User talk:ROO BOOKAROO

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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! AnupamTalk 08:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for the files for instruction. Article development was my biggest challenge, and this is why I had such an incredible amount of changes and uses of previews and saves. I was learning how to use those two buttons, made more challenging and complex because of the numbers of parts, chapters, sections, and paragraphs. One day I'll count them, but it's a huge number. The quantity of details to learn is staggering.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Albert Kalthoff - Pastor.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Albert Kalthoff - Pastor.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added the tag PD-EU-no author disclosure to the image file. This image was found on Deutsche Wikipedia at the Kalthoff article with the same copyright tag. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Arthur Drews, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There's one problem with Show Preview, when editing only a section of the page, and the edit concerns only a note, or adding a reference. The Show Preview will not show how the note at the bottom of the page is going to look. To show the full note, one has to click Save just to view how the note looks after the edit. Also when editing the full page at once, and going through the page, changing for instance one detail in many sections, you carry on doing your editing, then for some reason you are interrupted and leave the computer, forgetting to save. When you come back to the computer, you may have lost the page and all the edits. It's vital to save before leaving the computer for any reason, even getting a cup of tea, or playing with the dog or the kids. Anyway, good reminder. I am using Show Preview much more than I did at the beginning.

Hello ROO BOOKAROO and welcome to Wikipedia. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Elizium23 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don' t understand. I have no multiple accounts.

How did Elizum come to this erroneous assumption? --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Another point, Elizium (what a lovely name, very liquid name) Let's suppose I have many accounts, and I use them to add edits to my article. Wouldn't any new edit under another account be recorded by Edit History? Wouldn't those names show up with dates, and even traceable inputs? And those names should figure during the period I've been working on this article, from the very beginning.


 * I am sorry, Elizium. Nobody in the world has done more researching about Arthur Drews than I have. And nobody in the world can help me. Just have a look at the articles on French Wikipedia, or even Deutsche Wikipedia. They made me sad. In fact what they are going to do is to lift the research from this article. Nobody else has done the job of scholarship that I have posted here.

It is more fitting for Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but they're not interested in the full, rounded personality. Only the abstract concepts. The New York Review of Books is a far better outlet, alas, Drews is not a current public interest. It can be of interest only to historians of philosophy, religion and social movements.


 * I am amused by this reaction. If there's anybody who knows something I don't on Drews, I would love to know him (I doubt it'd be a her, but one never knows, he was pretty good-looking, compared say to Heidegger) and get to know him. I feel a bit alone as an expert on a philosopher ignored and abandoned by everybody. I'd love to get a soulmate as interested and scholarly trained as I am. What I need is to join a fan club for Arthur Drews, but there's none. He's just too complex for modern people who don't share his interests of the early 1900s. So this article is essentially and primarily historical.

--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can somebody enlighten me on what "multiple accounts" are. I hate reading stuff I don't understand. Am always eager to learn new stuff. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you click the link? Sock puppetry. Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I finally did. I was reading this page on Edit, so there was no button to click. I finally realized that I had to go back to Read to get to active buttons. Yes, I read this article on Sock puppetry. Now I see there's an immense field of manipulation I am not familiar with. My wikipedian folder is getting pretty large. Very soon, it could match my folder on Drews. So in order to play this game, you have to set up, say, many Google accounts or Yahoo accounts, and use each one to construct a Wikipedia account. That's a lot of time and supervision.

So no again, I do not have nor have I used "multiple accounts". What pattern have you noticed that made you think so?

I have visited German Wikipedia and French Wikipedia to see if they contained any valuable info or references I didn't have. They had a few references. And one or two pictures.

I should still visit Wikipedia Italiana, ma si! Although I am doubtful they have something valuable. But one does not know in advance. Mi piacerrebe molto di vedere si e una possibilita di trovare qualcosa di nuovo. Ma chi sai? At least that Wikipedia should be more fun than the German and French one. The French guy included books by an author of the same name, without ever becoming aware it was somebody else. The French guy admitted that he was visiting my article for potential lifting. I don't care, but their presentation is so lousy that nobody feels like reading their article unless there's a school assignment. This philosopher is complex, unusual, and not easily understandable. That is why I have taken great pains to set up a beautiful, extremely accurate, but still attractive and digestible article for readers to get it. So the formatting took an inordinate amount of time, which is why I have so many "Save" in history. When you switch from section to section, the Preview function is not good enough. I am also very precise, from scholarship training, about punctuation, italics, bold, listing, clarity of headings, and relevancy of images. I would say that the special formatting took me days to perfect. But I have achieved something that is Understandable. Nobody else really cares to understand Arthur Drews. For a while it became my big project. So let's see what happens Nobody else I know has done anything like it. Working for a magazine or review, I could have earned $ 5,000 to $ 10,000, if they had wanted it, if it had been somehow in the news. And that is a big IF. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So I have visited  and they do have an article on Arthur Drews. 10 lines, half the bibliography, and 4 references to old books, 3 of them useless, no notes. Those Italians are not the descendants of the Renaissance scholars, no doubt about it. They probably think that Wikipedia is just another Internet game. It'd be cleaner not to have anything than this blob of a post. The Dutch should have something much better, because Drews has a high reputation among Dutch scholars, but unfortunately, nobody can read Dutch.

Well, I visited Dutch Wikipedia.  It's the fourth largest in the world to have passed the million article mark. But what do you know? No article on Arthur Drews. Hard to believe. I still can't believe it. A nice feature: an automatic Google translator to translate their stuff into English.

Which other national Wikipedia would have an independent article on Drews? I can't think of one, except perhaps the Russian Wikipedia,since Drews had his moment of fame there, at the time of Lenin. Yes,  does have a Drews article, an adaptation of the German one, plus a few Russian references. Nearly a bit larger than the German article. I think that does it. No other country likely carries a Drews article with any new info. What we have here is the beacon for any further Drews research anywhere. Nobody else has ever put together all the info I have accumulated and refined.

Talkback
Lone boatman (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

talkback
Thanks  Fylbecatulous   talk   17:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Schweitzer-Quest, Transl. 2d ed. 1913.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Schweitzer-Quest, Transl. 2d ed. 1913.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation lifted on Romans and Philemon in G.A. Wells article --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk page editing
I noticed on Talk:George Albert Wells that you have been making substantial edits to your comments after someone else (myself) has responded to them. This is problematic. Talk page comments are supposed to be parts of a discussion, not essays that you refine over time. By changing your comments after someone has responded to them, you could be seen as misrepresenting the discussion. I am just going to append a note on my own comments to point out that what I responded to has been changed, but if you do this habitually it is likely to cause friction with other editors. I suggest that you should review the guidelines at WP:REDACT for what to do if you feel the need to edit past comments. --RL0919 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to RL0919
No, I have not made any "substantial" edits to my comments on the Talk:George Albert Wells page. I may have tightened the phrasing or clarified some sentences, at most, but I have not modified anything concerning the substance of the discussion of the subject itself, on the contrary.

I have admired the quantity of pages you have started on Wikipedia, and sense your good faith in your remarks.

For my side, may I say that by training, I am used to dealing only with in-depth research, and discussing only with the top experts in the field of interest.

Concerning G.A. Wells, I have perhaps been overly influenced by the discussions deployed by R. Joseph Hoffmann in his books and his blog, THE NEW OXONIAN. He is, de facto, an authority in the Frage der Historizität Jesu, and took the trouble of sponsoring the edition of Wells's Jesus Legend with his own Foreword. But he is a prima donna and tends to treat all other researchers as unequal and not completely worthy of his condescension. It is true that in order to have a fruitful exchange with him that does not derail into covert insults or frank pooh-poohing of your position, it is a must to be knowledgeable about the most advanced details of research. Nothing less than top expertise will do for him, and he has oftentimes expressed his lack of esteem for all Wikipedia articles related to the question where he feels he is the undisputed master, the question of the historicity of Jesus Christ.

I realized that I have been too influenced by Hoffmann's attitude and been a bit too harsh in my evaluation of the contribution of past editors. Which is what I tried to correct and smooth out.

I am new to this field, and while I can spot excellence in articles where I know something solid, I can also spot the amateurism and ignorance of "editors" concerning subjects where I have acquired some level of expertise. I also (naïvely) thought that it was a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines for people to attempt contributing to an article for a subject about which they knew nothing, or barely memories of high-school or undergrad classes.

I did sense that the article on G.A. Wells, when I first read it, reflected a definite level of ignorance of the subject, and of Wells's books, and of the vast historical background where Wells has inserted himself. I initially felt that it was better, like Hoffmann and all other experts on the subject, not to get involved, and leave this rudimentary exposition as it was, and not be concerned by it.

This would have been the wise stance, as I realized that, in fact, anybody can come off the street and change a given text of any article. Wasting one's time combating such people of low or no expertise is not worth it, when there's so much going on in research. Hoffmann would not lower himself to contributing anything to a Wikipedia article, saving his salt for his books, articles or own blog, and letting the Wikipedia "editors" pick up his crumbs.

However, I have been immersed in reading many of Wells's books, and have found him a reasonable, poised, and no bull-shitter. Over 40 years, he's had time and motivation to study and review the immense literature related to the question of the origins of Christianity, with more balance and research skills than Hoffmann himself (who is in fact an immensely opinionated scholar).

I have come to realize the soundness of Wells's methodology in discussing with opponents or amateurs, and now prefer to smooth out my wording and spare the sensitivities of the former "editors", whose contributions I have left practically intact, contenting myself to add positive additions based on G.A. Wells's own writings.

This is the only slight modification I have brought to the TALK Page, lightening my too severe comments about the value of the contribution of the previous editors. I simply wanted to spare their feelings and avoid a too Hoffmannesque reaction of bemusement at their past discussion, which showed good intentions, but a crass ignorance of the field and of the scholarship — comments which in fact contributed nothing to the topic itself.

It is just too bad that there was no thoroughly informed scholar in the team of previous editors, as Wells deserved this kind of honor. And to me, it remains a legitimate question about why the previous editors had wanted to tackle such a complex writer without gaining beforehand a thorough comprehension of his evolution and knowledge of his writings.

It would never enter my mind to write any article on a subject where I would have only a vague conception based on vague memories of school or college, or superficial book reviews by other parties.

But that is why established experts prefer to write books or articles in learned journals than spend time on Wikipedia articles.

Anyway it was a lesson learned. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It may seem "slight" to you, but you specifically changed elements of your text that I addressed in my reply to you. For example, I quoted exact words from your comments, which you later removed. This makes it appear as if I have made up words and put them in quote marks. I hope you can understand why I would have a concern about that.


 * More broadly, I am also still concerned that you are posting general commentary on the article talk page, rather than addressing specific changes. Your latest comments about Hoffmann, etc., are general complaints about Wikipedia that should be addressed to the Village Pump or some other general forum. Such venting does not help to improve the article. --RL0919 (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Another response to RL0919
Yes, my corrections to my own words were slight, very slight.

I feel that you are making a mountain out of a molehill because you're taking this job of administrator too seriously. It is not the end of the world, and it has no repercussion on the state of biblical scholarship. No real research is involved in this discussion, no real new insights are being provided, only bickering and waste of time. Contrary to your allegations, the article has been improved tremendously, and it still improving, to the point that it is now copied repeatedly all over the net.

I am surprised you don't notice those improvements, which I assume is due to your relative unfamilarity with the subject, with Wells and the historic flow of cultural ideas in the Western World where he is staking an important place. Beating me up with the police regulations of Wikipedia will not add anything to my work, only make me regret that I broke my promise to stay out of this mess. And this only because I feel that Wikipedia completely lacks a professional attitude towards an important contributor to the cultural scene of the Western World such as Wells.

I have softened the few words of my comments that have no relevance to the subject of the article, just to avoid roughing the feathers of the well-meaning "editors", since it achieves nothing but only expresses my dissatisfaction with their input, à la Hoffmann.

This is no reflection on you, since you are the only one to perceive an intrusion to the integrity of your remarks, that even I could not notice. All this is internalized in  you and has little objective value for the other readers, who have other things to worry about in life.

I believed that my words are my own, and the possibility to "edit" could at least be applicable by me to my own words. I wouldn't dream of tampering with anybody else's text. But my words are my own, and if I am told I have broken some sacrosanct rule of propriety by being too harsh on the well-meaning but information-limited editors, I am happy to take this critique into account, and refashion my harsh words into gentler and more acceptable ones, because it makes no difference to the final product.

And behold, to me unbeknownst, here again I am breaking one of the 1,000 rules of giant Wikipedia, which I will never have the time to absorb in my lifetime. It took me far too long to even master the rudiments of formatting.

If this will satisfy you and make you happier, I am willing to reintroduce the original words you care so much for. I hope I still have them somewhere and re-insert them where they belonged. Or mention their simple gist: that all those editors are full of good intentions, but they have little or no real knowledge of the subject, of Wells, of his books, and of the immense biblical scholarship dating back 150 years in which he is staking up a very visible place. So I simply softened the expressions concerning that lack of knowledge.

Another lesson learnt: It is much more fun and much more instructive to deal with experts who know MORE than oneself, than deal with neophytes, well-meaning as they may be, who know little or nothing about the subject and its background.

I'd much prefer to discuss all this with Wells himself, or, when possible, with Hoffmann, which could be made to happen once I have developed this article to a high level of solid, accurate and complete scholarship.

This will require a thorough review not only of all the nine books devoted to the Jesus exegesis, but also the three books where Wells expounds on his understanding of the role of apologetics, belief, credulity, superstition, and language. In Wells we are dealing, not just with a biblical scholar, but with a philosopher of the foundations and pitfalls of religious belief.

The Spirit of Wikepedia Be With You, and With Me as Well.


 * OK, I've tried to deal with you in my normal way, but perhaps this is a case where you will only understand a taste of your own medicine, so here goes. In reading the points below, please understand that I am responding to you in the same manner in which you have addressed me.
 * The point I am making about talk page editing is for your edification, to help you understand what is considered appropriate behavior on Wikipedia talk pages. I don't need or want you to go back and change your comments again.
 * The biggest problem I have in trying to interact with you is that you are arrogant and condescending. To take just one of many examples: You don't know me or the other editors here, so opining about our education and knowledge is quite presumptuous. For your enlightenment, let me tell you that I personally have read a half dozen of Wells' books, as well as a number of other works about the Christ myth theory and historicity of Jesus more generally. I don't claim comprehensive knowledge, but I know enough to occasionally help improve material for a general-interest encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. To borrow a comparison from one of your article talk page comments, this is not an academic project like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If rubbing shoulders with the unwashed masses offends your sensibilities, then perhaps you should stick to venues where proof of world-class scholarship is required for participation. Assuming, of course, that you have such qualifications yourself and aren't just being pretentious on the internet.
 * A somewhat less important but still annoying problem is that you are unnecessarily verbose. My suggestion is that when you write something, you should first do a draft, then go back cut the length of the text by a third. Then do the same again.
 * Instead of flaunting your ignorance of Wikipedia's policies and culture as a if it were a badge of honor, you should try taking good advice when it is offered. I haven't commented previously on your article edits, just on your use of talk pages. That wasn't because I haven't noticed the article work. It was because I was trying to coach you on one thing at a time. If I can't get you to understand how to behave appropriately on a talk page, then trying to explain the nuances of article editing is probably a lost cause. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you have "mastered" anything about Wikipedia. Your article contributions will require considerable formatting and copyediting, as well as removal of a blatantly non-neutral point of view. (The effort to do this will be much greater because of point 3 above.) In this regard, you are the neophyte, and believe me when I say you are right that it isn't fun to deal with that, especially given point 2 above.
 * That said, there is much that is positive about your article content contributions, which is why I haven't done much to interfere with your editing so far. I figured you would put in your work, and the copyediting, trimming and de-biasing of it could come after. Since you seemingly don't know a lot about Wikipedia, I'll point out that this is where you should be thanking me, because there are a lot of edits you've made where a less tolerant "colleague" would have already greatly rewritten or just plain reverted your additions.
 * I'm sorry if any of the above comes across as rude or mean-spirited, but this seems to be the approach that you prefer, so I'm hoping that it will get through where softer tones did not. --RL0919 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

January 2013
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Earl Doherty. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dark Ages and Antonio Beccadelli (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) 11:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Earl Doherty. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
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.


 * Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Socratic


 * Paul-Louis Couchoud (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Edwin Johnson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini
You've been reverted twice now. Please do not restore your version but discuss it on the talk page. Before you do, please read WP:NOR. For instance, you wrote:

"Some of the language can strike us as quaint. Many turns of phrase seem too long in coming to the point and flowery, in the 19th-century rhetorical style. On another hand, some formulations are sharp and strikingly concise. Long quotations in Latin (in the notes at the bottom of pages) are shown without translation. The lack of an initial table of contents and the lack of any kind of index are particularly irksome. In addition there are some errors in the text. For instance, Pope John XXIII is mislabeled XXII.

It is helpful to check details and dates against the superior biography"

That might be fine in an essay or a journal article, but not in an encyclopedia whose articles are meant to be based on reliable sources as discussed at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS.

Phrases such as "This miraculous discovery" are also not the sort of language we want her. If someone notable calls it a miraculous essay we can say that they did, making it clear who said it, but Wikiipedia should not make such statements in its own voice - and I note that the source didn't say that in any case.

I don't think you are the only editor to have added original research to the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, missed the fact you've started a discussion at the talk page. On another note, please mread MOS:CAPS on section headings. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul-Louis Couchoud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synoptics (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) 11:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul-Louis Couchoud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Council of Nicaea (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) 09:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Hello, I'm DVdm. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Albert Einstein, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks, DVdm (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello. Please stop adding original research to Wikipedia articles:. As it says on the policy documentation page "WP:SYNTH" one must refrain from combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Especially problematic is the content you recently added to Paul-Louis Couchoud which is in blatant violation of WP:NOR, WP:STRUCTURE, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:RS/AC, and WP:TOPIC, while your comments on the talk page fail to address any of the concerns I have raised. Please stop restoring your version and note that your repeated defiance of policy is disruptive. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul-Louis Couchoud
As above. You are using misleading edit summaries, you are adding irrelevant material including a great deal that is not about the subject but about the Christ myth theory. Please stop. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please join in the discussion at
WP:NORN. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Origins of the Christ Myth - From Bruno Bauer to Arthur Drews concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Origins of the Christ Myth - From Bruno Bauer to Arthur Drews, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Anwer to HasteurBot (a very curious name, indeed) Thanks for your alert. I am happy to let that submission die, and be deleted. It's too much work and time, only to get involved in endless hassles with the Christian police and the Wikipedia editing rules. It's not worth it. The subject would be better as a book, and it is more appropriate to a professional expert like, say, George Albert Wells. So, yes, let's this suggestion expire.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Origins of the Christ Myth - From Bruno Bauer to Arthur Drews


Hello ROO BOOKAROO. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Origins of the Christ Myth - From Bruno Bauer to Arthur Drews".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

HasteurBot: As mentioned above, thanks again, but it's wiser to let that suggestion die.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

File:G. A. Wells.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:G. A. Wells.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I could not find the "discussion" page. I don't understand what the issue is, and at this point, I don't care anymore. Do whatever tickles you, whoever you are, and whatever satisfies your desires. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:R. Joseph hoffmann1a.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:R. Joseph hoffmann1a.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 05:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

La finta semplice
I noticed your long post directed to me on this article's talk page. Frankly, I'm not sure why you did it! All I did was to read a lot of the information about the opera - about I know nothing - whoch you had posted, and then just encouraged to add it to the article and expand it.

I don't write about Mozart operas, only 19th Italian ones for which I have all the standard references works and access to JSTOR for scholarly articles as appropriate.

So, good luck with Finta; keep up the good work. Best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Still, thank you for prodding me. I was disgusted by the low quality of this article on Mozart's brilliant opera. I was amazed that such meretricious stuff could be published in relation to Mozart. He now has the kind of honest review he deserves and that we don't have to be ashamed of.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La finta semplice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M-22. 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) 09:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the alert. I made the correction, removing the link.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Article styles and formatting
Please refer to the following:
 * WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats

in determining opera article styles.

This is the result of consensus from a group of editors of operas, put together over many years. Re: La finta semplice I see no reason why its format (whether American or European or whatever) should depart from the standard of those on all other articles (where substantial ref sources exist) relating to Mozart's operas. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on the Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In adition, I'd note that opera articles, unless they are specifically US in origin, use the worldwide standard dating system of day (number)- month (not abbreviated) - year (4 numbers). Please abide by that agreed-upon policy. Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Viva-Verdi: My article on La Finta Semplice is an American article, specifically US in origin. I also note that all Italian libretti and all the opera publications use the connotation Atto I, scena 3, or even Atto I, scena iii, to distinguish the number of the act from the number of the scene, as act 1, scene 1 is less visibly meaningful or memorable. I see no reason to bow to young Wikipedia editors who arrogate to themselves a power that they don't have in life in making new rules that contradict all the publishing tradition of Italian libretti, and contradict the rules of visibility hard-wired in the working brain. I have a sneaking feeling that this is my first and last article on an opera. I owed that one to Mozart considering the miserable and mangled article produced by the Wikipedia editors, but time is precious in life, and I am willing to go in an editors' war for matters of substance, not for trivialities. Best is to abandon the field to all those ignorant young editors and let them write whatever they please. Nobody in the Mozart literature ever refers to anything written by the Wikipedia editors, because these experts don't bother to visit Wikipedia and waste their time on stuff that's simply copied from the experts' own writings.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think I'm making this all up?
 * Semplice is not an American article, although you may be American. That is immaterial to Wiki opera editors. The article is about a European opera, and those use guidelines developed over several years - in my case 9 years - and put into practice by a variety of people who have had considerable experience with opera in one form or another. If you cannot agree to follow the basic guidelines - which we created because readers should expect some uniformity - then you'll have to decide what to do. Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Mangasarian, Mangasar Magurditch trut-59751.gif listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mangasarian, Mangasar Magurditch trut-59751.gif, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Albert Kalthoff - Pastor.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Albert Kalthoff - Pastor.JPG, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Albert Kalthoff - Pastor.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Albert Kalthoff - Pastor.JPG, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)