages, noticed positive feedback, and so pursued were I perceived there would be little or no objection." I've checked Talk:Ancient Order of St. George, Talk:St. Peter's Square, Talk:St. Peter's Basilica, Talk:Scapular of St. Michael the Archangel, Talk:Archbasilica of St. John Lateran, among others, and there are no notes from you on any of those talk pages. In fact, on Talk:Archbasilica of St. John Lateran, there is still a discussion that talks about "Saint" vs. "St." and the consensus was "St." would be the more appropriate title. So, not only did you ignore that, you're also now telling us that you asked about changing it back, when you did no such thing. Can you explain this? Rockypedia (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, sorry, as I cannot currently find that discussion page that you've legitimately requested on a short notice, I leave the whole issue to you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing a bunch of damage to Wikipedia, without asking for input from anyone, then lying about getting support from other users, and then refusing to help fix the damage. Hopefully an administrator will notice all this behavior and take the appropriate action. Rockypedia (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't the intention, but the opposite: to improve. I'm sorry you perceived it in such a negative way. However, please consider refraining from such accusations before reviewing these discussions: Talk:Fort St. Angelo, Talk:St. Martin's Day, Talk:St Joseph's Day, Talk:St Mark's Eve, Talk:St. Andrew's Day. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

On all 5 of those talk pages, the only "support" you have is from an anonymous IP: this one. I'd also like to point out that the same IP address made almost exactly the same comment, 5 times, between 7:06 and 7:09 on 13 December. Your account was also active that day, but not during those minutes. It seems like too much of a coincidence that this anon IP just happened to weigh in on 5 talk page discussions, all opened by you, in the space of 4 minutes. To me, this looks like an obvious case of sockpuppetry, and I intend to report it. Rockypedia (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. Looking forward to the results of your initiated examination, proving my innocence to those accusations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is missing the point. Suppose Peco & the IP really are someone else, a friend off a different IP, etc. It doesn't actually matter. Wikipedia is not a democracy (WP:NOT) so previous cases where a horde of like-minded new editors come from a forum or Reddit or the like don't actually count for much. That isn't sockpuppeting then, fine, but it's still canvassing, and still should generally be discounted. If you look at the Village Pump proposal, you'll see that the vast majority of normal editors aren't huge fans of the idea of replacing every single "St" with "Saint." The template changes are at best controversial as well. SnowFire (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 December

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 Military order (monastic society) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Your addition to Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the attention. I thought that the rediting was sufficient but will reevaluate this. Sorry about that. I intend not to repeat the mistake. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Military order (monastic society) 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:

• | [[File:Cross_monreal.svg|75px]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Grand Master (Masonic)

Please do not cut and paste copyrighted material into Wikipedia articles. Copyright violation is illegal, and taken very seriously by all responsible editors. Repeated copyright violations could see you blocked. You clearly cut and pasted a paragraph from The Esoteric Codex in your last edit to the above article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I take notes and complains about copyright material seriously. Out of thousands of edits, single mistake cannot be completely avoided. However, in this case, I have not the slighest idea of what you're talking about. Sorry, that's a negative. Bitter revert, by the way. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot ignore an entire paragraph being word for word the same as a copyright source. You did not write this yourself, you stole it. That's not good. Don't do it again. And PLEASE don't insult my intelligence by denying what you did. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you please state the source so I might have a look about what you're talking about? Chicbyaccident (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. The text reads "The first unambiguously recorded Grand Master was Anthony Sayer, elected as the first Grand Master of the Premier Grand Lodge of England in 1717. There are earlier references to Grand Masters (for example, the architect Christopher Wren), but there is no unambiguous proof that the term is used in its current sense in those contexts (the references may refer to operative stonemasonry)", and was highlighted as your edit because you moved it. You have accidentally highlighted a massive problem with this article, again my unreserved apologies. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for the information. I hope you can correct the problem. Chicbyaccident (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Freemasonry templates

Category:Freemasonry templates, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)