User talk:Turris Davidica

Welcome
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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg (chat) 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Celibacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Renunciation (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) 09:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Holy water in October 2012
As we can't seem to agree on how much of the original statement from the source should appear in the article, the next course of action I was going to recommend was removal of the whole statement, which I see you have done already. In the future I'd advise that you start a discussion on the talk page immediately if your edits are reverted, as per WP:BRD, instead of attempting conversation in the revision comments. Cheers. Spacexplosion[talk] 21:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edith Stein
In the Edith Stein article, you indicated that it's "to enter Carmel". Is that a quote? Carmel is a place, not an order. Wikipedia strives for nontechnical language if possible. While I understand that Carmel is a technical term used to refer to a monastery of the nuns of the Carmelite religious order, in fact what she wanted to do was join the order, not just visit a convent. I will change it back to non-technical language absent a good reason not to. --Bejnar (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No it's not a quote but a common term, especially for women who want to become a Discalced Carmelite nun and iMHO only with respect to the Carmelites. "In 1880 she entered the Carmel" (sometimes "the Carmel of...") means, this was her first day as a postulant or novice in the convent. Since the Discalced Carmelites are linked too, I changed the wording. --Turris Davidica (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate
Please notice that you added the same text, (see After Augustinus) so it appeared in the text twice, no need for that. Your edit was not removed, only the one you added again, there is no need for the same text twice in the article. Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that and thanks for the notification. I've learned from the article that you removed it meanwhile, otherwise I would have reverted my edit.--Turris Davidica (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to do, but I feel this does not belong to this article, see talk page. Hafspajen (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to express the same concern on the talk page of the article. Unfortunately I never saw any discussion about the former article "involuntary celibacy". What about removing the passage entirely since it doesn't meet the definition of this lemma?--Turris Davidica (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if this was exactly what the community agreed on. Still, I am not going to revert you, I am only suggesting that you may discuss it or leave a note like "I have moved this to...xxx article". After all it was a long disscussion about this to be merged .. well, maybe on the wrong place, but merge. 16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Hafspajen (talk)

IP vandal
Hi, an IP editor editor, most probably a sockpuppet as he uses the word "Charlatan" a lot like an indefinitely blocked vandal, is vandalising various Wikipedia articles through various IP addresses and edit-warred with many other editors also, which includes you. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.165.172.137 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.165.172.48

immediate action required as he's removing many sources.--Racesbeet (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. But what should one do with his edits? He removes again and again.--Turris Davidica (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone with more power could block him, and keep an eye out on those articles. He's hopping from one IP to another, removing sourced content, adding original research and misrepresenting Islam. Maybe there is a place to report him?--Racesbeet (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Turris Davidica, User:Racesbeet is sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000, long time abuser with over 220 socks. Please ignore. --SeanKesser (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thx. Neverthess, the ip removed sourced content using words like (iirc) „charlatan source“ in various lemmata.--Turris Davidica (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * At least 7 IPs, 2 known sock accounts (excluding the newly created SeanKesser (talk)), edit-warring with at least 5 established editors to remove sourced facts and add personal conservative view. This vandal really needs to get blocked.--Racesbeet (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Removing sourced content mostly could be considered as disruptive editing. Mostly, but not all times. Long-term abuser above indeed did include non-reliable source for proving his POV. There's a general dispute about meaning of hijab in Quran, mostly claim hair covering, some claims face covering, some claims nothing. Sock didn't use some scholarly source but journalist essay from media in purpose to claim former specific view. If he did that with some University Press source and in neutral tone, then it would be OK. But this is not the case, in fact he also included such opinions in some irrelevant articles like about ancient Zoroastrian clothing. There's an advice on his sockpuppetry case which clearly states arguing with this person is lose of time, so I won't even try and I suggest the same for you. When administrators notice him, he'll get blocked on sight. --SeanKesser (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Case is reported on Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 and result is more then obivous. Admins will take care of him. --SeanKesser (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion on the topic of whether a source or a statement is reliable should take place on each of the related talk pages such as Talk:veil. Not here. Removing content like this is iMHO disruptive editing.--Turris Davidica (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your notification.--Turris Davidica (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Celibacy
As the term has nothing to do with celibacy in the first place, and the content has been removed from the celibacy article following a discussion, should it not be best to delete the redirect of "involuntary celibacy" to the celibacy article? It seems more then a little strange to keep the page & redirect, wouldn't you agree? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I would, but I don't know how do this in the English WP. Another possibility is to change the aim of the redirect to an article which is more suitable (if I only knew which?). Greetings, --Turris Davidica (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am also less aware of how to take such steps in the English wikipedia. However as I have been involved in many previous discussions on the subject I would much prefer not to add the delete-template onto the page myself. Perhaps you could do that? I feel it is best to remove the old name in its entirety as it is giving the (incorrectly named) term more weight then it should. Thanks already. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just tried using speedy deletion (as we would do it in the German WP), but I'm not sure that I enterily did it technically in the right way. --Turris Davidica (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .Please let's not edit war. Can't we please move it somwhere else? Like .. Sexual abstinence ? Hafspajen (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, thank you, Hafspajen.


 * With respect to the contributions above and Mythic Writerlords propal: I am severely disappointed and astonished that you, Mythic Writerlord, asked me to take action on the redirect (which I tried and which you expressis verbis didn't want do do) and only a few hours later you wrote here : "But Davidica and the other editor made more edits. If anything, they are the ones engaged in edit wars, not me.“--Turris Davidica (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well this SandyGeorgia person was blaming me for edit warring on that page which is incorrect. In fact I'd say the only person who is edit warring is the Andrey person. There was some sort of consensus already reached on the talk page of the celibacy article already. Neither of of should be put in a position where we have to defend our edits to anyone, when all we did was act upon reached agreement. In any case, things got a little too heated for me and I decided not to get involved in this situation any further. Given my past history with the case it's better if I do not get involved further. If I offended you in any way I am very sorry for that. No offense meant. You did not edit war, you simply protected a page. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I tried to do something positive for article. You encouraged me to act on the deletion of the redirect "Involuntary celibacy" and than you made a statement on Sandy Georgia's page mentioning my name as to be „engaged on editwars“. I feel that that was not nice. --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If I gave of the wrong impression with that edit then I am sorry for that. The real user involved in the edit war was already reported by me yesterday, so all this will soon be dealt with. And no harm against your person was done in this, almost everyone seems to agree what you did there was right and the page has not seen any edits since. We will see if the community can agree on a good alternative solution for this issue. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't see that action. That's good that you reported on Andrey Rublyov (compare this edit on his talk page ). I accept your apologies and hope for the best--Turris Davidica (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Hello, a friend of mine has noticed that Andrey Rubylov is a sock puppet of MalleusMaleficarum1486. The edits and behavior are very similar, and I believe that he will continue to vandalize the celibacy article repeatedly if we do not ban all his accounts. Do you know someone I can speak to about this? Black Sonichu (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I do not know how these things work in the English WP. It definitely seems to be some kind of single-purpose-account. --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * try this one, . Hafspajen (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Hafspajen, hopefully this will help. It might not prevent him from creating more in the future, but maybe slow him down. Black Sonichu (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC) So, how did that go? I see Rublyov is just fine. Hafspajen (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm
Ah a little icel stuff left, eh? Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe feminism is right place for this whole passage. The passage uses „celibacy" WiMRE just once but tends something completely different.--Turris Davidica (talk)
 * Just leave a message on talk page, moved to Feminism. And I would try to reword that "celibacy" - into (change it) - "avoiding sexual contact with men" or something like that. Hafspajen (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * May I move other contributors' edits into another article?--Turris Davidica (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Consecrated virgin
Tell me if you like my 2nd attempt to clarify the "noted" list here. Unless we clarify it somehow, most famous priests and nuns would also qualify. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 20:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not, since men cannot be consecrated as a virgin. Please note that the consecration of virgins is an own rite of the church, the women who received it belong to the Order of Virgins. This is different from the church's title "virgin" (which she doesn't apply on men, too. Men are usually called ascetics). Some nuns are both nuns and consecrated virgins (i. e. Benedictines and Carthusian nuns), most of them are not. The "notet" list includes some of the consecrated virgins living in the world. HTH, --Turris Davidica (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a religious priest and obviously understand that there is a rite. My issue was that if you just say "Noted Christian Virgins" as a title without qualification, someone a little less knowledge might wonder why St Therese of Lisieux (for example) wasn't on the list. I had originally added a line of clarification which you deleted so I then changed the title of the section to "Noted Christian Virgins". I assume we agree that this is clearer. I'll reference this on that talk page. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

.
Turris hope you have checked that celibacy talk page... Hafspajen (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Tips on AIV work and warning users
Hello. I have noticed your work on WP:AIV. Thank you for your help fighting vandalism! Would you like some tips and suggestions for increasing the effectiveness of your AIV reports? Because it seems you are leaving improper warnings to users as you did here.
 * Here are some friendly suggestions how to warn user and report on AIV:
 * Given the often massively shared nature of many IPs, unless the exact same article is being vandalized, warnings issued to IPs should generally reset back to level-1 at the beginning of each calendar month.
 * Escalated warnings are typically only issued when the editor has received a warning (like uw-vandalism2 ), ignored it, and vandalized again, resulting in an escalated warning (such as uw-vandalism3 ).
 * Keeping WP:AGF in mind, most admins are unwilling to block an editor unless he or she has received four properly escalated levels of warnings, and ignored them to vandalize again.
 * If you were to adopt these tips, the block rate on your vandal submissions to AIV would probably rise to 99% or more. Regardless, thanks again for your help in containing vandalism! A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 11:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Star singing
you write: "words as „children“ and „people“ include both sexes per se" - I tend to agree, but not in an article which is titled "boys", limiting the connotation of children to just the male sex. --Vigilius (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * iMHO the use of the article's titel doesn't change anything to that of words like people, children, christian, laymen et cetera. Futhermore, it's elaborated later in the article. The topic is in a way similar to altar boys. Maybe one should consider to move the article to Star singer procession as they are called Sternsinger in the German language area, anyway. --Turris Davidica (talk)

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sheitel
Hi, I didn't quite get what you mean by this. The new picture shows a Jewish wig, and it's bigger and of better resolution. Why do you prefer the old one? — Le Loy 10:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this, I erroneously considered this photo for a model wearing a simple „Scheitel“ (id est part) first. In fact I think, most people will mistake this at first sight since the model neither looks very modest nor very Jewish). I'd prefer a photo that shows something typical. --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it is Jewish actually, I can't see why it is not since it came from a Jewish wig store and it is shown as 'a modern wig' in hewiki (he:כיסוי ראש לנשים (הלכה)), but never mind. Edit: gotcha: you meant the model, not the wig. Would you agree to put a close-up of a Chassidic woman in a wig instead? — Le Loy 10:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, why not, thank you for your efforts.--Turris Davidica (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Confused
I'm confused by your edit summary here. What do you mean by "reinvent" and "backdoor"? 92.2.73.254 (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)