User talk:DeCausa/Archive 3

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * All articles related to the subject of Abortion:
 * shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
 * shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
 * are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:
 * 1) Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
 * 2) Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
 * 3) User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
 * 4) User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
 * 5) User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows: Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
 * Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

Abortion amendment request
Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul is in Europe, Chrysopolis (now Üsküdar) were in Asia
Hello, i hope you will see that Istanbul needs to be put in the European list, of oldest cities Istanbul is in Europe, the Asian side were not Istanbul, but known as a city called Chrysopolis (now Üsküdar) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Csk%C3%BCdar We need know to remove Istanbul from mideast to Europe, it has at any given time been a city located in Thrace i the Balkans, the city of Istanbul first incorperated the Asian side in the 20th century, before this the urban area on the asian side were not Istanbul, but known as a city called Chrysopolis (now Üsküdar) reopen this article, so we can place Istanbul in Europe The historic center of Istanbul are entirely in Europe, so lets put it where it belongs. Thanks mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.112.241 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No idea what you're talking about or why you posted here. Goodbye. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: women's rights in KSA
Thanks for fixing that, I think I got it mixed up with the ban on hijab in schools and whatnot. Then again, I'm not sure the sentence is relevant, looking at it again - what do you think? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was half-minded to delete rather than amend. Looking at it again, I think the previous sentence is unnecessary and POVish and the sentence itself is just plain irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the bit about France and Quebec; you may want to remove the "visible symbol of oppression" part too. I myself think it could stay, but it should have a source that's directly about Saudi Arabia, not about people in other countries veiling. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. DeCausa (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

hi
Hey, thanks for your concern re the population of albanians. please respond to the comments in the talk page, as opposed to engaging in reversions of (disruptive) edits of rather minuscule proportions. Much more important is fostering a good, constructive dialogue among editors. Many thanks, Ottomanist (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? "As opposed to engaging in reversions" Yesterday, I reverted a change by an IP which verged on vandalism. At that point my post was the last in the discussion and had been unanswered by you for 3 days. My last reversion was a month ago. "edits of rather minuscule proportions". The IP doubled the number of Albanians without a source. "Much more important" is keeping unsourced nonsense out of articles.


 * This article has been plagued by, usually IPs, with a rather childish nationalist POV that seeems to want to inflate Albanian numbers without a source. I see you're a new user, and I think you may not know how Wikipedia works. If you want to change sourced material in an article, you need to provide new sourced material. Pointing to another Wikipedia article is irrelevant. You're new post on the talk page of the article adds nothing to the discussion and wasn't worth posting. You repeated the point already made and ignored the points made to you by 2 other long-standing editors. I suggest you do some leg work and research sources that support a new number, then come back to the article talk page abd discuss it. Until you do that, you are not in a position to lecture me on what is "much more important" as you do not appear to have yet established the basics of how Wikipedia works. Oh, and by the way, you forgot to sign your name on the post on the article talk page and indent your post properly. You really need to learn some WP basics before posting patronising and factually inaccurate messages such as the one above. DeCausa (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah...I see from a deleted post on your talk page that you are a "returned old user". That explains a lot. See WP:SCRUTINY. DeCausa (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite response. According to the sources cited already, I've tallied it up to 7.000.000 using the lower end of all estimates.

Please feel free to do the same to verify that. Ottomanist (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think you have reliable sources that support a figure of 7M rather than 6.5M then feel free to edit accordingly (and add in the citation) or to propose it on Talk, with the citation, but beware of WP:SYNTHESIS. That's how WP works. It's not an issue for my talk page. DeCausa (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, only issue seems to be that there was no source for 6.5 million- still 7 seems more reliable. I'll dig around for a source, but probably the only way to reach a reliable figure is to tally the results our selves in some cases. Thanks for your concern, good day. Ottomanist (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've been blocked for a week for edit warring and ethnic attacks. DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Deathlaser (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople
No problem, I probably jumped in their a little too quickly anyway! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if...
Do you mind if I were to combine our AN/I threads? We're essentially bringing the same issue, but I notice you simply ask an admin to look at it, while I am asking for a topic ban. -- Avanu (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem - I didn't notice you'd brought it there. Sorry, DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2012 (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) 06:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place?
Did you intend to post this either at Shardan's talk page or on the article talk page? As I don't otherwise get why you'd start a new top level heading on AN on the same subject but directed at one user when the original discussion remains on AN Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Very busy
De Causa, thanks for your kindness, but at the moment I'm very busy on real life and I cannot answer promptly on the talk page of Kingdom of Sardinia. Thanks again --Shardan (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment
Hello, DeCausa. You recently participated in this discussion. I'm dropping you this little note to let you know that your input would once again be of great value.  Thanks! Sleddog116 (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Brendon is here  10:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C
thank you for your contribution on the Rangers F.C talk page DeCausa, been campaigning now for over 2 weeks to have this article restored to a factual enclyclopedic entry again, as it's unfortunatly locked in a vandalised state! Regards, Ricky072 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

a club can be liquidated
not goign to post ont eh newco page as idnt want to tie down the requested move. but a club can be liquidated, however that doesnt mean rangers have been or will be once liqudiation complete.

let me explain

i am solo trader and ltd company owner, well will be once i finish the paperwork

a solo trader is responiable for all company debts.

a ltd copmapyn or plc just more fancier ltd company so to say, i think you knwo what a plc is so no point explaining that, a ltd company is so to say a fake person so that fake perosn owns the debt if the company folds.

however you are wrong in sayinga club cant be liqduaited, third lanark where a club and where liqduaited, that because third lanark never became a ltd company so where in fact a solo trader, since a person cant really owna club, then teh club becomes the company so it folds. rangers where transfer otu of the plc to a new ltd company that what people dnt udnerstand or dnt want to accept-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a lawyer. This stuff is my day job. "a solo trader is responiable for all company debts." wrong! (if incorporated, & therefore no longer a sole trader) You need proper legal advice! The equivalent of liquidation for a sole trader is bankruptcy. Sole traders can't go into liquidation. Corporations go into liquidation. But that's not the point I was making.  The "club" in this instance is not a legal entity - it's merely an asset owned by the company (& it's not equivalent to an unincorporated club which Lanark presumably was). It's like saying the stadium went into liquidation. legal nonsense DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ok i think you mis understood wha ti mean. if you are a solo trader you are responiable for the debts of your company, and your company can be liquidated. which would in turn probally make you as a perosn bankrupt. i have two companies one will be ltd company soon enough the other willr emains solo trader company meaning i am responiable fo rhte debt fo the company if there was ever any, the other would be the respnabilty of the ltd company which would then own the ocmpany just like ltd company owns teh club hence why it can be sold even in liqudiation of the parent company. as the club is a assest. but not all club are incorparated, the ones that are not the person who owns them is responabile for ht debt and if they go bust like third lanark the the club is liqudiated, similar to gretna but the club wasnt techincally liquidated the company was but since no one bought the club then it is dissolved as well. im not doubting what you say if you think anything is wrong you might want to speak with business gateway they taught me :) as well as hmrc, it might be more i have put myself across wrong Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 08:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion comes because you've just got slightly mixed up on terminology. You should only talk about a "company" or "company debts" if there is a Limited company or a plc. If you're a sole trader it's not a company at all, it's the wrong word - you can talk about "your business", but not "your company". But "your business" is not legally separate from you. You are your business and your business is you, legally that is. It's just one legal entity.
 * As a sole trader, you have debts for which you are personally liable and there's no company to be liquidated. If you go bust you go "into bankruptcy" - there's nothing called liquidation at any point - and you have to close down your business. So instead of a "liquidator" being appointed what's called a "trustee in bankruptcy" does pretty much the same job for you and your business.
 * If you decide you want to run your business through a company and not as a sole trader you establish a limited company (or plc). If you have a company there are two legal entities: you and the company and there totally separate. If that goes bust, then the company can go into liquidation (not bankruptcy). You, the owner of the company, are not liable for the debts and won't go bust. (Although if you have given a personal guarantee for the company to landlords or bank etc you could also go bust as well and quite separately go into bankruptcy. But that's a totally different issue.)
 * The situation with Lanark sounds like it was what is called an "unincorporated association". That's a special status that has its own (complicated) rules. But Rangers F.C. isn't that. It's not as though there is a company and that separately there is an unincorporated association (i.e. the F.C) It can't work like that because it is owned by a company: it doesn't have any sort of legal identity in the way that Lanark would have had. This is actually the key legal point for the old club/new club debate: Rangers F.C doesn't have that sort of legal identity and that is the basic reason why it's wrong to talk about a "new club". It's just an asset which can be owned by a company and can be passed around to other owners. Only legal entities can go into bankruptcy (if an individual, like a sole trader, or group of individuals, like a partnership) or liquidation (if a limited company or plc). Hope that clears that up. DeCausa (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah thanks, the problem with rangers is was it truly transferred from the plc to sevco or was it they bought assessts and started a new club but made it out to be the same, and that wher ethe media is confussed a lot to, obviously rival fans will say it s new club and rangers fans will same it the sme club for obvious reasons. ive always maintained both are corret in wikipedia rules because 3rd party sources say both and that what wikipedia goes on but there starting to refer to them as the same tema now hence why there less oppsiiotion to it now. im still a bit confussed with third lanark since it wasnt incorpated since it was the business is it dissolved regardlessed if you look at as bankrupcy or liqudiation, that the only club i really see as truly bust, gretna i only see bust becaus eno one bought it out of the old company, but i think there be nothing osmeone buying it now as it give creditors who are still own tihngs from gretna more money i think-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abdulrahman bin Abdulaziz Al Kelya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court of Cassation (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) 11:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Book of Revelation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aegean (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) 10:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Vainly searching for regas
Hi DeCausa, can you point me toward the entry in the ODB where the "modernized" form is listed? (I only have access to the online version right now, so the page number doesn't help me.) I haven't been able to find an actual occurrence of regas, but if it's in the ODB, I've been very lazily wrong about a minor lexicological point for years. Thanks a bunch, davidiad.:τ 16:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it in the first place I should have looked: ρῆγας is all over the later chronica. This is the kind of thing that keeps middling little nigglers like me up nights. davidiad.:τ 16:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, just caught up with messages. Glad that's resolved. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriots
Hi DeCausa, I just wanted to make you aware that I have reverted your good-faith edit to the introduction of the Turkish Cypriots. From the discussion page it is clear that you have good intentions, which I'm genuinely grateful for. I've listed my reasons for reverting on the talk page. As a Brit of Turkish Cypriot origin I am extremely knowledgeable about this certain subject and have tried my best to keep the article neutral with a range of academic sources. I believe that User:Ghuzz is a possible sockpuppet of User:23x2 and have given my reasons for this assumption on the discussion page. Unfortunately, I get stalked quite often on wikipedia and certain individuals create numerous accounts in order to make it seem as though there is a group of people who are disagreeing with me. Having said that, my main reason for reverting your last contribution was because official census’ have shown that 95% of the Muslim inhabitants in 1881 were Turkish speaking and today we are not distinguished between "Christian" or "Muslim" descendants, especially since we are ironically strictly secular people. Furthermore, on 3 September 2012, "User:HelenOfOz" argued that Turkish Cypriots are not "indigenous" so it's really annoying how some users on the one hand argue that Turkish Cypriots are actually "Greeks" and then on the other state that we are not "indigenous"...now surely that's nationalism.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As you will see I've reverted you, mainly because you haven't dealt with the Rudolf source. As it is, your edit misrepresents what Rudolph says. I think 2 things are being confused here: "Turkish ethnicity" and who were the ancestors of today's current Turkish Cypriots. I see no problem saying that today's Turkish Cyriots are "ethnic Turks" and a substantial part of their ancestry are non-Turkish inhabitants of the island. Can you deal with the Rudolph point on the talk page please? DeCausa (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How exactly do you think it is contradicting my recent edit? I'm a little confused, are you looking at a certain quotation?  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 15:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't p.37 of Rudolph say Turkish Cypriots are descended from 2 groups (i.e. settlers and converts)? DeCausa (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No it does not. Page 37 says the following: "Ottoman rule lasted for slighty more than 300 years (1571-1878) and bequathed to Cyprus its first and only significant minority community: today's Turkish Cypriots. At the same time, rule from Constantinople did not significantly dislodge the hold of Greek culture on the isle's majority". Here, majority refers to Greek Cypriots. It says nothing about Turkish Cypriots descending from two groups. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 15:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I owe you an apology then - the previous version was mis-representing what it says, in that case. To be honest I am so heartily sick of both pro-Turkish and pre-Greek POV editing in these areas I'm taking all these articles off my watchlist. DeCausa (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ok. I genuinely do appreciate all your input though. We need as many neutral viewpoints as possible on wikipedia, especially when it comes to disputes such as this one. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 16:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Conflict
On AN/I you removed one my recent comments. I can only surmise this was due to an edit conflict. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was this edit. I have absolutely no idea how that happened as I didn't go anywhere near the thread you posted in - not sure how I could be more careful since I can't figure what happened. Anyway, sorry! DeCausa (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Contribution.
Hey, DeCausa. You have been randomely chosen to please help contribute to my WikiProject. This WikiProject is about different cultures. If you can take some time and help contribute to it, that would be very nice of you. I am starting this project this week and would like to finish by next week. Please help me with this project. Thank you very much. Please answer on my talk page because I might not be able to keep track of who is contributing and who is not. I would like you to also share your culture. If you can give me a little summary about your culture such as, foods, lifestlye, holidays, traditions, e.t.c, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you. So if you would wish to contribute, please reply on MY talk page. Happy edits! Have a great day! Please answer on my talk page in the section, Volunteers. In this section, please state your culture, what you wish to share, and please sign your posts using the four tildes. (DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)). Thank you. Please contribute. DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Basque literature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Sebastian (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, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

UK talk
It's funny how things turn out. I had a laugh when no-one replied to my original question and now there are 14 comments (and the 14th was my fault) Lol Jonty Monty (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you're a new user. That Talk page has a huge history of extremely long rambling go-nowhere disputes over what would appear to any sane person to be quite small semantic changes. Ghmyrtle's comment, which was partially a counter to what I had said, is in fact absolutely correct. Never underestimate the capacity of that Talk page to generate disputation/verbiage. DeCausa (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it will make for an interesting Wikipedia experience for me. How long have you been editing yourself DeCausa? Jonty Monty (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since 2010. If you go to the "user contributions" page (and also at the bottom of that page, go to "edit count") you can look at any editors edit history. Happy editing. DeCausa (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)