User talk:DeCausa/Archive 4

Talk:Greece
I see you collapsed the off-topic sparring at WT:EU. I was worried such a move would be met with resistance. Happy to see I was wrong. Do you think the same should be attempted at Talk:Greece? from that post. While it's harder to pick a starting point (short of blanking the whole discussion), I was considering doing the same from your 18:27, 17 October post to the end of Talk:Greece. — Sowlos (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean including that post? In one sense, I couldn't care less as I have no intention (as stated above) of going near anything to do with Greece or Turkey ever again (on Wikipedia, that is). So, I'm tempted to say do whatever you wish. However, I think my main point in that post is legitimate so I would, in fact, have difficulty with it being lumped in with the ridiculousness that follows. If it helps I'd strike (or consent for you to strike for me) "but I don't think that principle is of any interest to you sadly." What comes after that can, as far as I'm concerned, be deleted. DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see it is now irrelevant since Dr K has unilaterally closed the discussion anyway! You have to laugh...DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The main point in most of the posts were probably legitimate. It was just a matter of deciding (be it arbitrarily) where the arguement started without blanking/collapsing the whole thing. But, yes; that last part was my only concern. I'm fine with Dr.K closing the whole discussion. It's probably for the best. I will try to contribute to the discussion where ever it may be if it continues. Hopefully, it stays civil if it does. :/ — Sowlos (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * However, I suspect people will keep away from the topic like the plague. Cheers. See you around, when you get back. — Sowlos (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Greece and Turkey related articles
So... Is someone really supposed to shoot you now? ;) — Sowlos (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm...it's Roman not Greece/Turkey! DeCausa (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol! — Sowlos (talk) 21:02, 7 November 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian Legal System GAN
The Good Article review of the article has started. There are issues needed to be fixed. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Just letting you know there are outstanding issues in the review. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes just waiting to pick up a book from a library which hopefully will help with one of the research points. Should get it later today. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, good! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you got the book yet?QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it, but it actually wasn't any help. Someone's given me a few leads to follow up, which I can do on the web tonight. Will post later on. Thanks for your patience. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Owain ab Edwin of Tegeingl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ynys Môn (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) 11:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch!
Good catch on re: Owain ab Edwin of Tegeingl on the History of Gwynedd during the High Middle Ages page! ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 07:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice articles

 * Hi DeCausa, the period in particular is not really my area, I'm more of an industrial era Wales sort of a guy. I'd recommend bringing it up at the WikiProject page and see what interest you get. Not sure if I would call it the Edwardian Conquest of Wales, as that conjures images of a 20th century coup, rather than a Plantagenet one. ...but like I state, not really my field of expertise. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and have a great Christmas. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Great article on the Edwardian Conquest! I had meant to get to that eventually, but life got in the way. I'm glad you tackled it! Once you've flesh more out I may add a tad here and there, but you're tracking wonderfully. Eventually I wish to finish the History of Gwynedd page. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 04:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Darrell Wolcott as a source
I love your use of sources for your pages. However, I feel compelled to urge a sense of judicious caution with overly emphasizing Wolcott as a source (as I noticed he is cited often on Owain ab Edwin of Tegeingl page). Though I respect his site Ancient Welsh Studies and the work he has done, his essays are not published (and therefore not peer reviewed as far as I can tell), and I have noticed a departure from mainstream Welsh studies of this period on more then a few points. But, he is a great starting off point to be sure. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 04:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I was wondering about it. There's a couple of strange claims on that page. For instance he seems to be saying that Edwin of Tegeingl's mother was the widow of Edmund Ironside which I doubt, and never seen elsewhere.

Taiwan
Hello DeCausa. Are you interested to share your two cents at Talk:Taiwan? (Interestingly, contributors in both Talk:Taiwan and Talk:Cyprus made use of arguments such as "insignificant", "people won't understand", and "people who aren't familiar will be confused".) 14.0.208.68 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suraqa bin Malik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hijrah (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) 11:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Lass of Richmond Hill
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel Lyde
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''That I agree with you is irrelevant... both of you need to cool it.'' — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Noted, I never go over the bright line. This case was so obvious...DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with your reverts, but as they say... it takes two to tango. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia
I've started the article although, as it's still a work in process, it needs a bit of massaging from someone familiar with the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this as well. I was thinking we should bring it to WP:DYK once we've got a fairly solid article. Tomorrow evening my time (about 20 hours from now) I will likely be in the mood to return to the article. BTW, I left a proposed outline at the talk page in case you are looking for ideas. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe on DYK. I've just put into the article what I think is an astonishing statistic: 90% of jobs are held by foreign workers. DYK hook? DeCausa (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nominated — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK! It would be nice to have a relevant pic - I've been looking but haven't seen anything yet. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Shame the topic doesn't lend itself very easily to images — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sorcery (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) 11:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia
The DYK project (nominate) 09:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Diagram on Islam page
The diagram I put onto the Islam page has existed on the Fiqh page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh for a very long time

Every hadith book has chains of Hadith narration that follow these chains, as these people taught each other.

In some cases like with Ali > Hussein > Zayn al Abidin > Muhammad al Baqir > Jafar al sadiq, they were their sons and they taught them. Aisha was the wife of Muhammad and she taught Qasim her nephew. Ahmad ibn Hanbal was the student of Al Shafi and he was the student of Malik ibn Anas. Abu Yusuf was the student of Abu Hanifa. Every book and every wikipage about these people says this.

Just look at the wiki pages of these people and then undo the delete

Thanks

Please undo my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. I haven't checked how long you've been editing Wikipedia but what you've posted above suggests you have some basic misunderstandings. The fact that there is material in one article for however long gives it no credibility for its inclusion in another article. That's because quite frankly large swathes of Wikipedia is garbage. That's why per WP:CIRCULAR you can never give Wikipedia as a source. Turning to your actual edit, there's two major and fundamental problems with it:


 * There's no explanation of what the lines between the different individuals mean. You may have an understanding in your head, but how is the reader to know what's in your head? A reader who doesn't know much about Islam might well think that diagram is telling him that Muhammad has si children. It would need an eplanation of what the lines mean.


 * There's no citations or sources for the lines. Have you read WP:V/WP:OR? To put a diagram like that in you need to have proper secondary sourcing to verify the links. There are no sources cited.


 * hope that's clear. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a lot of text changes above the diagram. The text changes have references where necessary I could put more references in. I have been researching these changes for months and have been through hundreds of book.

I understand what you are saying about the diagram. The diagram is a bit complex for people who do not have any knowledge of islam.

How do you suggest I lay out the diagram. There is another diagram on the Islam page called "Some of the major movements in Islam."

On the Shia Islam page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam There is the diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_shia_islam_n3_.pdf

This kind of a format is OK for showing the splits within Shia Islam as the sects are based of Father to Son. One sect chose one brother and the other the other.

But with the Sunnis there is no father to son relationship. It is the best man for the job. Any one could be a jurist. Therefore you look at who was the teacher of that jurist. Its the same with the relationship between the Sunnis and the Shia jurists. I was just trying to show that the founders of 2 sunni fiqh schools of thought worked together with Jafar al-Sadiq who the shia follow in the same mosque, Al-Masjid an-Nabawi. And they had the same teachers.

On the Christianity Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity Page there is the diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christianity_Branches.svg That is clearer for showing the denominations in Christianity.

But its not suitable for showing the relationship between the early jurist sunnis follow and the early jurist the shia follow.

Have a think about it. I am open to suggestions. I could add the references for the diagram and put an explanation or change the diagram.

On the talk page of the Islam page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam It says This article has been reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.

The first thing they said was:

"The History section still needs to be shifted a bit more in the direction of religious history away from political history. It also needs to be integrated better internally; some sections do not flow properly"

So I was just putting in the religious history

--Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the diagram as you suggested and changed the text so that it is easier to understand and added more references. Thanks for your input.

Edit warring on Mecca
Hi. Just noting that you have made 4 reverts on Mecca. You should be aware of WP:3RR which can result in you being blocked. Now, I would have suggested a self-revert but I don't care much for this issue. One point though, you didn't give a reason for removing "the most serious of which". That was an informative statement and can be easily be supported by other sources. Wiqi( 55 ) 22:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I didn't notice I crossed the bright line. But then your two reverts within 15 minutes is edit warring as well. Ah well, appears not to be relevant for the moment as the editor who seems to have an unusual understanding of the word "disaster" has taken it out altogether! Don't have a problem with "the most serious of which". DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Persian Gulf
I see you on Persian Gulf's talk page, so I thought I'd bug you. I've found a user changing "Persian Gulf" to the "Arabian Gulf". What is the policy on this? Bgwhite (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your link was to User:Kamran the Great. That user changes it in the opposite direction, i.e. "Arabian Gulf" to "Persian Gulf". Generally, that's per reliable sources and common usage as described in Persian Gulf naming dispute. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant "Arabian Gulf" to "Persian Gulf". Thank you for the reply and now I know. Bgwhite (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz
Hi DeCausa, I noticed you have done a lot of work on the Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz article lately. Now I wonder if you could assist in cleaning the Wikiquote article here?

What is needed is that sources are added correctly. The current article for example does mention "Mawaaqif madhee.ah fee hayaat al-Imaam 'Abdul-'Azeez Ibn Baaz - Page 196". The only conformation I can find on the web is this website which content is copied about 95%, which is not allowed. So if no other sources can be found, I guess we should delete the whole article, which would be a shame. Do you see a solution here? -- Mdd (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't think I can help. I've never worked on Wikiquote and so I'm unfamiliar with the policies there. Also, I'm no expert on Bin baz primary sources/translations. You might try User:Wiqi55 - he seems to be familiar these. DeCausa (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Prophecy of the Popes/Pope Francis
I started a talk section relating to TRGUY's repeated changes to Prophecy of the Popes - thought I'd mention it as you just reverted his last change. Link is []Blelbach (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reported him to WP:AN3. DeCausa (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems prudent. Thanks! Blelbach (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghulat category
There is a discussion started on the Alawite talk page. You can weigh in there on your revert. Alatari (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Prophecy of the Popes....
...I have (fully) protected again; the next step should probably be WP:DRN. Thanks for the heads-up. Lectonar (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm not sure how DRN would work here as it's not as though it's one "theory" in dispute. It's pretty much one theory per editor! DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that is kind of the best we got; perhaps multiple WP:third opinions....All this reminds me of Erich von Däniken, in a way. Lectonar (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Pallottine Martyrs
Disagree on value of the events now twice deleted from article. Controversial as these events were at the time, Pope Francis considers them of great spiritual value since he approved the promotio of their process towards beatification. Pls reconsider your brutal approach to redacting material that is not just 'material'.MrsKrishan (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * His approval of their beatification is already in the article in a different section. The text you want to add in is general information about the murders that has nothing to do with Francis. Why don't you write a separate article about them, if that's what you are interested in? DeCausa (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to be condescending when you're incorrect - there is a separate page already on the massacre (and image in wikicommons) and I linked to it but you deleted the link in deleting the subsegment. Have asked user (User:Bmclaughlin9) to conciliate if possible otherwise may have to resort to WP:DRNMrsKrishan (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what the article talk page is for. If you gain consensus support for your edit, then it will go in per WP:CONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm rather befuddled by this focus on 'material facts' that supposedly must be "telling us something about Francis" as if events in his life were just political or historical coincidences, when quite obviously they are not, they are of immense spiritual value, a POV that belongs in an article on a spirital personage elevated to the highest office. In a Catholic understanding, which I can't assume (User:Bmclaughlin9) or (talk) share, Pope Francis has the power of the keys, to elevate these murder victims to saints or lock them out as one of a number of usual victims of the tyranny of relativism/dictatorship of ideology such as aborted babies etc.). Will attempt a third undo/modification, then may have to seek WP:DRN to open up the parsing of what "value" means to other religiously-minded editorsMrsKrishan (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you do you'll be heading into edit-warring. If you are "befuddled by this focus on 'material facts' that supposedly must be "telling us something about Francis"" then it sounds like you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia because that's what goes on here. It also sounds like you have a religious POV to push. You need to cut that out if you want to edit Wikipedia. That's not what it's here for. Btw, I see that User:Bmclaughlin9 has posted his agreement with my deletion on the talk page. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I said religiously-minded -- that's an intellectual category shared by many here on Wikipedia (see articles on Islam, Hinduism et al) -- which in your subjective opinion is of no value (thankfully you don't have the power of the keys to exclude all the religiously-minded material from Wikipedia) and sorry but your insults don't impress me, you sound like you're a bully "it sounds like you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia" (have been threatened with banishment before in 7 years of contributing so I know what it sounds like, and it doesn't intimidate me at all) and you're not the only tyrannt of their own relative opinion I've encountered here, I'm not backing down on the validity of the martyrdom material. Will concede it may be rather inelegantly expressed, but that seems to be the case elsewhere in the article and those segments still stand, so style isn't what you're taking issue with, its the content you don't like.MrsKrishan (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What I and others have issue with is that it is off-topic. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Promised tweaks
Dear sir, it has come to my attention that you gave a verbal agreement for a series of tweaks on Talk:Salafi; to date, said tweaks have not been delivered. I'm sure that the gravity of such a situation is apparent to you and that the promised tweaks will soon arrive. Thank you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The only tweaks I remember are these. They're now in the article. Were there others? To be honest I've slightly lost track were that article's got to. DeCausa (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears I've lost track too, let me double check and continue on the article's talk page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange
Remember this discussion? Take a look at this and this. I can barely follow what she's saying except for the insulting parts. Your read on her was probably correct, although, frankly, I'm not sure what to do about it, at least at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're along similar lines to what I've seen (including on this talk page). One of the reasons I didn't pursue it before was that there have only been 1300 edits since 2007. Given that rate, the slight disruptive effect didn't seem worth the hassle. Don't know if that's the right way of looking at it though! I suspect the problem is that warnings/coaching/trying to get them to have a better understanding of WP policies etc just aren't going to work here. DeCausa (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * However, they do seem to be stepping up their activity. I just had a look at their last edit. Leaving aside the mis-use/non-use of sources, it's an "interesting" addition to that article. I'd revert - but I'm never too sure in this sort of situation of WP:HOUND. DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about HOUND. As long as you're comfortable that the edit should be reverted, you should do so. I know nothing about the material, but the paragraph she added sounds preposterous to me, and the sources don't appear to support any of what she says. What does this have to do with the Virgin Mary and the Immaculate Conception? There is a passing mention of a "Virgin figure" in the first source, but the paragraph goes on and on about, well, I'm not sure what. And the second source doesn't even mention the Bavarian flag. Some sort of odd, attenuated synthesis on her part maybe.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted. The contribs are generally in this preposterous vein. Take a look at the article for the talk page you linked to. It's about a specific 18th century German painting and the user's been trying to turn it into a general spiritual essay on the underlying religious subject and the art history connected with that subject, with edits like this. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Pope Francis. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
— Sowlos 13:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In case you already took the page off your watch-list, it doesn't seem to have exploded. In a fit of mad optimism, I even created Talk:Byzantine Empire. If you're feeling up to it, I'd be interested in your input. — Sowlos 23:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Roman emperor
Thank you for reverting my recent edit to the article Roman emperor. I recognised the remark in the article as rather remarkable, so I felt the need to reword it. But really, my addition should have been reliable. J I P &#124; Talk 18:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
… for not abandoning Talk:Byzantine Empire. Your input was very helpful. — Sowlos 10:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Revelation
I'm just wondering why my contributions keep getting deleted in the Revelation page under the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boko9223 (talk • contribs)
 * Replied on your user talk page. DeCausa (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire#"Continuation"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire. — Sowlos 22:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why Undo?
You have recently reverted my changes to Saudi Arabia. Can you, please, explain the reason for doing so? --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my mistake. There's a long running attempt to change "Persian Gulf" to "Arabian Gulf", and this somehow got confused with that. I didn't check closely enough what you did. DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted! [[File:Face-wink.svg]] --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Constantinople
Hello DeCausa: I have proposed, and provisionally implemented, a way to handle nomenclature on Fall of Constantinople. Let us know your thoughts on the talk page there. Thank you (and my apologies for the ancient ditty linked in the title here, which I cannot seem to get out of my mind when editing this article). Kablammo (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia
How do you feel about running this through WP:GAN? I think it has a fighting chance, but as the other major contributor (if I recall correctly, you did more work than I) I wanted to get your input. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No objection, but don't you think it's still a bit stubby for GA i.e. it's quite a short piece. I'm not that familiar with the GA process so I could easily be wrong. DeCausa (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Length depends on the topic. Saudi Arabia as a stand-alone article wouldn't pass muster at 10k bytes of prose, but some really obscure topics pass easily at 2.5k prose (Gagak Item, one of our shortest FAs, was 2.5k when it passed GA). The GA criteria essentially requires it to be well-written, cited decently, and "address the main aspects of the topic". I'll try nominating later, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)