User talk:Alexander Domanda

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --StuffOfInterest 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

On President of the United States if you have a problem with wording, please write about it on the talk page first. If you need to learn about referencing, check out Referencing for beginners with citation templates. If I can be of assistance, let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

President of the United States
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't add your own comments or analysis to articles, as you did with President of the United States. If you have a concern about an article's accuracy, please take it up on the article's talk page, which in this case is Talk: President of the United States. Thanks, and happy editing. --RrburkeekrubrR 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Roman Empire. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please read WP:VERIFY Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

February 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Sally Hemings. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

May 2012
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sicily. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Saint, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WP:EUPHEMISM Aaron Booth (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Saint appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Aaron Booth (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Saint. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Aaron Booth (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greystones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Iraq, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ''You did the same to the Lebanon article and Christianity in Iraq before, and this is wholly inappropriate. If you want to change something, find sources that can back your claims first.'' eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thessaloniki uncited content
Hello, thank you for your interest in Thessaloniki. However I would like to point out that the content you are adding is (a) unsourced and (b) in conflict with the source that actually exists on that particular topic. If you have something to add please use sources. I will continue to revert your unsourced edits and if you revert them still I will have no option than to request that you be banned on the grounds of the 3 revert rule. I would not want to do that, so please either use the article's talk page to discuss the issue or use sources. Regards, --Philly boy92 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a second warning - you reverted to your edit again and someone else removed it again. Please do not do this again or I will have to ask that you be banned for 24 hours fro editing wikipedia. I have left you a very polite note above and you have failed to respond to it. --Philly boy92 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your cited addition at Roman Empire...
...in the section on Slaves. Thanks very much for providing a source, including page numbers, for your addition. I thought it might help you to read Wikipedia policies on WP:Citation style, and in-line citations. You've embedded yours in the main text, and we don't need to know the authors name or work in the readable text of the section. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates and Help:Referencing for beginners without using templates. Ah, OK, I see that the same problem holds for you addition to Slavery in ancient Rome.

Also please note that "etc." and "et cetera" ("and the rest") are best avoided in article text (unless as part of a quotation) because when it comes down to it, "and the rest" says nothing particular about anything, except perhaps to readers who already know what "and the rest" actually refers to - and if they already knew, why would they need to read the article? Better to be terse and precise. If I can help, please ask. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm Jackson Peebles. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Hyacinth Bucket because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624320797 your edit] to Umayyad Caliphate 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Roman Empire]]. During his reign, Rhodes was occupied briefly and raids were made on[Crete], and several assaults were launched against [[Constantinople]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Homophobia. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent editing history at Homophobia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Neil N  talk to me 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Homophobia
If you don't discuss your changes on the talk page, provide sources, and get consensus, you'll likely end up blocked. --Neil N  talk to me 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you get your people together to offer the readers of the article Homophobia a complete definition of the word which does not appear in the article. Homophobe means someone who has a fear of a homosexual person. It is not in the definition. Only phobos is described, not mention is made of the meaning of homos. Why can't you and other understand this. It's clear from the article on heterosexual that the writer did. As for consensus I don't need anyone's approval when I am right. It's called 3 university degrees in Greek, Latin and Ancient History. Those who challenge me on this point should do their homework.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 19:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Homophobia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edit in the Ephesus article
Please take a look at this edit you made in the Ephesus article. First, you added the words "and the population at 51,060 which Hanlon regards as far too low" at the end of the paragraph's second sentence. Did you mean Hanson, the source I cited? In any case, you suggest that Hanson gave an estimate of 51,060 inhabitants which he regards as low. This is simply not in the source, Hanson gives an estimate of 33,600 to 56,000 inhabitants further down the paragraph. Also, I don't understand your omission of the word "realistic", referring to population densities. Based on recent scholarship those population densities are realistic and that is exactly what the source argues for. I fail to see why you made this edit, it introduced errors in the article. So, I decided to revert your edit. And could you please give edit summaries when you make edits? Thanks. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Alexander, thank you for your most recent edit to Ephesus. I feel that I assumed bad intentions on your part in my last comment, which did not turn out to be true. I apologize for that. After your last edit the paragraph's content is better, but I think the message could be convened with a little bit more clarity. I will edit it accordingly and keep your contribution intact. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC). Thank you for your consideration. FYI I have two degrees in Greek and Latin; an MA Litt. in Classics from Cambridge University in Later Roman History and some interest in demographics of Greek and Roman civilization which is a very tricky subject, indeed.

Bishops Wife
Hi! I appreciate what you're attempting to do, but it really shouldn't go in the article. It makes absolutely no difference to the plot of the film (obviously, or else it would be mentioned), and even if Rotten Tomatoes speculates on it, it is still that, speculation. I won't revert again, in respect to the 3RR rule, but would ask you to self-revert. WP attempts to be as factual as possible, and speculation isn't really relevant. Regardless, have a great day, and happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Revert of ebionite priest
Hello Alexander Domanda, sorry for the revert. I did it because this is what it said:

After returning home, Muhammad was consoled and reassured by Khadijah an Ebionite Christian priest (this sect believed Jesus was a human Messiah and rejected the doctrine of the Trinity) and her cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal.

The sentence gave the impression that Khadijah was an Ebionite priest. But your new edit makes it clear that it is refering to Waraqah ibn Nawfal so I am pleased. Keep up the good work. Mbcap (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

August 2015
Hello, I'm Telfordbuck. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Miracle of Lanciano because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Telfordbuck (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Book of Common Prayer
You seem to be having a problem with referencing your changes. This is vital in Wikipedia and a skill you must acquire if you want to avoid continual battles with people over what you edit. Let me ask you to clarify what you have written and let me try and fix the references so that they are valid.

1. Which book by MacCulloch were you looking at when you made the quote in this sentence. There are three books to choose from. "At Holy Communion, the words from the 1549 book, "the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" etc. were combined with the words of Edward's second book, "Take eat in remembrance" "suggesting on the one hand a real presence to those who wished to find it and on the other, the communion as memorial only," MacCulloch p. 27, i.e. an objective presence and subjective reception." Secondly in that sentence does the quote apply tyo all the quotes or just the one immediately before the reference you gave? Finally references stylistically go after the punctuation not before.

2. The instruction to the congregation to kneel when receiving communion was retained; but the accompanying Black Rubric which denied any "real and essential presence" of Christ's flesh and blood, was removed to "conciliate traditionalists" and aligned with Queen's belief(MacCulloch & 1996 p.527). Again the words you quote do not come from the 1996 MacCulloch book, so where did you get them from? This is important, if you quote then you must give a reference.

3. "The removal of the Black Rubric compliments the dual words of administration of communion and permits an action, kneeling to receive, which people were used to doing. "It was a masterpiece of theological engineering," ibid. p 27 that would set the tone for Anglicanism later." Again Wikipedia does not use terms like "ibid" as these can get confused if another editor adds a different reference into the passage and then no one knows whether ibid refers to that reference or another. Secondly again reference should be after the punctuation.

Please address these issues by responding here and I will help you fix up the section and you can review the wikitext to see how it is done. Dabbler (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Rwanda, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In your edit summary, you referred to a citation at Church of the Province of Rwanda. However, that citation does not support the 1 million figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit summary, I have checked the source and the 1 million figure is not present. It is not enough to refer readers to another Wikipedia article. If you have a reliable source for the claim, please add it to the Rwanda article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The thread is at WP:AN3. You may respond to the complaint if you wish. Adding unsourced information is viewed with alarm here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=696136778 your edit] to Georg von Trapp 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the UK, who is a hereditary knight, but is not a peer and therefore not ranked with the nobility [Peerages in the United Kingdom|]; whereas Ritter a knight with a hereditary title and is also

January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=698908997 your edit] to Demographics of Syria 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4,860). The Druze do not consider themselves to be Muslim and are not regarded as such by Muslims. t is generally accepted that 10% of Syrians, 23 million before the Civil War, were Christians. The

Please see ...
the discussion Talk:India about an edit you made over a year ago. It would be great if you could comment there. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of California
I want to revert your change. The sentence is awkward and the year Mexico gained independence is not really relevant. I am thinking
 * In 1834, the Spanish missions were taken under Mexican control and secularized. The new government did not return their lands to tribes but made land grants to settlers of at least partial European ancestry.

What do you think? Robert.Harker (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice update, thanks! Robert.Harker (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources for demographics
Hi Alexander. Please provide sources when adding data. You entered data in the wrong places of the information chart, and didn't provide citation for any of it (for example, see the Greek peninsula stats, which don't include what you claim they do). Thanks, Haploidavey (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit on Slavery
Hi, Alexander Domanda. I reverted your addition to the Slavery article [ here] as, firstly, your reference is only for one academic who has lowered the estimate, plus your contravention of good practice according to WP:WORDS to describe this as a 'challenge'. You also added the reference in the text body, so please learn how to add citations correctly.

I'm using this sentence as an example of how to add the reference you'd cited.

Please note that I didn't believe it to be WP:DUE in a broad scope article on the concept of 'Slavery', and believe it would be better suited to the Slavery in ancient Rome article. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, also, that this ES is a WP:PERSONAL attack. I've assumed good faith on your behalf in not being able to add content properly, and it's absolutely irrelevant to me how many degrees you have (I have a number myself). What does matter is WP:5P4. Your intellectual snobbery does raise you above any other editor: in fact, it speaks badly of your character. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Food and Drink editathon
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

July 2017
Hello, I'm General Ization. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Loyalist (American Revolution), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   22:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Loyalist (American Revolution), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   22:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Alexander, do you not know how to create an inline citation of your source? Please read WP:CITE and stop adding the content without including a proper source. Your edit summary is of no value to someone reading the article rather than looking at its edit history. Please review verifiability for WIkipedia's policy concerning the need to cite sources for added content. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   22:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content and changing sourced content without justification, as you did to Ottoman Empire‎. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Note that other Wikipedia articles cannot be used to satisfy verifiability. Please take heed of the previous warnings you have received and note that if you ignore them, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eperoton (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at American Revolutionary War, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   01:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Troops = soldiers
Hi! With regard to your edit at New Mexico, troops in that sense simply means soldiers. See definition 1 in Collins Dictionary or 1c in Merriam-Webster.YoPienso (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussing
Per what is stated here, do consider discussing Wikipedia matters in the future. Discussion on Wikipedia is important. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Colonial History of the United States, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dilidor (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

French and Indian War edit, contra source
Hello. The source provided gives a proportion of 20:1, not 17:1. If you've a more recent or more reliable source for the latter figure, please provide it. Meanwhile, I've reverted to the previous version. Haploidavey (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Original research investigation
I know that htis user has stopped editing under this userid (and also as ) so this is mostly a comment and pointer for the record. Discussions are underway to remove massive amounts of Original research added by this user and by, notably to the articles Roman diocese and Elizabethan Religious Settlement, and also to other articles. A partial list of articles that need investigation for original research can be consulted at User talk:DuckeggAlex/OR removal worksheet. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)