User talk:DeCausa/Archive 7

Another barnstar for you!

 * Thanks... but undeserved! I started out quite bitey with that user but saw your measured, polite and patient responses which reminded me how things should be. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It can be difficult not to be bitey, especially when someone doesn't seem to be responsive to input. I got bitey myself with that user, when I felt like I was explaining ad infinitum that my issue was with their lack of consensus. Your suggestions and comments were exactly what I had hoped for. Thank you again. —Josh3580talk/hist 01:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Baloch people
 * added a link pointing to Khorasan


 * History of the Baloch people
 * added a link pointing to Khorasan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
—Josh3580talk/hist 04:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

FitzJames Stuarts
DeCausa: I am well and truly aware of the Duke of Alba's Iraujo ancestry. He uses the name Fitz-James Stuart, he is by blood a Fitzjames Stuart, as undoubted descendant of his mother,and so it seems bizarre to me to arbitrarily declare the the loine of the FitzJames has "ended". If you want to argue by some obscure legalism, take it to the talk page, dont just revert poor and incomplete and misleading genealogical assertions back into the article. Thanks!

Michael David Plittman,B.A., Knight of the Golden Horseshoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.22.158 (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC) It is also well worth noting, sir,that wikipedia'sown article on the House of FitzJames lists the 19th Duke of Alba as current head. MDP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.22.158 (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, read WP:BRD. The way it works is that if you wish to change an article, and you are reverted it is you who should take it to the talk page. The article should not change until there is consensus support for the change. Secondly, the article is about the House of Stuart. The article states that the Royal House of Stuart is extinct, which is correct. As an additional piece of information, it notes the male line descendants of illegitimate sons of Stuart kings. Had they not been illegitimate they would have been members of the House of Stuart. The 19th Duke of Alba would not - if every descendant of a Stuart king in the female line was to be mentioned it would be a very long list. DeCausa (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

None dispute the extinction of the house of Stuart. I DO find it odd that Wikipedia's own page for the House of FitzJames ( a house the Duke of Alba evidently considers himself the continuation of, as he uses the name in preference to Iraujo)list the Duke as current head, but that is apparently not good enough for the Stuart page! It seems quite nitpicky to me, but that's the original sin of Wikipedia, sigh. I can live with your compromise wording. Although it's worth noting that the parent House of Stuart itself passed through the female line numerous times prior to extinction! Michael David Plittman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.36 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's incorrect, it never passed through the female line except on one occassion: to James VI and I, and even then he was still a Stuart albeit a Stewart of Darnley. DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Lordship of Ireland
In every single Wikipedia pages (except this one), the image sections of predecessing and sucessing polities would be left empty if it doesn't have an unanimous representation, or doesn't have a representation at all (like in this case). It is a universal common practice since the birth of Wikipedia. It is forgivable for users putting disputed flag/coat of arms in the image section, but insisting to type words in that section while that polity doesn't have a flag at all…the name of that polity is rather short so it's possible to fit in those words for this case, but there are also plenty of articles that have long names, it's thus unfeasible to use words as representations, therefore the section should be left blank under universal practice. Pktlaurence (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that someone else has reverted you. What you should do now, if you want to pursue this, is open a thread on the article talk page and persude others to your view rather than reverting. If you revert again you could be seen as edit-warring which is blockable. See WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Accusations of paid contributions.The discussion is about the topic Talk:Kurds. Thank you. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Muhammad Calligraphic Representation in Infobox
The appended Community discussion you showed me shows that most contributors are in favor of an unveiled photo of Muhammad. If assigning a "+1" to "support", and a -1 to "oppose", option A has the largest tally.

In addition, the vast majority of pages for prophets have their picture. I refer to Jesus, Moses and Abraham. This is despite that fact that, as with Muhammad, no one would know what these people looked like (and are definitely not likely to have been Caucasian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkbauer (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 January 2015‎ (UTC)


 * That's irrelevant. You don't seem to know how RFC's and WP:CONSENSUS works. I suggest that before you dabble in such a controversial area with a long Wikipedia history you get to understand policy better. The decision is what you need to look at, viz.: "we found that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox". DeCausa (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Arms
The Arms of Canada page you allude to in your edit does not depict the rendition you added to the Monarchy of Canada article, it instead shows the proper Arms. Those fake/user rendition arms were added to the article by way of a redirect, ie that image was never purposefully added until now. If an image of the Arms are absolutely vital to a proper understanding of the topic, then the image of the actual arms (the same file as used in the Arms of Canada wiki page) should be added to the monarchy of Canada page, and not images of random user renditions. The use of random "renditions" to portray the actual arms are misleading best case, and insulting to Canadians in the worst. Thanks so much for your time and understanding! trackratte (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Monarchy of ..." articles always have the coat of arms in that position: it's part of the infobox template for monarchy articles. I don't see a difference between the version in the article and the version in the coat of arms article. If you do, I don't have a problem with you replacing it, but don't simply remove it. I didn't "add" it to the article, I undid your removal. Your explanation should be posted on the article talk page not here. DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The image in the infobox was 'Arms of Canada.svg'. That image was deleted and redirected to 'Arms of Canada rendtion.svg' from what I can tell. So, the actual arms used to be there, until the image was deleted as a copyright violation and redirected to this user-made interpretation. Since the admins have already said that the only place the Canadian coat of arms may be used is in the Canadian Coat of Arms article, we are not allowed to display that image in the Monarchy of Canada article because the Coat of Arms is not vital to understanding the content of the article. So I removed the coat of arms holders within the infobox to stop displaying a fake image that no one had ever even added. Just because that capability exists within a template, does not mean they have to be present or filled. Displaying the wrong symbols of state in state articles is insulting to people from that state, and underminds the encyclopedia's credibility as a source. So I removed an image that was incorrectly appearing due to a Coat of Arms of Canada.svg redirect, and you added the incorrect image (Coat of Arms rendition) itself (or you undid me, and then Miesienical added the image itself, either way). trackratte (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting here - keeping it to the article talk page is much more efficient. I've posted there to explain you have a misunderstanding about any particular rendering of a coat of arms. No version of CoA has an inherently better claim to being "correct" provided it is compliant with the blazon - which the disputed one in this case is. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In Canadian law, there is only one Coat of Arms of the Queen of Canada, the one that the Queen personally signed as "approved". Anything else is an interpretation without any legal basis. trackratte (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Your Vandalism / Grand Larceny at Wikipedia
You will be destroyed on March 25, 2016 A.D. Until then, this shall include sixteen hours per day of pure terror beginning at the next hour and minute I took my first breath resurrected; the remaining eight hours carrying with it the promise that if you should ever show your cowardly countenance before me, I will rip your arms, legs, and head from your trunk.

There are two other options :

1) Tie a millstone around your neck and drown yourself.

2) Cease and desist your miserable, greedy, hateful, raping, incestuous, lying, thieving, murderous, perjuring conduct and get your ugly, fat ass into high gear to discuss, like an adult, improving the article and talk page "Prophecy of the Popes" you are vandalizing.  Undo your vandalism there. The title must be changed to "St. Malachy Prophecy".  Unless you work with me as a peaceful adult, this is not an option.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.152.209 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What an enjoyable hobby Wikipedia is! Loony tunes of West Chester, Pennsylvania is blocked. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So you can continue to hide the truth about the Whore of Babylon in Rome? I see how this works, DeCause--the Templars are after you, buddy. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Kurds
I'm sorry I've been out of pocket for a while, I just noticed that the RFC was closed, and your proposal was accepted. I also saw where attempted to change the wording to "Iranic." While that wording was definitely suggested by more than one editor, as far as I can tell that was not the phrasing that the RFC discussion agreed on. I have reverted it with a clear explanation in the edit summary. —Josh3580talk/hist 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and, I've responded to both of you separately and I am awaiting a response. I don't believe any proper consensus was reached after reading the entire RFC and the cited sources multiple times. Furthermore, it doesn't solve the current issue of redundancy that I've brought up multiple times to different users. Sharisna (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Pasted from User talk:Josh3580) - To  I fully appreciate where you are coming from. In the discussions on this article, I have always said that both sides have completely valid points. As it stands, however, there was an in-depth discussion on this topic, with many people contributing, some who shared your view, but the proposed lead by that was adopted by consensus did not include the word "Iranic". Multiple sources have been cited to support the proposal which was adopted. As far as undue weight? You make a reasonable argument. But your edits must pass the consensus test. At this time, it seems that the current lead was considered the most fair, as it included both points of view being discussed. If you feel there is an issue in the lead with the WP:UNDUE policy, then by all means, make your own proposal on the article's talk page, with what you believe is correct, and once you gain a consensus of other editors which overrides the result of the RFC and current consensus, then make that replacement. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note my comment above, and feel free to correct me if I am off base as to the result of the discussion. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. The RFC was closed by an admin who determined what the consensus was. If you want to challenge the conclusion reached by  then WP:CLOSECHALLENGE explains what to do. Essentially you need to first discuss it with Drmies and then if you're still not satisfied you need to take it to the administrators' noticeboard. What you can't do is just say "it was wrong" and edit against the consensus, as determined in the closing. DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you DeCausa. This wasn't a particularly difficult close, by the way. Yes, Sharisna, you may not edit as if the RfC never took place: the essence of an RfC is that it expresses editorial consensus, and editing against that consensus is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew that we all were in need of a referee, and I can't possibly thank you enough for being just that. I did as much discussing as I could towards what I thought was appropriate, constructive, and neutral/representative according to the sources. I then backed away from the article for a bit. I know that not everyone is happy (as they never are, that's the nature of discussion), but the result of the RFC consensus seemed like a good compromise. I'm relieved to have this issue settled, at least for now. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudos to you.
This is totally off the cuff, and not really related to content. I just wanted to say that I admire you standing your ground against some of those editors who are intent on pushing their POV. I just randomly stumbled across you when reading the article on Roman naming conventions (which is a fantastic article, by the way), and I have to say, between those who misunderstand policy, and even those launching personal attacks, I've seen you take it all in stride, rebuffing and educating others in a cool and calm manner. I'm impressed. That is all. Have an excellent day, my friend! Quinto Simmaco (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing Mahdi page
Hi DeCausa, I see that you reverted my edit in the historical section of Mahdi and think it is just a POV. The text that you reverted to is mostly based on two books by Said Amir Arjomand. He is not an authentic source in our subject matter. He is a socialogist with no degree in religious studies. The mere fact that something is in a book does not mean at all that it is reliable. The reliability of a source is determined by the scientific community of the field. In the field of religious studies Amir Arjomand books play no role, rather it represents the POV of the writer. The source that I used, instead, was an authentic and reliable one in religious studies. It was the first book written by a top scholar, Mohammad Tabatabi, specialized in Islamic studies and intended for western readership. It is a university textbook of its subject in the United States and the project resulting in writing the book backed by several American professors, such a Kenneth Morgan and Seyed Hossein Nasr, all in the field of religion studies.

I won't call Amir Arjomand's writings about Islam a NPOV rather seriously biased POV and we should not feed people with POVs of non reliable source those.

Please note that I had kept the contents from Henry Corbin books who is recognized an authentic source in Islamic studies by the experts.

I don't revert the text now and wait for your response. Hopefully we can come to some agreement on what is authentic and what is a POV.

Best, Smhhalataei
 * This is something for the article Talk page - don't post it here. And by the way, your source is religious POV only. DeCausa (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death of Benito Mussolini
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Death of Benito Mussolini you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death of Benito Mussolini
The article Death of Benito Mussolini you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Death of Benito Mussolini for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!
This is a great article. Well done, it was good to review and really interesting to read. — ₳aron  10:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death of Benito Mussolini
The article Death of Benito Mussolini you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Death of Benito Mussolini for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
— ₳aron  13:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DYKSTATS/Archive 2014
I added Death of Benito Mussolini for you as it got 5,884 hits the day your DYK hook as on the main page. — ₳aron  11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)