User talk:Hobomojo

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! AnnH ♫ 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Spanish Inquisition
Let me know if you want me to help with the translation (i.e. dividing the job by paragraphs). E   Asterion  u talking to me? 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you want, but it looks like you have yourself involved in a lot. I'm mainly translating and adding bits and pieces before tackling the major work of the the last paragraph and the introduction. If you don't have too much time, I may just ask you about some nuanced phrasing that might puzzle me.Hobomojo 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking and linking
Apologies if "manic" or "green ink" seemed critical. I'm just a miserable sod really.

There's a page at WP:MOS-L which tries to explain the standard way. Basically, the starting position is to link things once. But if it is a long article (as the Inquisition one is), and something was mentioned once and then reappears later, then it might be good to link it again, especially if it is something obscure. I always put duplicate links in picture captions even if they are in the text, but I don't know what the experts say. Something that's not always easy to catch is duplicate links through redirects. Protestant and Protestantism point to the same thing. It's not something to worry about if you have some duplicate links, nor was the Inquisition article especially bad. Indeed, it's almost impossible to avoid without having lots of people copyedit the article.

If you need any help with anything, please ask ! It's great to see your work on the Inquisition article which really needs it. Best of luck ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Spanish
Hi, You've done a minor miracle towards moving the article to a decent state, but the main parts of the intro and other remain, and we can't remove the POV material in the early parts of the article unless there is something better to replace it with. I was wondering what your plans are to continue or if you dont have the time - beggars can't be choosy but just wanted to see if your still around. Thank you. -- Stbalbach 23:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just got really busy with my dissertation and some other things, so had to take a pause. There will come a point for a wholesale revision of the intro and other sections, rather than just adding translations. It is something I want to keep working on, and perhaps I can do a bit more later tonight and this week.Hobomojo 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire
Sorry about the delay but a lot of issues (WP and non-WP) needed fixing. Also, thanks for asking me instead of drawing your own conclusions. The thing is that I do not hate Voltaire - I dislike him. I dislike him for his hate against a body of which I happen to be a member of, which he termed "L'infame" and which he wanted to smash. For his absuing of the victims of the Lissabon earthquake, for his racism (which again shows that reason alone is just as fallible as human beings) and last but not least for his glorification of the worst king France ever had, the main culprit of France's troubles and a chief cause in Europe's troubles. All the while blaming intolerant acts (like the repeal of the Edict of Nantes) on the Church while glorifying that wretched Louis. Not that there is nothing positive about Voltaire: his expounding of the actual, true principle of tolerance ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.") Seeing now that this is a misattribution I must remove that from the Voltaire balance. Anyway, I don't that Voltaire had refrained from the massacres that later really happened, given all his other utterances, though he is not the father of totalitarianism. A nother positive thing is his eventual fleeing of the Prussian tyrant, though I am not completely informed about the reasons. All in all, a rather spiteful, miserable, conceited creature that deserves our pity and not our hate. Str1977 (smile back) 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Thought I read [hate] somewhere on your page; either that or I was paraphrasing Tom Tomorrow, or I totally spaced out what prompted the comment. Voltaire was a complex figure, no doubt. I guess I give him a bit more of a break; he was a product of his time (though an iconoclast) and of his local culture (though very cosmopolitan)Hobomojo 23:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Inquisition
Oi, rapaz, voce é Brasileiro, é? Um grande abraço pra voce :). Como voce me mediu estou escrevendo do artigo Inquisição pra gente discutir melhor. Não entendi a sua dúvida no que eu escrevi. O que eu tava tentando dizer, em resumo, é que Inquisições (a ação de julgar e punir hereges) ocorreram continuamente através da estória, não limitado em pequenos períodos de tempo, apesar de alguns dos movimentos de Inquisição serem limitados em períodos. (Note que alguns duraram séculos) O que os movimentos de Inquisição são é uma intensificação das Inquisições (ação). Note que eu to separando Inquisição (movimentos) com Inquisição (ato de julgar heresia). Há também o significado de Inquisição como instituição (instituição católica para lidar com heresia)

3RR
If you arent aware of it please read WP:3RR as if you were to revert Operation Condor again within 24 hours you would be in violation. I would also suggest that you read what Pethr said, SqueakBox 17:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not removed sourced material
Please do not remove sourced information as you did to Inquisition. There was torture to convert. It did not apply "only over professed Catholics". The "Catholics" you may be refering to were not Catholic to to begin with, but forced, and then found to go back to their prior religion, etc. Please read the sources. - Jeeny Talk 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Please do not revert the well sourced edits again from the article Inquisition, and please read WP:3RR. You may also want to review What Wikipedia is not. Thanks - Jeeny Talk 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good faith
Please assume good faith. You are accusing me of bias without knowing me. Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to discuss the matter at Talk:Inquisition. And please, do not jump so quickly to speculate on the motives of others. ··coe l acan 06:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

trying something different
I am not "outraged" and I don't know where you are pulling this from. Jeeny did not ask me to start an RFC. Show me where this happened, if you believe it did. Give me a diff. Am I "playing the bully?" Please show me where, what I am doing or saying, that is so off-putting to you. But I request that you bring the issue to my talk page at user talk:coelacan. There is no benefit to throwing these behavioral complaints back and forth on talk:inquisition. Considering that, I am going to remove those portions of the conversation that focus on each other. If you feel that I should be acting differently, or if you want to vent about anything else, please just bring it to my talk page, the more appropriate forum. ··coe l acan 10:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

re comment
I urge you to retract your latest comment on Talk:Operation Condor. Intangible2.0 13:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I urge to retract your talk page comment. Your latest edit suggest that Condor was already active before the 1970s, and the Condor caused unknown deaths before it even was established. This is clearly wrong and WP:OR. See the McSherry article for example. Intangible2.0 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue of the number of deaths caused by Operation Condor should not be conflated with deaths not directly attributed to it. That's what you are doing, and it is called synthesis, which is forbidden under Wikipedia original research policy. I have already pointed out that the Calloni reference is marginal, that Almada does not provide a figure. The only piece we are left with is the McSherry article. There are not many newspaper articles about this topic, which suggest to me that the conservative estimate of McSherry is the way to go. If 50,000 people were murdered (as suggested by Calloni), it would have been all over the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, etc. Please provide additional sources first that suggest Calloni's figure is mainstream (which I do not think it is). That would help our current discussion. Intangible2.0 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Paraguayan website you added talks about thousands of victims, not 50,000 deaths. So it seems you are already undermining the figure of Calloni yourself. Calloni is not a professional researcher, and her work has not appeared or been republished in credible mainstream publications. That's why her figures don't matter. Intangible2.0 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Read 3RR. If you continue to revert, I will report you.Ultramarine 09:08, 25 June 2007 (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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)