Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Watercracker (talk | contribs) at 16:22, 21 December 2009 (Moved my comment to the Jesus of Nazareth section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Notpietru, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Valetta

"Pepper" is just too evocative and imaginative. What we are looking for is not so much a dumbed-down word, but rather an actual number or, most likely, just the vague statement that there are watchtowers. It's hard to appreciate since we were all taught how to write in an "interesting" manner, but encyclopedic writing is not quite that way! Just the dull facts. Thanks for asking. Student7 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Malta

Hi Notpietru, Can you fix footnote 99 in the Malta article? I have no idea what the relevant source is, but hope that you do. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

hello, sorry I reverted the wrong edit before than re-reverted it as opposed to the "relieved" change it reads with only the verb as if releived of something bad - with the bad being implicit without the historical action named in the sentance so the phrasing is not fullMasterknighted (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear agressive editor, thank you for your kind words. When it reads "relieved" it does not in the sentance indicate relieved (what?). It therefore reads as if the people who the victors were relieving were in turn a nuissance unworthy of being named (and hints at a deeper resentment).The historical action should be accounted for rather than the prejudicial way it reads now.. The sentance is incorrect... one rule was replaced with another not one pitcher replaced another unamed hurler. I really do not feel it necessary for you to insult me, my competance with English is not measured by my random encounter with you.--- Masterknighted

I came, I saw, I edited- I am through though this person hopes that you finish the sentance by stating (relieved of what)and do not let the word hang around unoccupied. Not completing the phrasing leads to dangerous connotative inferences arising. I do not feel that it is productive for me to revert your reversion but rather to speak to your possibly enlightened side and see the error of the current wording- rather than it being about historical writing it is about lack completion and comprehension as the particular passage goes. You are perhaps far more passionate about this than I.Masterknighted (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Hi, Notpietru, I've responded to your post on WP:AN/I#User:Imbris . :) Regards, --DIREKTOR 22:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Maltese dog / Publius

My apologies, I had thought the effect of your edit was different than it was. Yes, of course, some sources do say that Marial was referring to Saint Publius / Governor Publius, though others do not. But the text seems to be an accurate reflection of this, so I agree. Mangojuice 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "extant"

Thanks for the comment although it would have been nice had you kept to the wikipedia suggestions of being polite and being welcoming. As a matter of fact I do know what the meaning of "extant" is and I also note that the Apostolic See article makes no distinction between "extant" and not.

--Demdem (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dun Gorg

Yes indeed he would. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Saint Paul

I haven't time to check Malta as well as my other subjects like Proxima Centauri but it's good if you review what I write. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What is happening

What happened with this edit? You erased half the article. Similar here. Wknight94 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Unfortunately, those edits were from 2007, so reverting undid over two years of other contributions! In that case, there is no choice but to undo the edit by hand. Wknight94 14:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

-

Jude 1:10

Maltagenealogy.com

Ahem. The link I've been removing from these articles is being pushed by a serial sockpuppeteer who has three accounts indef blocked for abuse of editorial privileges, and a couple of admins are seeking a spamblock on the site Misplaced Pages wide . These edits are not remotely vandalism, and I would appreciate you ceasing to characterize them as such.  RGTraynor  11:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits to the Malta aricle

I'm sad that you call my edits "aggressive". You should too. Because if the same yardstick were to be used all around the same description would be applicable in your removing a reference to a newspaper article which quotes a Professor of Linguistics on the origin of Maltese surnames (not that the Islamic sound to a surname like "Abdilla" should escape anyone, mind you). But if that's not enough for you, head off to p. 31 of Lutterell on forced conversions. You might find some consolation in the fact that, like newspapers, Oxford scholars of history get their history wrong too. That, however, does not mean you should rush off into the arms of a sanitised version that gets pandered about.

(There's also the part on the arrival of Roger the Norman and the origins of the Maltese flag that got removed. Castillo gets cited as a source but, brazenly, his qualification of "according to tradition" is removed).

On the other hand, I was re-assured to hear my edits described as "sprawling". Sometimes I fear that removing things that, at best, are irrelevant might be mistaken as vandalism. Point on grammar taken too (yes, sometimes I edit in a hurry which I shouldn't) although I note that you've re-introduced the line "Abela's writings worked with the Knights of Malta".

One final note. I'm not here to fight an edit war. Just to note that there's to weights and two measures you apply in the case of my edits and others which you seem to value highly if not for their correctness (which they don't have), for their, ahem, "charm".

Cheers.

Demdem (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Minotaur

Please see Talk:Minotaur. I invite you to explain what the problem is. Thanks, Elphion (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Notpietru, with your history of edit-warring blocks I would have thought you ought to know better than to use Twinkle-revert combined with a false accusation of vandalism to revert a good-faith edit, as you did here (and here). It is rather plain to see for everyone that this paragraph was indeed heavily WP:OR and pushing for your WP:POV; therefore I will remove it again. If I see you abusing Twinkle like this again, I will blacklist you from using the tool. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"The information is entirely valid" ? Well, let's see:

• The whole paragraph is unsourced.
• "little is done by the breed clubs to reeducate the public": not merely a neutral statement of fact, but insinuates that the the clubs have a moral obligation (to "reeducate") do do something differently. That is obviously somebody's POV – probably yours.
• "This raises a major ethical issue": says who? Again, obviously pushing a POV, and not even very subtly.
• "the misappropriation of national symbol": again, whose opinion is this?

If you really think this paragraph has a chance of staying in as a legitimate encyclopedic statement, then you really, really have a problem with this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure it needs work; but it tackles an important issue, one that should receive sourcing etc. It relates important information. And if unsourced, POV material is always delete-worthy, three quarters of this project would disappear. The information must be shaped, pruned and verified. One of the "unsourced" template things could be used. What should not happen is the entire removal of important information that is (conveniently) ignored throughout the rest of the article. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It is not just unsourced, it is also, as I just explained to you and as you have conveniently ignored, very obviously POV. You are free to include a new paragraph covering something about this topic once you have found a way of presenting the issue fairly, neutrally and on the basis of sources. But since I find it hard to imagine how such a paragraph would look like, given that the whole thing is basically about POV-pushing, the default is to delete. That's the way it works here, not the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. This point is actually covered in most literature about the breed. Presumably you're unfamiliar with that. The point is, it's explaining the way "Pharaoh hound" is a fanciful but artificial name given to the creature in order to make it more marketable where silly people are concerned. There is no conclusive link to Ancient Egypt. The para goes on to associate this with a slight against a national symbol, which is perhaps taking things a little far. However, the principle is sound and repeated on any article dealing with the misappropriation of national symbols/national symbols themselves. I'll let the matter rest - butcher the article if you must. I'll fix it when I have the time. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at Minotaur

Hi! A user has filed a request for mediation in the dispute you are having with User:Elphion about the wording used in the article Minotaur. I'm going to take a look at this case and try to help you come to an agreement that meets Misplaced Pages policies. The first step is making sure that everyone is on the same page. Please indicate that you are willing to participate by leaving a comment at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-20/Minotaur. Once I am in touch with both of you, I'll start a discussion to try to find common points of agreement between you, and we'll all work from there to agreement on the disputed wording. Thanks! — æk 10:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus of Nazareth

Dear Notpietru, rather than simply reverting and treating others' entirely reasonable edits as vandalism, you need to enter into discussion on the talk page. Your apparent refusal to do so is not good practice on Misplaced Pages and leads others to assume you are not acting in good faith. garik (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Notpietru: My edits on the List of people who have been considered deities page do not qualify as vandalism as you asserted; I made the edits based on discussed consensus on the talk page. Jesus of Nazareth belongs on the page. If you dispute this, please discuss it in the talk page before systematically removing him - continuing to do so amounts to vandalism on your part, as you have provided no rationale. Provide your rationale and we can discuss it. Saying "supreme bad taste" does not qualify as an argument. Not many people dispute that Jesus is considered a God, but if you have evidence against that please provide it on the talk page. Watercracker (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)