User talk:DeCausa/Archive 2

AN/I thread "closure"
Hi, DeCausa. I saw that non-admin Berean Hunter "hatted" the thread that Magog the Ogre started there concerning Ohnoitsjamie. I'm generally opposed to that practice, so I'd like you to know that, if requested, Berean would have to revert that edit. "Hatting" or "closing" a thread to prohibit further discussion is a form of talk page refactoring, and our policy about that says, among other things,


 * Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.

So if you feel there are still open issues that need discussion, you can and should (a) ask Berean to revert his edit, or, if he's not online, and because threads at AN/I roll off to archives after 24 hours of inactivity, (b) just revert it yourself, citing the passage from WP:RTP. I'm undecided about this; I may do it myself before you see this message; it's my opinion that "closures" like that should almost never be done at AN/I where, almost by definition, there are "recent heated discussions" and where trust is often pretty thin on the ground. If you'd like to reply, feel free to do so here; I've temporarily watchlisted this page. – OhioStandard  (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I raised a more general issue about Jamie, but it's unclear anyone else thinks the same. Since there was no other comment along those lines I don't think I'll push to keep it open. I will leave a message on Magog's page however to see if he agrees - the hatting was strangely peremptory. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, other users had less than 2 hours to comment before Berean shut down discussion. I probably would have commented myself, if it hadn't been hatted. In fact, I "unhatted" the thread just a moment ago, and was about to post here to tell you so, when I got an edit conflict and saw your 07:51 post, just above. So I immediately self-reverted the "unhat" at AN/I; it would have been silly for me to re-open it if you didn't want it re-opened. Anyway, talk it over with Magog, and maybe the IP who also wanted further discussion; I'll look in on the section before it ages off to archives, and will comment there if I see it's re-opened. All I'd suggest is that if you do re-open it, that you might want to use the same edit summary I did, to help prevent an edit war ... which would be rather unseemly, at AN/I, imo. ;-) Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've thought about this for a while, and I want to comment at AN/I myself. I don't know if anyone else will, but Berean's quick closure made it impossible for us to know. That was improper, imo, and I've decided to re-open the thread myself. It'll probably just roll off to archives, but even just one user still wanting to comment is sufficient reason to remove the hat. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

House of Windsor
Where did you get that stuff about primary sources bad, secondary sources good? I have been adding stuff to this article on House of Windsor for over 2.5 years so that a significant portion of the article is my own edits and I have never heard that going to a primary source is bad. Most people prefer a primary source over a secondary source. I am not interpreting a primary source, just making a literal reading of the document.Pacomartin (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY. The vast majority of our material should be secondary sources, but there are many cases for exceptions. Caution is the key.  Kuru   (talk)  18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pacomartin, I deliberately oversimplified Wikipedia policy since you didn't seem to be getting it. As Kuru says, I'm getting it from WP:PRIMARY which I'm surprised you don't know about. You can use primary sources simply as evidence of what they say eg "the Bible says X" and then cite the relevant biblical chapter. What you can't do with primary sources is draw any wider conclusions - which is exactly what you've been trying to do with the Letters Patent - because it will end up being synthesis or even worse original research both of which are prohibited at Wikipedia. "Most people prefer a primary source". yes, in academia and the outside world, but not Wikipedia. How do you not know that after 2.5 years. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

British Royalty
Hello there, as you're clearly interested in the House of Windsor I'm inviting your participation in a discussion of recent edits to articles about British royalty at Talk:WikiProject British Royalty. Best regards. Rubywine (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Dont write your every mind's imagination please
wanna see your sources cited about the fake 4% Albanians please! One of your recent contributions to Greece has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information.Add only material based on a reference to a reliable source. —Preceding

As group
Ok but as a group! Not a minority as the previous reference please such as Greek official minority in Albania,please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aperitis25 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What are You talking about?
Look this please. I dont know who make these false statements for the day I was born GREECE HAS NEVER Albanian minorities my friend ,so let the right opinion to put on page Its about 10.94 million (2 0 0 1 c e n s u s estimate), 11.306 million (2010 estimate) look it by yourself :http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/greece/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aperitis25 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that he is a brand new user, he might need some kind of directions from other experienced users with same interests. Off course old users are welcomed too, but they can do it even without being invited since they are accustomed with the controls and the menus.Alexikoua (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi there. Thanks for letting me know about the discussion - I've been away on holiday so haven't been on for a while! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

:-)
Welcome to the world of Mick -- Snowded TALK  19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that's an enlightening world. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

UK
I just 'repeated' it, because of the latest 'footnote' discussion. My proposal will eventually be adopted, but only after alot of kicking & screaming. See the old 'map image' arguments at Scotland & the division of List of English and British monarchs into List of English monarchs & List of British monarchs struggle. These things take time. GoodDay (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC) ...well I suppose I admire your optimism however unfounded. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. What was the proposal for E/NI/S/W, that Snowded's speaking of? GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
From WP:BS: ''The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem''. That's you! HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have taken note the issue is not yet settled; it may never be. But if it is, I'm sure it will based upon your suggestion. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Userspace tags
As userspace is indexed by Google, it's a good idea to add and __NOINDEX__ at the top of drafts, etc. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Didn't know that. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Country & stuff
Hi there, just wanted you to know that I intend to reply to you on the subject of country. Obviously, any reply with take some consideration, but I have some RL deadline priorities to deal with at the moment, so it may not be soon. I'm sure the issue will not change in the meantime so, please be patient with me. By the way, I thought the work you did on UK etymology greatly improved the scope, balance and all round 'understandability' of the article. Nice one. Daicaregos (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks. No hurry on "country" - whenever you can. DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

UK
Your efforts much appreciated.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 11:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fully endorsed by me - thanks! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 11:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation around Abortion articles location
After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit
Do you mind explaining this edit and why you think its incorrect? Pass a Method  talk  19:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-explanatory, I think, based on Chem1's edit, which you didn't contradict. If you think Chem1's statement regarding factual accuracy is incorrect, you need to say so. If you want to pursue this it's a question for the article talk page. Please raise it there. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're confused. My edit did not revert it to the original version. I changed the wording from "places" to "cities" to make it accurate. I would appreciate if you self-revert. Pass a Method   talk  00:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. I didn't notice that, for which I apologize. However, it does then caste doubt on the notability of the statement, and verges on weasel words. It probably should only be a statement that part of the Qu'ran was written in Medina. Also, looking again at the edit, I think "revealed" fails NPOV as that is clearly Muslim terminology. Because of that, I won't self-revert. DeCausa (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Quran you have either the Medinan sura or the Meccan sura. This means that out of 114 chapters of the Quran half are either Meccan and the other half is Medinan. Don't you think this is notable enough to include? Pass a Method   talk  12:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then what about Chem1's comment? Do you dispute what he is saying or not? I'm referring to the reference to "one of two cities" where it was revealed. Chem1 said that it was written in other places besides Mecca and Medina. To say that medina was one of the two cities, yet ther e wereother places where it was written isn't notable. DeCausa (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He's referring to outskirt areas which surround Mecca and Medina, but commentators still describe them as Mecca and Medina. Pass a Method   talk  13:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could change the wording to say "Mecca and Medina and its surrounding outskirts are the only two places where the Quran was revealed.". Is that a good compromise? Check these refs which support my claims:,  Pass a Method   talk  13:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not say that "x sura of the Qu'ran was [revealed] in Medina"? But we can't say "revealed" IMO. Do you have a more NPOV word than revealed? DeCausa (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Medinan sura and Meccan sura both use the words "revealed" The references also use "revealed". I think revealed is better because the word "composed" implies the moment the Quran was compiled and written down after Muhammads death (which is a totally different event). Pass a Method  talk  21:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. "Revealed" means that Muhammad wasn't the author, but that God revealed it to Muhammad, who then transmitted God's word. That's not NPOV. I don't agree that "composed" means it was written afer his death. It has no connection with compiled. See the OED online definition. However, if you don't like "composed" then suggest another word. Whatever it is, it can't be "revealed". I would suggest "written" but i'm not sure that's correct. Isn't it the belief that Muhammad transmitted it orally in the first instance? DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Further thought: I guess "revealed" is ok if the sentence begins "Muslims believe that...", and that would be the best formula anyway if the Qu'ran is the only primary source for where it was "revealed", which I believe is the case. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What if we rewrite the whole sentence and write "The Quran is divided into Meccan suras and Medinan suras" ? Pass a Method  talk  08:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. The article isn't about the Qu'ran, which that would sound like. what was wrong with "Muslims believe..."? It's NPOV but not contrary to Islam. Btw, this should really take place on the article Talk page, so that others can seen what was agreed etc. DeCausa (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone is adding House of Glücksburg where it does not belong
DeCausa, I noticed that you were contributing recently to the discussion at Talk:House_of_Windsor, and appear to know a lot more than I do about the topic of royal houses.

I would like to ask for your opinion on how we should respond to an editor,, who is adding the House of Glücksburg everywhere he can, even if it is not correct. He assumes that all descendants of Queen Elizabeth II are of the Oldenburg line because of male-line inheritance. My understanding is that the House of Windsor has nothing to do with the Oldenburg lineage. That was the whole point of all those royal decrees, making sure that Prince Philip's origins do not affect the descendants. Here are some recent edits made by Emerson 07 that I am not going to revert myself, as I already reached my limit of two reverts at House of Windsor -- diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8.

--Skol fir (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I asked the wrong person, please let me know, so I can try somewhere else for help on this issue. Also, please let me know if this issue has been resolved at some other discussion besides Talk:House_of_Windsor. I personally have no opinion on this matter. I just don't see how the House of Windsor is connected with the House of Glücksburg, while insists this is a fact. Where is the evidence? --Skol fir (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long
Hello, DeCausa. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the MickMacNee Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of words and  diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 600 words and 18 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold ArbClerkBOT(talk) 06:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Six-Day War
I want to thank you for your well-considered edits of this article. I don't know if you are aware of this, but there was an intense debate for several months on how to characterize the Israeli attack. For some reason, that discussion completely died out, and then you stepped in and made the right call to separate the article and to state the issue of preemption in the most neutral way possible. (Incidentally, I had proposed this solution when I first got involved in the discussion.) Overall, I think the article looks very good now.

I hope that the "On this day"-hook for the article will be changed to comport with its current content. Come June 5 I noted that it described the event as follows: The Six-Day War began with an Israeli Air Force preemptive strike that destroyed about 450 total aircraft of the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian Air Forces on the ground. 

And this was the first time it had appeared on the front page in five years. Oh well, one doesn't always get what one wants. :) Shoplifter (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain, kingdom of
I more or less agree with you, and I see no more problem with "Kingdom of Great Britain" than with "Kingdom of England", although the eighteenth-century state was plainly named "Great Britain" when created and in practice was almost never called anything else. As you know, good historians still call it "Great Britain" and not "the United Kingdom", a name which specifically belongs to the Union between Britain and Ireland, later Britain and Northern Ireland. Unhappily, a small number of determined users edit quite a number of Wikipedia articles, repeatedly changing "Kingdom of Great Britain" into "United Kingdom of Great Britain", or even "United Kingdom". In most cases they make no other input into the articles. In effect, whether intentionally or not, Wikipedia is being used to change the English language. I just do not understand why people would get such a bee in their bonnets, but that's the problem. Fishiehelper2 was one of the users I have in mind, but lately he has moderated his position and accepts "Great Britain", which is progress. Moonraker (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia energy law
I came across this article while adding the Saudi template to pages using AWB; thought you'd might want to merge it with the legal system article (it's an orphan, after all). Shoplifter (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks yes. thought I'd found all the Saudi law articles. DeCausa (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this article will be useful to you also: Blasphemy law in Saudi Arabia. Shoplifter (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN3
Maybe it would be clearer if you retracted your post, and added your name to mine.... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed it now by correcting first post! DeCausa (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But it still looks as though Deano545 is reporting you (which is what I first thought). Hope you don't mix up the accuser and accused in court!!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely missed that!!! Thanks. I've fixed it now. D'oh. DeCausa (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I understand post above and have deleted my report! I think I should just go back to bed...DeCausa (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs - happens to all of us! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Al ash-Sheikh
EncycloPetey (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh
LOL! Since we have disagreed on certain issues in the past, I'm glad we found some common ground and can enjoy working together. Doc  Tropics  21:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A wish
I wish you'd reconsider this. Yours is a voice of sanity, and if the sane all leave, it'll be our fault that the inmates are running the asylum. I'm not saying to expend a lot of time and energy, I'm just saying stick around and be counted, stick around to express an opinion on occasion. Don't give up, this appears to be a way to get this settled. HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation
You're invited in joining Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies. Blackvisionit (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Bulgarians
If you bothered to see paragraph'Higher estimate of Bulgarians in Bulgaria' you will see that consensus was reached already so please stop changing agreed content. Discuss at least instead edit warring, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I already read it. That's not WP:Consensus. I have joined the discussion. You have not replied. DeCausa (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

RFAR on Abortion
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 05:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider
I realize that you may be a little offended by Jehochman's question..."Who are you?", etc. but your response is not helpful, particularly where it is. If MB has a persecution complex, you will have just contributed to it. I would urge you to withdraw or amend your statement there and if necessary, take it up with Jehochman on his talk page. MB's talk page isn't the place for other folks to air their grievances against one another...especially while admins are trying to do their job. Please amend.

If you feel that the block is unwarranted, the proper thing to do is to state your case at ANI by asking for a block review.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  00:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to amend: it's prompted him to answer the question that he's refused to previously answer. But I won't involve myself further.


 * It's too late to go to ANI now. If MB wants to appeal on the basis of Jehochman's response, that's up to them. MB getting blocked was inevitable at some point...but it shouldn't have happened like that. There's something very strange about the way it happened. DeCausa (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)