User talk:DeCausa/Archive 8

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Bit of a quirky story. DeCausa (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Plantagenet Alliance
Harrias talk 12:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Smhhalataei has accused us of being puppets at Sockpuppet investigations/Smhhalataei and in recent edit summaries. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And at Sockpuppet investigations/Edward321 Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Al-Andalus
Could you be persuaded back once more to produce specific quotes from the books you cite? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * not sure I follow. The citations are all linked to the cited page in Google books. DeCausa (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey!

I saw you commented here about this issue some time ago. Well, I was 100% sure it was some nonsense as I couldn't believe mrs.Malek-Yonan would come all the way to Wiki to fight off this ridiculous thing, namely that those categories need to be removed from her page. Well my concerns were right; I opened an SPI and it turned out that User:RMY, User:3BluePenguins, and User:Zayya (they all participated in that discussion as well, are sockpuppets. A what we can describe as a sneaky sockpuppet scenario where the same person tried to make us believe some nonsense by using two socks.

Anyway, that was it, they're all blocked now, just wanted to let you know! :)

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

RE : WTF. It's just rubbish English.
Hi, listen, I understand your frustration.

However the 'standard English' that you are taught in the UK is not Everywhere, it's not even the most common or currently widespread regional or nationalized version of English in the world anymore, that would obviously be the United States, however we can come to an accord even with the English that is taught or rather installed elsewhere around the globe, such as India, for example... your attitude and practice of apathy and neurotic swearing has found you one good thing: this plea from a fellow community member; be more careful in reverting, and especially if you find swearing called for, you should have good reason for it, not that swearing itself is a problem, I'm not even offended, but it certainly shows some emotion on your part, and you don't go on to elaborate in your thinking or reasoning.

Additionally, you cite WP:PW, perhaps you should refresh your acquaintance with WP:Policies_and_Guidelines, first, as you will be bound to it in invoking WP:PW

Cheers, with love, from an Irish-American living in France, very active, and well resourced, in both time and texts, may we find a clear consensus in regard of our obvious dispute.

Nolanpowers (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is really not necessary to tell anyone but an American that their version of English is not the only one. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * wow nationalistic insults... verbal insults are basically the highest form of English aggression as far as I understand it. I am to be highly offended, yes?

cheers. Nolanpowers (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey DeCausa!
How are your "f i l t h y" parents doing these days?! is your "b a s t a r d" father okay?! and what about your mother the "b i t c h"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.9.20.155 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Move request
RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Requested_move_5_July_2015

Hi ,

While i am build the survey you asked for, I did read the WP:COMMONNAME i even linked to it in my proposal. The situation is quite complicated. Please read the proposal it makes it a little bit clearer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Edit_Request_on_25_June_2015

Sr 76 (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I had already read that. Most of that is irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. I've cut and pasted your reasoning and explained why in green in the following hatted text. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reasoning The name Syriac (Suryoyo) is accepted by all the Arameans, Assyrians and Chaldeans. All Christian Churches from the near east trace their origins to Syriac tradition including the Maronites (how can people that far west be Assyrian's?), all have a Syriac Aramaic liturgy.Irrelevant. That has no bearing on WP:COMMONNAME. What English language reliable sources use, not the people themselves is the test.

Syriac avoids the complex historical issues and the problem of people promoting their own political ideologies. Since every ideology does not deny the Syriac identity. What an individual considers his ancient ancestors becomes irrelevant, since the term Syriac only came to be used by the Syriacs themselves during the Christian period. Naming the page Syriac People (Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans) causes little historical contention. This also makes finding sources and references for the page very simple and compliant with the academic consensus.Irrelevant. Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Avoiding "complex historical issues" and people promoting ideologies is not a reason to avoid a term which English language reliable sources use.

Right now, none of the page has any valid sources, because Assyrian history since the fall of Ninveh in 615BC (from the perspective of the modern-Assyrians) was simply made up by the modern-Assyrians that got their name in the 19th cenurty. Irrelevant. Has no bearing on article name. If there is unsourced material in the article, that should be addressed by editing the article.

Calling the page "Syriac People (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" is verifiable, Non Original research and Neural view point.Has a bearing, but does not address the main question of what do English-language reliable sources use

Calling the page "Assyrian People" falls short on all fronts is NOT-verifiable, NOT-Non Original research and NOT-Neural view point.All violations of the Wikipedia naming protocols.There's already on the page plenty of sources cited which indicate that what you say is incorrect

Changing the name to "Syriac People (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans)" would comply with the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title
 * Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.This applies to "Assyrian people" too
 * Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.This applies to "Assyrian people" too
 * Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.This applies to "Assyrian people" too, according to the cited sources on the page
 * Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.This applies to "Assyrian people" too
 * Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. This applies to "Assyrian people" too

Current Ambiguity. The page being called Assyrian people does not distinguish between the modern-Assyrians and the ancient-Assyrians, naturally this happens to be the ideological agenda of the modern-Assyrians.Irrelevant, provided English language reliable sources use the term in this way.

The current academic consensus considers the modern-Assyrian identity to be introduced by Western Missionaries during the 19th century A.D and any ancestral connection between the two, to be "hog wash".Irrelevant. Doesn't matter how it got to be the COMMONNAME, provided it is the COMMONNAME The widely criticized Simon Parpola is the "only academic" that supports the claims of the modern-Assyrian's ancestry, please see the following sources:Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether Assyrian is right or justified - it's the usage in reliable sources that count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Origin.27s_of_today.27s_Assyrian_Identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14#Reference_-_Simon_Parpola The Synonymity issue becomes a void argument.

Weather synonymity of the word Syriac is with Aramean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Syrian.2FSyriac_synonyms_with_Aramean) or the word Syriac is Synonymous with Assyrian, with my proposal either answer becomes irrelevant. What do i mean by this:

If the Assyrians are correct, and word Syriac means Assyrian then the why would they object to the page being called Syriac People instead of Assyrian people? Any objection is politically driven.Irrelevant. The motivation of Assyrians has no bearing - only usage in English-language sources. If the Arameans are correct, and word Syriac means Aramean then the why would they object to the page being called Syriac People instead of Aramean people? Any objection is politically driven.Irrelevant. The motivation of Arameans has no bearing - only usage in English-language sources.

By doing this Wiki-Admin can easily identify ideological and political POVs being inserted into Wikipedia pages.Irrelevant. There is no ground in our article naming policy which allows for article naming to be manipulatd for this purpose.

The St Ephram the Syrian example St Ephram called the Assyrians "Filth". He also refered to "our nation Aram-Nahrin". His contenporaries called him "Aramean" and "the crown of the Arameans" All irrelevant. Has no bearing on usage in English-language reliable sources

It is impossible to look up any refence that refers to St Ephram as an Assyrian and yet St Ephriam the Syrian is displayed on the Assyrian People page as an Assyrian. The ONLY way St Ephriam can be an Assyrian is to accomodate a political POV of the modern-Assyrians....that is: The current page.Irrelevant. Has no bearing on usage in English-language reliable sources

Consistency with Academic Sources Wikipedia has become inconsistent with the academic sources. Right now looking at Wikipeadia would send someone in a direction of complete confusion. Even the further reading section of the page, does not match the content of the page, the Saint Ephriam example above is a good example of this. This is an assertion without evidence - you need to present a survey of academic sources that show this

Jimbo
I've noticed that Jimbo has the tendency to either ignore somebody who disagrees with him or whom he dislikes (like myself), or he calls them a troll like he did to you. While he's right that most women detest the word and it isn't the thing to say in the work place, in 95% of cases it is never intended as sexual harassment and simply means "contemptible idiot", but he just doesn't get it. He's too arrogant and opinionated to reason with so best ignored too I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems so. Thanks for your post in the thread. DeCausa (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

AN mention
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Sitush (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

AfD notice
Hi! I'm leaving you this note because you recently particpated in a discussion that resulted in a deletion request which you may be interested in. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kids Company
Your FT source on the edit [here] has access limited to those with FT subscriptions. I recommend a source accessible to all. Thanks. Selector99 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be an alternative source. DeCausa (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Selector99 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Absurd
You are spreading absurd lies about Ibn Nusayr and Al-Khasibi from unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thulqarnayn (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And you are edit-warring and will have your account blocked if you carry on like this. Use the article talk page to argue your case and persuade others - read WP:CONSENSUS - and stop reverting several other editors. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ibn Nusayr. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cite that, or it can't stay in the article  KoshVorlon  We are all Koshundefined  19:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WTF? IT's already cited to the book by Matti Moosa. Can't you see the citation? It's longstanding text in an article which an IP sock of a recently blocked user has been trying to take out. Can you revert yourself please (and an apology would be nice) DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * here it is, citation no. 5. Page 408 of Moosa's book: "he declared incest and homosexuality to be commendable". Are you going to self-revert? DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DeCausa - first let me explain that I contribute from work, I'm tech support and I spent a lot of time on the phone, any time I'm not answering a call, I'm gnoming on wikipedia.   I'm also behind a firewall that blocks out my ability to see the source you quoted above.  I'd left work by the time you'd ask me to revert the first time.    Your edit caught my eye because I saw two people trying to atttribute two different things to the same source, and quite frankly a claim that someone extols incest and homosexuality (homosexuality is forbidden, as far as I know, in the Koran) looks outrageous, so I rolled back to the more conservative wording already present.  I don't have internet in my home, so I wasn't able to go home and check your source, however, I will strike my prior message to you and will leave your entry alone.    Sorry    KoshVorlon  We are all Koshundefined  11:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess all I can say is be more careful in future. I undid a revert by an IP of an admin's edit. The admin had just protected the page. That was pretty obvious from the edit history. DeCausa (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
There is mention of you on the Dispute resolution noticeboard, over here. Xtremedood (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edits at Arabian mythology
You clearly do not know the meaning of edit war. It would have been an edit war if I get continuously reverting your changes. However I only reverted 2 times and did not have any intentiojbto engage in an edit war. The section is itself talking about the various usages of the word "Allah". The title " Allah in pre-Islamic Arabia" would have been correct if there had been any gods whose name was definitely Allah. However it is not so and from the it can be seen that the section is talking about how various religions used the word Allah. Hence the title "Usage of the word Allah in pre-Islamic Arabia" is the correct title since it truly represents what the section is talking about. You however are imposing your own opinion and basically having a consensus over a few words in the title is ridiculous. You are not the master or owner of the article so I request you to stop imposing your opinion. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're trying to impose your opinion. Take it to the article talk page. Have you read WP:BRD? DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do try to tell me how I'm imposing any opinion since the title which I entered was exactly what the whole section was about. You're creating a fuss over a few words that too which actually describe the section in exact detail. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about a "term" - see Use-mention distinction. It's about a god of pre-Islamic Arabia called Allah who was believed to have daughters. You took this out a few months ago and I've restored it with sources. You are editing with a POV. DeCausa (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Kids Company Dispute Resolution
Hello. I have opened an issue at DRN here regarding the LSE report as RS. Selector99 (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

DRN case closed
Hello, I am Jaaron95, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Kids Company#Figures_from_Kids_Company". Unfortunately, the case was closed regardless because the only involved editor (opposer) has withdrawn from the case and has decided not to edit the article (essentially drop the WP:STICK). If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   17:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by volunteer: None

Retired
I haven’t really edited for a couple of years now, so I think I should just record that I am now retired. Frankly, it got a little boring. There’s a great deal I enjoyed about Wikipedia. But so much time was taken up in repetitively reverting/ arguing on talk pages with people who really were one or more of the following: didn’t know the topic or didn’t understand the rules of Wikipedia or had some weird axe to grind or were just not that competent at writing/researching. Towards the end, the only places that I enjoyed editing were articles that were obscure enough to have minimal IP or other editor interest to have to deal with that. But then, that begs the question, what’s the point? Having said that, there has been a great deal that I have done on Wikipedia that I enjoyed and that I feel proud of - for example (one of the last things) Death of Benito Mussolini or (one of the first things) re-writing the history section of the United Kingdom, both of which seem to stay pretty much as I wrote them. Bye. DeCausa (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

... and five --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Freydal
Hello! Your submission of Freydal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Constantine  ✍  19:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Freydal
— Wug·a·po·des​ 06:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 12:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

why did you revert my Villa Diodati edit?
--Ryubyss (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I’ve had to move your post. Please read the talk page guidelines, particularly WP:TOPPOST to learn how to post to talk pages. Also, it would have been better to post your question to the article talk page, not here.
 * As far as your edits are concerned, there are several problems with them that result in the article being better before your changes. The problems are:
 * Overlinking. You’ve included links for words that shouldn’t be linked. This is explained at WP:OVERLINK.
 * You’ve moved part of the lead out of the lead into the body of the article. This has created three faults. Firstly, the lead doesn’t sufficiently cover the topic so fails to comply with WP:LEAD. Secondly, the body of the article then covers the same material twice I.e. it’s duplicating the information. Thirdly, it creates an incorrect flow for the body of the article: the sections go from the literary history, non-literary history then literary history again. It just doesn’t make any sense anymore.
 * The other changes introduce poor style or incorrect English. “To come up with” rather than “to produce” is unencyclopedic language verging on slang. “The weather was unseasonably cold and stormy. Mary Shelley would describe ‘incessant rain’ and a ‘wet, ungenial summer’.” is unnecessarily stilted at best, and could be a breach of the sequence of tenses rule. “the events that would later serve as inspirational to literature.” is clumsy and, in context, is poor English. Most of the other changes have similar problems.
 * DeCausa (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Haaf net fishing
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Freydal
The article Freydal 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:Freydal for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Freydal
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Freydal 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 Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Mussolini's Death
Hi, could you tell me why you deleted my correction in the article, regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, as I said in my edit summary because it was unsourced. That paragraph was sourced to Bosworth, who doesn’t say what you said. If you want to add the points you made (or change the existing text) then it would be best to clarify where you are sourcing it from and add a citation. Otherwise it would get quite confusing because it looks like your points are sourced to Bosworth and anyone checking the Bosworth citation would see a discrepancy. DeCausa (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacobite succession
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jacobite succession 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 Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacobite succession
The article Jacobite succession 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:Jacobite succession for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Freydal
The article Freydal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Freydal 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 Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacobite succession
The article Jacobite succession you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jacobite succession for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi!
Please provide your reason in detail every time you revert someone's changes :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivanfebrian123 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do and I did. That’s why I wrote WP:QUOTEFARM and ‘nonsense’ on the 2 reverts of your edits. I suppose I could have expanded ‘nonsense’ to say ‘this makes no sense and is incomprehensible in the English language’, but it wasn’t worth the effort. Remember to sign your posts. DeCausa (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Your recent editing history at Principality of Wales shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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

WP:BRD is pretty clear - you need to engage on the talk page before reinserting a disputed change -Snowded TALK 18:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes it is pretty clear - that’s why it says it’s optional. You always put a smile on my face: when you’re on 3 reverts you template a regular when the regular gets to 3 reverts after you. Priceless! DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is very clear, be bold, but if reverted discuss. If you are dealing with an IP fine but we've known each other off and on over the years and you know that the prior state should stay until a matter is resolved.  Feel free to use all the exclamation marks you want that won't change and please try and be less confrontational. It forces people into taking stronger positions than they might otherwise do. -Snowded TALK 18:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes BRD doesn’t work e.g. when a drive by edit bulldozes into an article and misunderstands some fundamentals. As I say, BRD isn’t policy, it’s optional and two editors disagree with you. Your misunderstanding runs contrary to the whole article. Normally, I wouldn’t have bothered reverting your reverts - but you’ve got the wrong end of the stick here entirely. Cheers!!!! DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And you have been around long enough to know that two editors to one does not a consensus make. I may have got it wrong, but you discuss first you don't edit war -Snowded TALK 19:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point. But you’re pretty blustery and overbearing when challenged which doesn’t put one in the mood to do that. DeCausa (talk)
 * A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black there you know -Snowded TALK 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I’ll take that as acknowledgement that we’re kitchen utensils of an equal shade.DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Jacobite Succession
You said "Do not delete "II" and replace with "III": the Jacobites did not recognise James II's sister as Mary II so did not figure in their reckoning." Do you mean James II's daughter ? RGCorris (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * D'Oh! Quite right! Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to help out with my draft?
Hey! I saw that you're the top editor for the Wiki page for Saudi Arabia. I'm making a draft for an article about Criticism of Saudi Arabia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Criticism_of_the_Saudi_Arabian_government

I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me out with adding relevant content for it. Thanks! TheEpicGhosty (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did do a lot on that article about 8 or 9 years ago - but not much since then. And, to be honest, I’m not as active on WP as I used to be. But I’m happy to take a look at any drafts you have. My first reaction with an article with that title and scope is you might have a problem with WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK and a WP:POVFORK. See WP:CRITICISM, particularly the last paragraph. It might be better to call it something like “International image of Saudi Arabia” - though that’s not quite right, but you get the idea - and include things other than criticisms. Per WP:DUE/WP:NPOV the balance between positives and negatives about the country should reflect the balance generally in reliable sources. Hope that helps. DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The Volfefe Index
Can you show me where you found Volfefe on JPMorgan's website? I don't know how to show you, but when I google "volfefe site:JPMorgan.com," I only get 3 results, and the first 2 don't even mention it anymore (indicating the cache stored it when the word "volfefe" was once on there but no longer is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severse Rhycology (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2020 U.S. Election Outlook and Cross-Asset Views (Volatility Risk and the U.S. Presidential Election: Volfefe, Revisited by Henry St John) DeCausa (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You know full well what you are up to
Touched a nerve have I? No surprise there. What you are doing is as transparent as it is venal and you will not be allowed to get away with it. We assume good faith until it is obvious and blatant that good faith is NOT being applied, which you must certainly are not. Vaze50 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re a moron. Someone else is reverted you already. You’ll end up banned at ANI. Yawn. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Take your blatant Anglophobia elsewhere. It's clear what you are trying to do, and it will not work. The fact your nerve has been struck so easily makes it beyond obvious not only what you were trying to do, but that you are angry you have been caught out. Vaze50 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ”Anglophobia”. Based on what you’ve previously said you don’t know what it means. Idiot. DeCausa (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite obvious both what it means and that you're full of it. Your bile and anger at getting caught out is quite funny, you probably thought you'd get away, but we will now make sure you're being kept a close eye on so that you don't get away with any more little attempts at it like you did today. Take that one on notice, and curb your bigotry. Vaze50 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So what is my bigotry exactly? What do you think my political POV that I’m pushing is? DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not propose to engage further with bigots like you, and will not allow you to pollute my talk page with your bigotry either. I have nothing more to say to you, Anglophobe. Vaze50 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m fucking English you twat. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you're clearly a self-hating English person, somehow that's even more tedious and tragic. Vaze50 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh for Christ sake. I’m as about as conventional conservative English as you can get. Where the fuck are you getting this from??? DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of Colonel (Honorary) [and Colonel (disambiguation)] articles
Dear DeCausa,

Would you please be so kind as to 'undo' the reversion of these two articles. The "Colonel-in-Chief" title within UK and Commonwealth countries is not a direct equivalent to the "Honorary Colonel" title, and is not covered under the Colonel-in-Chief article. As a career Regular Army officer, I am all to aware of the fact that the U.S. 'honorary colonel' title is not only a vestige of the British military system (from which the American militia system of 'honorary colonels' sprang), but one still practiced outside of America. To prove this point... I have inserted three links (random examples) to credible official UK government sources. These external links relate to contemporary "Honorary Colonels," within UK system, not "colonels-in-chief" titles within the said system... which is a whole different 'honorific' altogether. Thank you for your much anticipated understanding and cooperation in this matter.

https://defencehq.medium.com/honorary-colonels-in-the-british-army-1b6c2070a689

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/637160/2017-06098.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508314/FOI2016_01737.pdf

Very respectfully,

Lieutcoluseng (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks and thanks for the information - that’s very interesting. To move this forward, it would be helpful to get your view on some questions I have:


 * 1) Do you know of any published secondary sources discussing this? The MoD links would appear to be primary sources so per WP:PRIMARY it would be better to be able to reference a secondary source.
 * 2) My understanding is that the U.S. state colonels are not in fact a military position but only a civilian title whereas the UK honorary colonel is in fact a regimental appointment. Is that your understanding? This is where a secondary source would be helpful. I don’t think this necessarily results in the article not covering both but it certainly means the distinction should be clear in the article.
 * 3) The main point is that the problem with simply changing the article title is that the text of the article makes it clear that it’s only talking about the U.S state colonels. Would you also be willing to edit the article with text and citation to expand it to cover the UK honorary colonels? I think one can’t be done without the other.
 * Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be better to have this discussion on the article talk page so that others interested could see it. I’ve therefore taken the Liberty of copying your post and my reply there. Perhaps you could respond there rather than here? Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

 * Ha! Love it! Thanks very much. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

 * Thanks! And thanks very much for putting time into the issue. Much appreciated! DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Theuerdank font
I can't for the life of me work out how that error happened or how I didn't notice. Too focused on getting the text right, I suppose. Thanks for fixing it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! It was a very good spot correcting the omission of the font. DeCausa (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

“G-dliness”
I saw your reaction to an editor's use of “G-dliness” over at ANI, and I wasn't sure whether your reaction was to why an editor would do that or simply incredulity that one would do that in Wikipedia space. In Judaism, there are strictures against erasing the name of God, and many interpret that as having a best practice of simply not writing the name in the first place, so that the opportunity for erasure is not created. Is it best practice for Wikipedia? No, but it should be faced with understanding that the editor is trying to contribute to Wikipedia while not violating a command which, to them, runs a bit higher than the MOS, that the contribution is still a legit attempt to advance the encyclopedia, and that it is a variance that can be easily addressed by another editor who is not so restricted. (It is similar to the way that many editors treat someone used PBUH when discussing Mohammed.... only in this case, there's the advantage that no editor that is likely to write G-d is likely to go around editing pages that do not use that restriction to add it in, because that would be the kind of erasure they're trying to avoid!)

None of this should be seen as more general support for the editor who is being discussed at ANI, who clearly needs to adjust to the way things work here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I knew exactly what it was and “incredulity that one would do that in Wikipedia space” is a good description. I disagree with what you’ve said. As with PBUH, it has no place in WP. If an editor feels unable to write the full word then they need to find a synonym rather than expect others to sort it out for them. It’s a basic requirement on en-wp to write articles with proper syntax, spelling, grammar etc in accordance with the relevant WP:ENGVAR. A word publicly displayed in one of our articles with a letter intentionally omitted - I would say intentionally mis-spelled - is not acceptable. DeCausa (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "If an editor feels unable to write the full word then they need to find a synonym rather than expect others to sort it out for them." They did - it's G-dliness. It may not be the most common variant, but it is in sufficient use that it may be considered a variant spelling. It may not be as common a way of not spelling out the full word as "can't" is, but it's not a typo. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not a typo - typos are unintentional. That’s why it’s unacceptable. claiming it as a synonym is like saying “init”, in London slang, is a synonym for isn’t it. It’s not acceptable and has no place in a Wikipedia article. DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's more like saying that the author who uses "-ise" endings in in American article or someone that calls soda "pop" is being "not acceptable", rather than something that just can be edited. "G-dliness" is the standard for written English with certain groups; it's not like he referred to an Asian structure as a "pag-da", if you search for "g-dliness" you will find it a number of places on the web. Editing Wikipedia involves dealing with folks who may come from different language backgrounds than you do, and if you're working on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it might help you to have some tolerance for that. Any edit that moves Wikipedia closer to the goal line should be recognized as such. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I completely disagree. We needn’t and shouldn’t be changing -ise to -ize or soda to pop if it complies with WP:ENGVAR. We must change “g-dliness” to “godliness” because (a) no form of ENGVAR recognises that as correct and (b) it material affects the intelligibility of what’s written. That’s the key thing. Writing “G-d” was very common in a wide variety of English language contexts 200 years ago. Now it’s a tiny minority who do this. Vast swathes of wikipedia readers would have no idea what it means, particularly if English is not their first language. When you say “Editing Wikipedia involves dealing with folks who may come from different language backgrounds than you do” I think that that should be directed at those who choose to do this in the context of our readership - particularly as it can be so easily avoided by their choosing a different word. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:DrKay
It's stalking, dude.
 * 1) Two reverts at two different articles in three HOURS.
 * 2) Also, DrKay has a history of edit-warring at British Royals articles.  I don't get why they get away with it in the manner they do.
 * 3) But I still let their revisions stand and have stopped editing those articles, so what's the point of the ANI?

p b  p  19:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So what?
 * No he doesn’t.
 * You’d have to ask DrKay that, but I’m guessing saying this to an admin might have something to do with it.
 * Don’t post here again about this. keep it at ANI. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, misclicked. DrKay (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. There was a ready-made section heading waiting for your message! DeCausa (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Valtellina Redoubt
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Source.
You should read the sources again. In the first source, you can find this sentence "... Saudi regime has repressed these protest through the use of internal security forces, which have opened fire agains...". Now stop edit warring.103.246.39.2 (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And that’s not what you’ve written in the article. You’ll just be reverted and blocked again. DeCausa (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes, that is what I've written. Very close. Synonymous. Now, if you cannot comprehend that's not my problem. Oh please go ahead and block. I will be back and there is nothing you can do.103.246.39.2 (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE
I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your edit on George V
I meant Edward VIII and George V’s titles, at all times was: by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.

What you say is George V held of the UK title for most of his reign, true. I agree.

My edit however, was for Edward VIII and George VI who never in their lives held the title of “of the United Kingdom”. Saying otherwise would be false. Saying they were monarch of the UK is correct. Saying they were Kings of the UK is correct. But addressing them as of the UK is not.

I feel the ordinals pretty much make it clear they were monarchs, no non-sovereign is accorded an ordinal. Factual inaccuracies should be removed.

Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.227.87 (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m going to revert you. You should be aware that per WP:BRD if you make a change which is reverted, instead of restoring your change you should go to the article talk page and not attempt to restore your change until there is consensus support for your change. You’ll end up blocked for edit-warring otherwise. The reason for reverting you is twofold: (1) the article I reverted you on is George V - Edward VIII and George VI are irrelevant. (2) the formal style is of secondary importance. All three were monarchs of the United Kingdom. This discussion should take place on the talk page of the relevant article. I’m therefore copying this to the talk page of Georg V. Don’t reply here. DeCausa (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Be on your guard. 59.92.227.87 has returned. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Duke of Lancaster
See this: https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/our-people/duke-chancellor-and-the-officers/

I agree I don’t have a reliable source for the Duke of Normandy 59.92.227.87 (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, that source isn’t about George VI so can’t be used for this article. But secondly, “Duke of Lancaster” doesn’t exist in the peerage. Domestic titles in the peerage to which the monarch is otherwise entitled merge into the Crown. Queen Victoria revived it effectively as a nostalgic courtesy title. See this about George V trying to use it. DeCausa (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you might just open the source, you will see that it reads “ Since 1399, the title Duke of Lancaster has been held by the reigning Sovereign.” 59.92.227.87 (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is not a peerage, which is exactly why it is has a legal basis. The sovereign cannot hold peerages whilst sitting on the throne, but they can hold titles not in the British peerage. Duke of Lancaster is not in the British peerage. The challenge to use is most likely by some anti-monarchist who doesn’t like the royalty or something. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are mere objections, speculations and questions. Nothing solid came out of them. Legally, the monarch is accorded the title, and it is fact, and we write facts with sources. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s WP:OR. George V was advised by the lawyer to the Duchy of Lancaster that it was “highly unlikely” he was the Duke of Lancaster. Hardly an “anti-monarchist” and hardly “mere speculation”. DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there’s a medieval era judgement which supports your viewpoint, but my simple opposition to that is that the monarch is accorded this title and which is literally mentioned on the official government website. The title is outside the peerage of the United Kingdom (the name of the place can be anything, so long as it is not in the UK peerage). Mere advice shouldn’t be taken as binding in a legal sense.59.92.227.87 (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
The section was created exclusively for those things things with uncertain legal base. I feel a repeat mention is unnecessary in this case. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not a repetition it’s an explanation of why it’s in your “attributed” and not “vested” section - an explanation which is lacking for the “Duke of Normandy”. Can you please stop posting here on issues to do with the article. The correct place to do this is the article talk page so that other editors can see it and participate if they wish to. DeCausa (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Cornish
Do you see the problem? Roger used rollback, causing the removal of a bunch of stuff that is not disputed. Tewdar (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see is your erratic and aggressive behaviour on the talk page. You need to understand that no edit has a right to be accepted. Wikipedia is based on collaboration. I suggest you take a break from that article and come back in 24 hours (assuming Roger 8 Roger has replied by then. There’s no hurry for your edits to be incorporated in the article. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I assume that you are not familiar with Roger 8 Roger. Also, it still does not sound as though you understand. The "classification" section. The classification of Cornish as a SW Brittonic language. Roger did not dispute this. He disputed the date. He removed the wrong stuff when he reverted. I've put the "classification" stuff back now, without changing the date. Please tell me that you understand this. Please. Tewdar (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, I have added sources to the talk page, and I have no intention of changing the date on that article, until Roger 8 Roger, who appears to know less about the Cornish language every time I encounter him, has changed his mind. Tewdar (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You’re not getting it and I’m running out of patience trying to explain it to you. It doesn’t matter whether you are right or wrong on an edit changing an article. If you’re going to continue to edit on wikipedia you have to conform to its behavioural norms. That means that if your edit introducing a change is reverted you need to head to the talk page. Being right is not a justification in Wikipedia because this is a collaborative project. This is why we have WP:ONUS. Don’t post here again unless it’s to say you now get it. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand that when I add or change information, and another editor disputes this and reverts it, we take it to talk and discuss before reverting. I get it. I get it. I get it. Unfortunately, Roger did not realize that by reverting, in addition to reverting the disputed content, he accidentally reverted content from a totally different section which is not disputed by anyone, not Roger or anyone. Do you get it? Roger removed content that Roger did not intend to remove because he rolled back in error. He disputes the date, not the classification. Tewdar (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You don’t know what he intended. All you need to know is that he reverted. End of. Don’t post here again. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If it will make you happy I will remove the non-disputed content, which I do not think you understand, until Roger shows up. Reply "yes" and I will do that and hopefully never darken your doorstep again. Tewdar (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course i understand that you don’t think he disputed that edit. What’s so difficult to understand about that? That’s not the point. It’s not about making me happy. If you want to comply with Wikipedia policy you will self-revert and restore when and if there’s a talk page consensus for the edit. It’s very very simple. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Union State
Please see U.K. talk page, to clarify I was trying to get the topic back onto the union state discussion and away from the previous discussion that wasn’t going anywhere I have changed the wording in my posts to reflect this. ChefBear01 (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Would you happen to have any clues as to why the (above) editor can't sign his posts correctly at the UK discussion? and here too. He keeps making damn gaps between his posts & name. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Your Edit On Pazuzu
THANK YOU for exorcizing the "In Popular Culture" section in that article. It has been giving me a headache for years what with dealing with all those editors making it into a sordid laundry list.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We’ll just have to see if it sticks! These “in popular culture” sections are generally pretty unencyclopedic but that seemed a particularly egregious example. DeCausa (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election
Yes, but that's why I am now supporting an indef block under WP:CIR. Crude use of English, taken on its own, is not a bad thing; people can learn. But when coupled with their previous behaviour and the perception that their apology was not sincere, this just came as too much. I initially supported a time-limited block, then withdrew it in favour of WP:ROPE and actively sought from The Pollster an attempt to reach a consensus collaboratively respecting civility. Something like "The reverts of impru make no sense and legitimize corruption and fake polling" in a comment that also systematically ignores the multiple points raised in the previous discussion is just a big no. This also raises doubts on me on whether they would have just reverted back my edit should their behaviour not be under scrutiny at ANI, but considering that scrutiny, you just don't cast another aspersion or anything that minimally resembles an aspersion. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia, and as of now I am not convinced that TP has a minimum competence to do it.  Impru 20 talk 19:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)\
 * well yes, maybe so. As I said in the thread, I think it will soon become apparent what which way all this will land. DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)