User talk:DeCausa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Jakub Szymański[edit]

Good bye dear friend This is last message. It was nice that met you. Dont forget about your daily prayers... and then God grant to you many gifts. Best Regards Jakub Szymański


Jakub Szymański[edit]

Dear Ignorant DeCausa - please check article now. And You before next time will put forward objections, first You learn Polish language and check all matter more profoundly, and not only on surfaces of mind and imagination.

Bin Baz page naming[edit]

I see you have commented on this issue before, and I have opened a new discussion about how to resolve the fact that the page name and the name in the article do not agree with each other. I encourage you to add your voice. --Jprg1966 (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Qalbiyya Tribe[edit]

Samuel Lyde is not a reliable man, and his statement about the Qalbiyya tribe is very defaming. In the article on Samuel Lyde you can read the following: "Lyde developed a deranged mental state and had delusions that he was John the Baptist, Jesus Christ or God himself."

I believe it is not necessary to spread the slandering and wrong words about a tribe of another religion by a deranged missionary.

DYK for Bath curse tablets[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion that might be of interest to you[edit]

You might be interested in WP:ANI#User:Wran – continued disruption. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zoroastrians in Iran may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ===Post-Revolution]]===
  • {{See also|Islamic revolution of Iran]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Persecution of Alawites

The reason of the persecution of Alawites by Sunni rulers is because Alawites and Shi'ites in general do historically not accept the caliphate of the Sunni rulers. If it would be because of the reasons you mentioned, then what about all the other Shi'ite groups who have been persecuted by Sunni rulers in the area of Syria since the 7th century?!

And why do you want to put something in head of the page, that is not being confirmed by Alawite religious authorities themselves? Do you want to spread Fitna?

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jonathan King may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {cite web |url=http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/10cc.asp |title=10CC |work=Snopes.com}} citing {{cite book |title=Rock Names: From ABBA to ZZ Top |last=Dolgins |first=Adam |year=1998 |isbn=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan King et al.[edit]

I see our friend has been editing at Chris Langham as well. Some WP:BLP and WP:RS issues there as well, I fear. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Some repair work needed. DeCausa (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Done, but you may want to check it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, done - let's see if it sticks. Btw, Loop di Love was nicely done. Overdue becoming a blue link! DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anything I did wrong on langham please let me know, because I didnt do anything wrong. DeCausa thanks for all your effort (and I really mean that), nice to find one honest editor on here, all I want is for the articles to be true, but they are allowed to be taken over by sympathisers and god help you if you ask for them to be fixed!Dave006 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, it's a mistake to edit articles that one feels strongly about. It's almost impossible to set aside personal feelings and write objectively. It's also a more pleasant experience writing when you're not heavily invested in a particular point of view. I edit articles because I enjoy researching them and I enjoy writing, often about subjects I had no prior interest in. I normally avoid any subject I feel strongly about in the Real World. I don't want to criticize because I know you've been making an effort to edit within policy, but you give the impression that you're here to get a particular point of view across. DeCausa (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Copy of my answer to your message on Jonathan King's talk page..... I see you've reversed all my edits so I assume you and the other editors are not interested in my contributions. I have no problem with that. The graduation date is clearly in Music Week (which was then Record Retailer) and all the other music papers; I was looking at Record Mirror which has a picture caption which says on Friday 23rd June 1967 "Jonathan King BA attends an awards ceremony at Cambridge University where he receives his honours degree in English - then rushes to Southampton to co-compere As You Like It" whatever that might be. Sorry if that doesn't meet your rules or agenda. LudoVicar (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair points mate, and good advice re looking for articles to research, think I will give that a go! Never thought of looing into an article I have no knowledge of, but think it will be fun, thanks.Dave006 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC) PS by the way only just learnt you can click the sign thing and it does it for you, been cutting and pasting up to now!

You said you thought I was a sock of Dave006. I'm not but several editors have suggested I change my name. Can you tell me how I do it?Pedohater (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that and I don't think that. Your user name breaches wikipedia user name policy and should be changed. How to do that is here: Wikipedia:Changing username. At the same time you need to change your behaviour, stop your trolling and edit constructively. DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Constituent country[edit]

Hi, I've reverted your revert. Please don't revert just because you don't like the smell of something. Add citation needed tags or develop articles. Wholesale reverts don't do the project any good. --Tóraí (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí, you must be mixing me up with someone else. I couldn't give a stuff how it smells. This was my edit and I reverted you, because you gave no citation for a change in the balance of how that issue was treated. Also it wasn't a "wholesale revert", just a small part of your last edits. The United Kingdom talk page has discussed this at length before and the no. 10 citation has been used as the basis for saying that "4 countries" is the mainstream view with "3 countries" as the alternative. This was reflected in this article. Your edit changed the balance, and you did so without citation. Personally, I couldn't give a stuff either way (I find that whole debate meaningless) but it was an entirely appropriate revert to your poor edit - and CMD in his subsequent revert of you agreed with that. Acting like a prima donna because you get reverted doesn't "do the project any good". DeCausa (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
My apologies! My mistake! For some reason I thought you had reverted the whole lot! I cannot explain now why it looked like that to me. That's what I get for editing late at night!
I'll strike my comments on the talk page too. --Tóraí (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Looked on the talk, I don't see any specific comment I can strike out. Apologies again! God, I feel so thick! Apologies, apologies, apologies ... --Tóraí (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added an apology. So sorry again! --Tóraí (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem! Apologies too for my overly touchy response (discovered a roof leak this morning so not in the best of moods...!) DeCausa (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah no, I feel like such a stuff-tard (to borrow your phrase)! Sorry to hear about your roof. I have a cat that may have eaten rat poison (we'll know if she lives), if it makes you feel any better :-)
Sorry again. Lesson learned to look (twice) before I leap. --Tóraí (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Abdul Aziz ibn Abdullah Al Shaykh[edit]

Your claim is invalid. His official biography is here on a Saudi Arabian government website. Try this website from the government of Saudi Arabia: http://alifta.com/Fatawa/MoftyDetails.aspx?languagename=en&ID=8 Joeal532 (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

benefits street[edit]

sorry to ask mate, but can you please look at the article. Tried to redo and thought it was much better and now an editor is just changing everything back to the wrong quotes from sources etc. I have no agenda and have asked him to discuss it re talk, but no joy, can you help?Honest-john (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to make any comment after a quick look at the article. However, the other editor is very experienced and put up a template saying he was doing an overhaul of the article. I would let him finish, then once he's done take up any issues with him on the talk page. He's got 40k+ edits behind him. It's unlikely he's doing anything that doesn't follow Wikipedia policies. By the way, you said on the talk page of the article that you asked an admin/senior editor to look at it. I hope you don't mean me because I'm neither of those. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

your help please[edit]

Really sorry to bother you. set up my first page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Brooke And was hoping that you could check it please as it now has a warning on it that it may cause libel? ThanksHonest-john (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but won't be able to until later on this evening. DeCausa (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Just had a quick look: if by the warning you mean the notice on the talk page, that's just the standard reminder that's put on all living people articles. Eg JK has the same one. But two things: if you're going to create an article on a living person, pleaee make sure you've read the relevant policy which is WP:BLP. It' enforced strictly. Secondly Imbd is not a good source. As the article is because it's a BLP and with only one poor source it could essily get deleted. You need to get some proper sources in it quickly - newspaper articles etc. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

We or i have confused us... we have now a literal translation ascribed to Seamus Heaney on Anglo-Saxons. Either is fine by me a literal translation or poetic Seamus Heaney one. What now is a mix a literal translation with Seamus Heaney above it ... when it isnt his. His starts "Often". Thanks J Beake (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

J Beake, I don't mind either but now I'm confused. I thought the sequence was: You put in the Heaney version, Anthony Appleyard changed it to his, you changed it back but then a minute later reverted (by accident I assumed) to Anthony's version, I then (I thought) put it back to what you had originally. Which bit of that have I got wrong? DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry DeCausa yes it is right now ... I got confused. Having the Seamus Heaney version is more poetic than literal, but makes the point about early kingship. J Beake (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Wars[edit]

[1]

It is sad that you didn’t learn about the conflict from the beginning. It was namely the fraudulent closure that prompted an edit warring in Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with the known result. But your wording might suggest that you unilaterally support Dennis Brown and Dpmuk, that unlikely is true. Can you change your post to explicate clearly that you do not support Dpmuk’s revision? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about either point of view. This isn't important and you need to drop the stick. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you see the edit history? There are no less that three users who deem that “political status of Crimea” should be an article. Can you show me at least three users who explicitly stated that it shouldn’t? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested, and will not be arguing with you about it. The points on both sides have been debated at multiple locations. It's not THAT important. Drop the stick. DeCausa (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
In appreciation of your being tolerant of my picking your brain for Wikipedia policy in order to find solutions for getting the Ukraine and Russia articles back on track. Thank you! Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Iryna Harpy, but I really don't think I deserve it! I chickened out of joining in the article talk page! DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Everyone is 'sick up and fed' with the Eastern European articles and, as a matter of self preservation (and preservation of sanity), no one with experience wanted to weigh in. You were the only one to pick up on the thread on Jimbo's talk page (Sameboat and I had run out of steam on the actual talk page) and provide policy-based advice. It also pulled in a couple of other Jimbo talk watchers who chimed in later with a couple of hit and run observations. The barnstar sticks, so you're just going to have to wear it. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Image replacement[edit]

I am extremely sorry for what I have done on article Islam to replace the image through dishonest edit summary. I promise that I will never do it again. I have created a sub-section on talk page to have consensus.please share you point of view.

Dear fellow I recently created an article Ostia(sponges). I initially believed that this term is only used for describing pores on a songe's body, (phylum porifera). But after a massive internet search, I have realized that the openings in the lateral hearts of cockroaches are also commonly called ostia. I have mentioned this on article. Hence the name of article should be ostia(biology) rather then ostia(sponges). Please change the name of this article since I don't know how to do this. Don't change it to simply otsia because the term ostia is also user as the name of some settlements. I will be very thankfull.Septate (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Bank notes[edit]

I'd personally suggest going ahead with requesting a 'renewal' of the Wikipedia permission anyway as holding measure, even if it's the WMF (or uploaders) that should technically be asking, with the response being forwarded to OTRS. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

From the AN thread it looks as though Cloudbound has applied for a renewal. Just as well, as I wasn't sure how the BoE would react to a renewal request from someone other than the original applicant. DeCausa (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on Islam[edit]

Dear fellow, I always considred you as a sincere wikipedia user who always treats other users alike, but your recent edit on Islam suggests that you have some particular bias for me. You were right that I have removed the info without concensus but the user Nien has already told me this and he has done so without reverting my edit but by leaving a message on my talk page in a good manner. I have created a new section on the talk page and provided some sources. But your recent revert has really disturbed me. It shows your real bias for particular user. It was mine and user: peaceworld's matter. You should not have interfered. If you had any problem then you should have discussed on talk page. Looks like you think that every edit that I make is bad or non neutral.Septate (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

.Septate, yes, your edits do often have a significant problem: when you are reverted you need to stop at that point, take it to the talk page and wait until you have persuaded others. "You were right that I have removed the info without concensus" Yes !!!! So the article shouldn't be left in a state which does not have consensus support. That's why I reverted you. I do not how many times you have to be told this. DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
But dear fellow it really hurts me when I always find you on the opposite side of my opinions. You are always against my arguments and views. I am not like those radical Muslims who come and remove the images without opinions of others and continue to do so until they are blocked. I always do it under the wikipedia's policy guidelines. But you continued to argue for a nonsense image just because you have a particular bias for me.Septate (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"It was mine and user: peaceworld's matter." This is incorrect. Any interested editor can jump in and participate. Wikipedia is not built around one-on-one discussions. --NeilN talk to me 16:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Septate, Do I have a "bias" against you? The only things I know about you are your edits on Wikipedia. What I have seen includes significant failures to comply with key policies such as WP:CONSENSUS and key expressions of Wkipipedia norms such as WP:BRD as well as edit-warring and deceptive edit summaries to disguise edits that are contrary to policy. I do have a "bias" against your editing practices and I also foresee that you will end up being indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia unless you change your ways. I asked you on your talk page whether you had read WP:BRD, WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS but you haven't answered. What is your answer? DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I admit that I am the person who is on the wrong side. But I will try my best to make my reputation better in your eyes.Septate (talk) 07
35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not about making you better in my eyes. It's about following the rules that we all have to follow, otherwise Wikipedia just doesn't work. Have you read the three links above? DeCausa (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

WEASEL[edit]

Nobody could blame you for not liking KING but WEASEL words and sneers and use of derogatory language is not appreciated on Wikipedia. Numerous wrong facts, avoiding mentioning hits on different labels, why bother? If you simply want to be WEASEL, why edit? Wiki is not for personal agendas. You are probably one of his victims. Fair enough but take your grudge elsewhere and stop chipping away at the truth. Facts are clearly ascertainable in various sources. Example - check charts for labels with his hits whilst he was "working for Decca". Easy to verify.86.146.196.88 (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem keen to remove this comment on your editing POV and use of derogatory words and incorrect facts on the KING article. Your bias and agenda are clear for all to read. Why worry about someone pointing it out? If you're not going to edit correctly and fairly, either don't do it or be prepared for independent observers to shine a light on your weasel words. Others may agree with your decisions on which hits are minor and which companies he worked for and I'm sure you spend hours correcting other articles according to your personal preferences on Arabs and Jews and the Crimea and sponges. It appears several other Wikipedia contributors are starting to take notice of your weasel sneering. 86.146.196.88 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You are quite wrong. I have nothing against you. Even the "shameless self publicist" aspect while can be mildly irritating is more entertaining than anything else. There are certain themes/issues which are clearly dear to your heařt. However, unless they are supported by reliable sources I'm just not willing to take your word for it. I've said to you before the best way for you to handle the article is for you to open an acknowledged account and argue your points openly on the talk page. I actually think in the long run you'll end up with an article much closer to the one you want that way. DeCausa (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to think I'm someone I'm not but that's a fair assumption to an opposing view. I'm assuming you have an axe to weald as either a victim or lawyer. Simply asking editors to print facts and not use weasel words that go one way or another. Nobody makes great or bad records except to the ears of individuals. Hits are not major or minor in fact. They don't even depend on sales these days. A million downloads can be a "hit" without selling a copy.86.146.196.88 (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I know exactly who you are. There has only ever been one person making the points you make. It's as good as fingerprints! You've had a long experience of Wikipedia - doing it the way you've done it hasn't got you what you want for the article on a sustained basis has it? Doing what I suggest is your best chance of achieving that. Why not give it a try. Nothing to lose by doing it. DeCausa (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree there is nothing to be gained either from you thinking I am somebody else nor my assumption that you are a lawyer with an agenda. Rather than play the "block this user" or "revert all contrary changes" or "guess who this is" games, how about seriously answering whether a Wikipedia Editor should be using subjective terms like "minor" hits and whether he or she should be veering an article one way rather than the other? What matters is not who we are but what we do. Wikipedia should be fair, balanced and even, not loaded one side or the other. 86.146.196.88 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Very funny. You have an agenda. And who you are matters because of this policy and this noticeboard. But, so you know, you've got it wrong if you think Wikipedia's objective is to be "balanced and even, not loaded one side or the other". That's not it at all. The objective is to reflect the balance of opinion as found in reliable sources. That is a very different thing. We don't sit in objective judgment of what the sources say. If the reliable sources are "loaded on one side" we must reflect that. Oh, and if you are so concerned with the Wikipedia way of doing things can you explain to me how your actions over the last two days comply with WP:BRD? DeCausa (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on a new beta feature called Hovercards[edit]

Hi DeCausa, We are collecting feedback for a new beta feature called 'Hovercards' - https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Beta_Features/Hovercards. Beta features can be turned on using the tab in the top right. It would be great if you could turn the feature on and give us your feedback on the discussion page. Thanks Vibhabamba (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Clarification[edit]

I was the one who was being a derp-face regarding Brittonic language, thanks for setting me straight. --94.10.161.191 (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No problemDeCausa (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Motivating reverts[edit]

I don't mind reverts, but I don't really understand why you're doing it so summarily. Referring to WP:BRD is fine, if you actually motivate your reverts. Please use the article talk to explain why you're talking the term "Swedish Empire" so literally, even when the article itself explains that it's a translation of stormaktstiden. This is absolutely not how it's described in Swedish historiography.

Peter Isotalo 20:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have. You'll end up at AN3 if you carry on like that. DeCausa (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Uhm, try not to threaten 3RR in disputes you're a party to. And I think you're trying to associate me with the previous attempts to move the article in a way that is not relevant. This is about descriptions and historical accuracy, not formal WP:NAME.
Peter Isotalo 20:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Celtic[edit]

Please read some of the guidlines I'm citing. We don't want trees duplicated on various articles, because they drift apart and we end up contradicting ourselves. We also shouldn't contradict ourselves w the infoboxes etc. You characterize anything you don't like as "vandalism", which suggests that you don't understand what that is either. It would also help if you read Continental Celtic, since you're edit-warring over that without understanding what it is. I have been modifying the classifications to fit Routledge, which Glottolog judges to be a RS for such matters.kwami (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hang on I haven't said anything is vandalism. What are you talking about? This should be on one of the article talk pages so others can see it. What you have written here isn't enough to make ajudgment kn what you are doing. DeCausa (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I mixed you up with another editor, who insists Continental Celtic is a valid family and that any statement to the contrary is "vandalism". My bad. Explanation on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I was only trying to agree with you...[edit]

Hi. I tried to agree with you about the piped usernames on WT:Username policy, but got an edit conflict with you removing your post…! ;-) What policy is it, then? Bishonen | talk 20:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

Well, it's the guideline WP:SIGNATURE, and then when I looked there was already a thread on exactly that (Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Nicknames in signatures) which was active in January and February and meandered for a while and got nowhere...but seemed to go off in tangential bi-lateral disputes between editors taking chunks out of each other about other issues. So I got disheartened and thought I would just go on grumbling to myself about it! If you felt like reactivating it somewhere I'd join in...DeCausa (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification[edit]

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I got your ping on the move review page...I'm just curious, what was it that I said that led you to believe that the subject's preference played a part in my decision? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This, where you seem to attach importance to her decisions on her choice of name. But, as I said, maybe I misinterpreted or, over interpreted. But if that's not what you meant, why mentioned that as examples of being "ill-informed" in the context of the move discussion. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about ascribing weight to her current preference (stated via Jimbo), which was not the case for me. I gave little weight to that at all, and I remember there being participants saying that her preference was HC, not HRC, which I didn't give much weight to either. I brought that up as an example of people not knowing the history behind her name...that she kept her family name even after marriage, something that is rather rare in my experience. (Note, I fall into the 20-something-year-old demographic I mentioned in the post, so I'm not old enough to have learned that by reading the news or listening to the radio or whatever people did to stay informed in the 1980s, and I had never read the article or done any research on her myself.) So long story short, it wasn't a statement about her preference on Wikipedia article titles, but that she was "Hillary Rodham" for the first 7 or so years of her marriage to Bill...an interesting bit of history that I didn't know when I came into the discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah so, you were giving it, in general terms, as an interesting piece of information you learned, but nothing to do with the reasoning for decision? DeCausa (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Sort of. An interesting piece of information that the average Joe probably doesn't know... Not something that influenced the close, but that might have influenced voters. (The point I wanted to illustrate was that larger samples aren't necessarily always better samples.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. Will change my vote to "endorse". DeCausa (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks...I wasn't asking you to change your vote, but I did want to clear up the misunderstanding. I appreciated your comments both ways. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Everyone's Gone to the Moon[edit]

Is it common British practice to run text together and generally make a mess of hypertext markup? — QuicksilverT @ 20:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you ask such an idiotic question? DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bahadur Shah II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aurangabad (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) 08:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my text ?[edit]

Why ? Can other speak up or you are the only one who can speak and every one must keep quit and just listen to you ? I have added a section to Mahdi article and you keep deleting it. My text has citation to the most reputable book of the context. If you don't like it you have to leave it . You don't have the right to delete it. If you keep doing that I report you vandalism to wikipedia.

Talk: Allah[edit]

"You don't seem to understand the Trinity. It is not three gods."

To be fair, most people don't understand the Trinity ;-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

THAT'S MODALISM, PATRICK! Ogress smash! 20:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

He he, brilliant! DeCausa (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arabian mythology may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Publication date for translations[edit]

What an interesting question which made me re-look at this edit. I would have thought date of first publication, rather than the date of translation is most relevant as it gives the context for the work. I would have thought that readers might be surprised with medieval text published in 2014 as a new book would appear. I looked at Template:Cite book which, although it specifies how to represent the English version of foreign language titles, doesn't specify anything about dates of translation. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Reprints of older publications talks about the use of a parameter |origyear= which may be the way to go - there is also a mention in the next para about translations. I may try using this (for the first time) on Bath curse tablets if I get time. It may be an issue to raise at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for expert opinion. — Rod talk 19:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've used |origyear= . What do you think?— Rod talk 19:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes! That seems like a good solution. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Irony[edit]

No, I actually wasn't being sarcastic or ironic at all, I find the loss of an editor with 186,000 edits on the board, a majority to mainspace, shocking. Be sure to present that link as evidence if this mess ends up at ArbCom. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali of Egypt[edit]

This issue was mentioned on my talk page. I see that FPS has given Biar122 a DS alert. I've added that to the IP's talk page with a statement that the IP is Biar122 (clearly). I am not taking part in the discussion as I want to stay uninvolved. I note there are 3 editors reverting him. Did you see that the IP has responded to a 2013 discussion on the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted a reply to KB on his talk and to the user on the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

—== you have mistaken ==

here you undid my revision by writing "doesn't make sense". You were totally wrong, it makes sense, like here. You undid my revision only because i am a new user. However even i was wrong because it is not a madhab (but it made sense), and i discussed it in the talk page. You should not undo new users and ip's contributions, because it is ip biting. Thanks. Salafisalafis (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"is a maddhab movement" doesn't make sense. (A) a maddhab isn't a movement it's a school of thought or jurisprudence (B) it's not a word in the English language, and shouldn't be used without a translation or at a minimum a wikilink. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You are still talking like an ignorant, and you have not understood anything yet. 1* regardind this stupid comment "it's not a word in the English language, and shouldn't be used without a translation or at a minimum a wikilink."as here there is written "madhab" even if it is not an english language 2* regardind this "is a maddhab movement", only here you are right, i forgot to remove "movement", but i think you could do so But finally i understood that salafi is not really a madhab (although several people think it is). I did not it again because my mistake was, for example, "Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro, OIH (Portuguese pronunciation: [kɾɨʃtiˈɐnu ʁuˈnaɫdu]; born 5 February 1985), known as Cristiano Ronaldo, is a Portuguese singer" but actually he is a footballer. I hope you understood. Thank you. Salafisalafis (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No I understand what you've written. It doesn't make sense. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

RfD discussion of Islamic State[edit]

IAC[edit]

There is a discussion on article's talk page. Duffycharles (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Islam[edit]

Why are you reverting my sourced contents? I know that some people might not condone it, but Wikipedia has to be neutral and offer all facts.--Helpwoks (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

When you come off your block, take it to the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

'Kingdom of England' page: Flag issue[edit]

Hi,

Thank you for your message. Just to let you know I made my last edit to the 'Kingdom of England' page when, inadvertently, I wasn't logged in and therefore hadn't seen your notification. I wasn't ignoring your correspondence.

When I have time I will present arguments on the talk page; I hope to get this corrected. However, Rob984's initial edit ignored the concerns and evidence of other contributors, was purely based on the users own speculation, and ignored sourced content on related pages concerning the history of the flag of England. (Anyway, I realise you may have no inherent interest in the dispute).

Best wishes, Brunanburh (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You should have self-reverted. I see Rob has reverted your IP edit. If you want to avoid being blocked I suggest you keep it to the Talk page now. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Message[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DeCausa. You have new messages at JudeccaXIII's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pakistani pilot[edit]

Hi. Do you think that your recent undo concerning a Pakistani pilot, is according to Wikipedia rules?

- Please bear in mind that the source is clearly not a wp:rs Ykantor (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you read and understand my edit summary? I don't think you did. It can't be according to that site, because that site just republishes preexisting material. It was not first published on that site. If you doubt that it is an RS, your edit which I reverted makes no sense. If it is not an RS, then the "according to" is not the answer. On tge face of it, it appears to be a convincing account. What's the issue? I think generally you should stop making edits that are just about making a "point" and concentrate on informing people neutrally. You're obviously very emotionally invested in Israel-related topics. I recommend you edit areas where you are not so emotiinally involved and come back to this after you have edited articles where you "do not care". That's why I edit this article: I really don't have strong views about the Arab-Israeli conflict. It puts me in a good frame (= NPOV) of mind when I come to articles I do care about. DeCausa (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
-A In your edit summary, it is assumed the me (or other readers) are familiar with this internet site and know that it is a reliable source. There should not be such an assumption and the reader should be presented with a wp:rs based text. Otherwise, we should adapt the wp:biased suggestion to use in-text attribution. Even if "Al Arabia" published this story, does it mean that it is true? I am not sure. I always try to use respectable wp:rs, especially since this is a contentious article.
- This point has nothing to do with being pro or against Israel. There were Israeli aircraft that were shot down by Arab pilots, so what does it matter whether it was a Pakistani or Jordanian pilot that shot the Israeli aircraft?
-B Concerning yours : "You're obviously very emotionally invested in Israel-related topics". I am an Israeli, living in Israel, and it clearly written in my user page. Still, in my opinion I am neutral and accept that Israel wrong doing should be exposed. But this article is heavily biased against Israel, so each neutral editor should modify and balance it. The problem is mainly the false Arab claim that Israel wanted this war in order to conquer more territories from the neighboring Arab state. Since the facts are clearly contradicting this view, the pro Arab editors are deleting / minimizing such facts. I searched for and used Arab sources and Shlaim (who is usually somehow against Israel) but it does not impress those editors. All historians or encyclopedias includes those facts (to my knowledge), but Wikipedia is different. Why? Ykantor (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it say that Israel wanted the war to conquer more territories. I repeat, you should edit articles that have nothing to do with this or anything else you care about, and come back to this article in a few months after doing that. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
-I will appreciate it if you refer to point A, B (see above)
- I have not said that the Arab claim is in the article.
- It does not make sense to accept this biased article and stop editing it, while there is no explanation why undisputed facts are censored out, although supported by (probably all) respected historians. Ykantor (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
OK:
A- It's a binary choice: either it comes out because it is not RS or it stays in because it is RS. The edit you made is not within policy because you are making it on the ground it is not RS but leaving it in the article nevertheless. I have no idea why you think it is not RS because you have not explained that. I see no reason to doubt it is RS. Is it because you are prejudiced against any Arab source?
B- this article isn't heavily biased against Israel. You see imagined bias in it. I've pointed out to you that the article does not say that Israel wanted the war to conquer more territories, and in response you said that you have not claimed that it is. Yet, I pointed it out because you said "But this article is heavily biased against Israel, so each neutral editor should modify and balance it. The problem is mainly the false Arab claim that Israel wanted this war in order to conquer more territories from the neighboring Arab state. Since the facts are clearly contradicting this view, the pro Arab editors are deleting / minimizing such facts". So, you did claim it, and I refuted that claim and now you say you never claimed it.
Finally, you call this article "controversial". No it isn't. If you are Arab or Israeli, may be it is controversial. But if you are not (like me) it is not controversial at all. This is what you don't seem to understand. You are completely blinkered by the desire to prove your point. Those of us who are truly neutral have no point to prove and it's not the least bit controversial. This us why you should not edit this or similar articles and instead go and work on the Aztecs or Magna carta. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yours: "It's a binary choice" . No, it is not a binary choice, as said previously: Otherwise, we should adapt the wp:biased suggestion to use in-text attribution.
- Yours: "I have no idea why you think it is not RS" . We should obey the rules. WP:WPNOTRS : "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". WP:PSTS: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an even". Hence this source is not a secondary source. It might be a Thirtiary source but that does not matter. Moreover, even if it is proven to be sourced from "Al Arabia", I am not sure that it is a wp:rs. Isn't it better to try to use respectable historians as sources?
- yours: the article does not say that Israel wanted the war to conquer more territories. Let's make it simple. This is the Arab claim, and it does not matter whether it is written in the article. I write it as a background to the problem of a biased article, but if do not like it, just ignore it. The matter is that the article is biased, and not the background for this bias.
-C yours:this article isn't heavily biased against Israel. You see imagined bias in it. Let us watch it:
  • The article hides and minimizes Nasser steps that raised the tension and later forced Israel into a war.
  • The article, ignores Israel very moderate reactions, the Israeli efforts to avoid the war with Egypt (mainly because of U.S heavy pressure), the repeated warning to Jordan to avoid entering the war (even after Jordan already attackd Israel).
  • Instead of presenting a proper background, the article misleads the casual reader to understand that that the war happened as a contuation of some hardly related events, and anyway, Israel attacked first. ( so Israel is to be blamed.)
- How come, that the Six day War article is hiding undisputed facts, while (probably all) other historians and encyclopedias versions include the facts? Ykantor (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid this exchange is a waste of time per WP:IDHT. You're typing words but you're not answering me. DeCausa (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have tried to fully reply. What is the question that I supposedly have not answered?
- Will you please refer to point C, and especially the last question: How come, that the Six day War article is hiding undisputed facts, while (probably all) other historians and encyclopedias versions include the facts? Ykantor (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Although you claim to be neutral, you are not explaining why you prefer that the Six day war article should stay inaccurate and vague. I am not talking about conclusions or interpretation but on undisputed and important facts, that are included in other books' and encyclopedias' articles about the war. The result is that this article has no proper lead section unlike other Wikipedia war articles ( including featured articles), which is not a good sign. Ykantor (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom[edit]

I opened up a discussion re your reversion here [2]. I'd welcome your involvement too. Thanks, Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Mussolini's death[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Mussolini's death. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Benito Mussolini#Death. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Benito Mussolini#Death – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Qxukhgiels (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have one possible concern - there seems to be a great reliance on one particular source. Be prepared in case others raise this later. Peridon (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that - and working to find others that are as useful. This is the most detailed account in English I've found, most of the others are in Italian. Most other English accounts are briefer but I think I can substitute some of the citations with those. Thabnks. DeCausa (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Italian sources can be used. It's never a good idea to exclusively use things written in Foreign, but if they are valid sources, they're OK in with the English ones. Peridon (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I was actually just coming here to ask if you'd be open to renaming the article "Death of Benito Mussolini", in line with other similar articles. Kurtis (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's already a move request on the article talk page which looks like it will be a WP:SNOW in favour of that article title. So it doesn't really matter what I think. DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh... I see. Guess I should have checked that beforehand, but I was tired when I posted here, so I didn't get around to it. :/ Kurtis (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How is a lunar chart for August 26, 1978 "just plain wrong"?[edit]

96.234.125.29 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the Talk page archives and you'll find out. DeCausa (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your denials explain nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.125.29 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

My above response doesn't contain a denial of anything. I just directed yiu to where you will find the answer to the qyestion you posed, if you take the trouble to read the relevant threads where this was previously discussed extensively. DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

All you said in your comments on the JP I section of Prophecy of the Popes page is that you categorically reject any and all sources about the moon's phase on August 26, 1978 because they aren't "on point". That's not an argument or a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.125.29 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't say anything like that.DeCausa (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death of Benito Mussolini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capuchin. 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) 10:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

precision in fairness
Thank you, London lawyer who started here with talk and clarification, for quality articles such as Bath curse tablets and Controversies relating to the Six-Day War, for rewriting Saudi Arabia and Chuj people, for a clear user page, precision in fairness, noticing irony, and "no one should be surprised that we end up with the atmosphere we have", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That was a surprise! Thank you very much. DeCausa (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Nice: surprise vs. no one should be surprised ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)