User talk:Qexigator

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

If you have a new message for Qexigator please leave it after section 8 below, in section 9, or in new section. Qexigator (18:04, 25 April 2012)

An announcement made online by "a small team... who work on the open source book tool for Wikipedia at PediaPress." "The Wikipedia Books Project - the complete English Wikipedia in 1000 books - will be presented at the Wikimania Conference 2014 in London"..."Over the last five years we have created thousands of books from Wikipedia content and became the official print on demand partner of the Wikimedia Foundation." "We all know that Wikipedia is huge. The English version alone consists of more than 4 million articles. ... the printed edition will be a work of record breaking dimensions." [1] --14:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  • "...Wikipedia Is Nearing Completion..." Oct 25 2012[2]
  • "Is Wikipedia 'done'?" Oct. 29, 2012[3]

10:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books[4]


Aide mémoire[edit]

(not Aide-mémoire)

Conduct and Etiquette[edit]

[[5]] (15:16, 7 August 2012)

  • 'Welcome' from Jeraphine Gryphon [[6]], retained in History.
  • Please don't ...
    • 'leave comments on or otherwise alter user pages other than your own. Discussion should be on article talk pages or user talk pages.' hgilbert (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012
    • 'put messages on the top of a talk page. When you go to a talk page, there is a "+" button at the top of the page to add a new section. Use this. Good luck. hgilbert (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2012

P P P[edit]

Pleasing policy policing, as advised by Bbb23 (multi-barnstar and userboxes, gentle humourist).

  • '...We can't tailor[[7]] our policies based on the possible reactions by readers [ sic ].... You can only remove tags if you give a valid reason for doing so, and saying it doesn't look good isn't a valid reason'.[[8]] "23:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
"Pour encourager les autres" Candide, Satire (to enrage others?)
  • 'Here's the key language from the policy: "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."... [removing] material from [an] article [is]... "undoing" another editor in the sense that the material ... removed had to have been added sometime in the past by another editor or editors. Therefore, it counts as a revert. There are times when the first edit [made] to an article will not be counted as a revert, but that's usually at the discretion of the admin reviewing the complaint. For example, if [you] had added material to the article, some admins wouldn't count that because [you] haven't "undone" anything. Or if [you] make an innocuous change to the article, like correcting a spelling error, that really has nothing to do with edit-warring, it probably wouldn't be counted. That said, you can't rely on the policy being interpreted in that way by all admins. And, particularly, in articles that have a special 1RR rule, you have almost no leeway for error. In any event... I suspect most admins, including this one, would call the first edit a revert for the purpose of the rule. In the future, the best thing is to err on the side of caution. If ... not sure, rather than revert, ask an admin in advance whether they think what you want to do is acceptable. Remember, most edits at Wikipedia are not urgent. You don't have to rush.'[[9]] 20:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
Examples of JUDGMENT: We have to make a judgment about the value of their services. - The judgment of the editors is final. - Don't rush to judgment without examining the evidence. - “Were his policies good or bad?” “I'll have to reserve judgment on that. It's too soon to know.” - Use your own best judgment. _First Known Use of JUDGMENT: 13th century.[10] --(16:28, 27 October 2012)

--Another revealing remark: "...retaining a separate article ... may be preferable, where points for and against and neutral can be succinctly stated without overt or implicit polemic." "Your points for and against comment makes it seem like you think of WP as some sort of "neutral" debating forum where each side is "fairly" allowed to get up on their own soapbox and make a direct plea to the general public in their own words, after which the general public makes up their own mind. If that's the case, you're sorely mistaken and at total odds with WP policies and guidelines". "...[that] is as far off the mark as the origin of Straw man is obscure."[[11]]. (08:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

..."Given that the main topic is simply "Alternative medicine" and not "The current controversy about 'alternative medicine' " the lead seems to be topheavy, and in point of editing parts of it would be better placed in later sections (leaving aside the sourcing and NPoV questions)..." "The article has been declared of interest to four WikiProjects, 1_Alternative medicine, 2_Medicine, 3_Rational Skepticism,(Portal:Philosophy of science) and 4_ Alternative views. .. this results from a continuing tension among those who engage themselves in formulating and applying "policy", which reflects a tension among the world wide readership generally, namely, between those who would hold that "science" (in all aspects) is within the scope of (or in some way a branch or extension of) epistemology, and those who hold the opposite or something else. The proposal here is neutral about any of that, and is merely concerned with the convenient distribution, arrangement and editorial presentation of the information." (12:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC))
--and see Medieval science &c [[12]]

In lieu of minitemplates[edit]

[[13]] [[14]] [[15]]

  • Qexigator advises (12:03, 14 April 2012): Bona fide discussion of edits is one thing, resorting to inciting groundless suspicion of sockpuppetry is another. (11:48, 16 April 2012)
  • Qexigator favours the protection of users and contributors (from novices to top Barnstars) from vandalism and other bad faith. (09:55, 16 April 2012)
  • (In furtherance of Wikipedia's objectives, and with reference to information and advice on the page 'Wikipedia:About' [[16]]) Qexigator proposes that it would be helpful if editors could be encouraged to be aware of the following, as one criterion but not necessarily overriding:
    • Every edit (new article or insert, deletion, internal link, category etc.) may affect the usefulness of the article if a user who is Creating a book is deciding about including it.
      • Briefly: 'Is this likely to help the article's "bookability"?'.--(07:02, 24 April 2012)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For work contributed as Lexigator. Salisian (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hat tips[edit]


  • for MuZemike [[18]] - lead to Dore' images.
  • for JamesBWatson [[19]] - Qexigator concurs with: 'Wikipedia gets an enormous amount of use. This is not only because there is a lot of stuff here, but also because on the whole most of it is of a fairly good quality. Wikipedia would not have the amount of success it has unless most of its material was of a reasonably high quality.'
  • for Hgilbert exemplifying aspects of house style (Style guide)
 :::3 instances Removed: 14:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
-- also noting "all" for "much", Hgilbert's exemplary revision 20:30, 18 August 2012 at [[20]] re Why contradict the author? [[21]] emending a recently noticed error {stemming from Revision 09:26, 1 July 2006? [[22]]). -- (06:23, 19 August 2012)

From an essay[edit]

User:Rjgibb/Essay ... the main users of Wikipedia appear to be the Google generation - folk who want a quick answer to a question or a trail head for a subject they're interested in... (Sydney, Australia, January 2008). --(21:55, 10 August 2012)===From other Users=== User:Prototime: Freethought: Not so much a tool but more of a personal philosophy of logic. --(21:00, 4 September 2012) User:Qwyrxian, an Immediatist Patroller: ... the very idea of NPOV is somewhere between misleading and ludicrous. (--09:14, 5 October 2012)


"The Wikipedia category schemes (Wikipedia:Category schemes) are based on the classification system of Roget's Thesaurus." (09:48, 17 September 2012) ...Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus--(12:26, 18 September 2012)

Tip on refs in discussions[edit]

--for a list of refs in talk page discussions,[[24]] if you use ref tags Use this code to get all the refs on the page above the template, and leave all the ones under it for another reflist template. If you add this to each section that has refs in it, then they can be archived intact, with all their refs displayed right there. per WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC):

{{reflist|closed=yes}} --11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk about...[edit]

  • pov -- 14:18, 10 September 2012 [[25]]
  • Scientists and skeptics -- 10:26, 10 September 2012 [[26]]
  • Clarification (Whole medical systems) -- 13:45, 13 September 2012 [[27]]
  • nomination of "Whole medical systems" for deletion -- 10:05, 12 September 2012 [[28]]
  • "a place for both" -- 09:17, 12 September 2012 [[29]]
  • Bias / ott ? (Bishop Stubbs) -- 15:13, 11 September 2012 [[30]]. -- (added 10:55, 13 September 2012)
  • Epistemology (The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception [31] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]]) -- 20:38, 3 September 2012 [[35]] -- (added 14:38, 13 September 2012)
  • QuackWatch and NPOV -- 23:15, 14 September 2012[[36]] -- (added 07:50, 15 September 2012)
  • patient care and AHA -- 17:01, 27 November 2012 [[37]] -- (added 15:58, 28 November 2012)
  • Soon enough -- 08:01/09:19, 28 November 2012 [[38]] -- (added 13:42, 28 November 2012)
  • Caveat lector (caution for smug intelligence):[[39]] (added 09:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC))

About Edits[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (18:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC))


"Wikipedia does not dictate a particular way to insert citations into an article."[40]] - Wikipedia:Citation templates - Help:Citation tools - Template:Cite Hansard. 08:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A redirection[edit]

  • Architects Act 1997: amendment of June 2008 under the European Communities Act 1972 [[41]]

- this title was changed by an intervention redirecting to Architects (Recognition of European Qualifications etc and Saving and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2008.

The unintended consequence of the intervention [[42]] was to obscure the sequence of the legislation and its significance--see:

  • " The Architects Act 1997 ...consolidated two Acts of the 1930's as later amended both by primary legislation and by Orders in Council implementing the EC directive on architects providing for the recognition of architects qualified in other EC states" (revision 09:15, 1 October 2012)...
  • " Amendment in 2008 under the European Communities Act 1972 (UK): Amendments made in June 2008 by Statutory Instrument established rules for the recognition of professional qualifications enabling migrants from the European Economic Area or Switzerland to register as architects in the United Kingdom. It also set out provisions for facilitating temporary and occasional professional services cross-border."(revision 18:36, 29 September 2012). 12:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia books[edit]

It is not appropriate to mention in articles that works are included in "Wikipedia books", which are first of all not published works, and second of all simply duplicate existing editions. hgilbert (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Where can I (Qexigator) reply to "It is not appropriate to mention in articles that works are included in "Wikipedia books", which are first of all not published works, and second of all simply duplicate existing editions. User:Qexigator
    • You can reply here on your own talk page. hgilbert (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

2 non-Wikipedia books[edit]

If you want to alert users to the mere existence of a relevant (non-Wikipedia) book, rather than mentioning that it exists in the text of an article, it would be best to either:

  • make reference to some important information the book brought to light, and cite the book as a reference, OR
  • add the book to the concluding Bibliography (or comparable section) of the article.

Hoping this is helpful -- hgilbert (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

About citing articles[edit]

  • See link under Toolbox in left margin, e.g., Cite [[43]]
This page opens with IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information...Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.
  • and of Citation styles there listed, see
Bluebook: Harvard JOLT style [[44]]
Bluebook: Harvard JOLT style [[45]]
  • The Cite page panel Bibliographic details includes a link for Primary contributors: Revision history statistics. (16:56, 18 July 2012)

For future reference[edit]

Diplomatic history, British foreign policy &c.[edit]

Article Glyn Stone (Professor of International History at the University of the West of England), created 04:23, 29 December 2008 by Jezhotwells, includes in list of publications

  • article 'Switzerland' in dKosopedia [47]
Neville Wylie. Swiss Trans-Alpine Railway Lines in T.G. Otte and Keith Neilson, ed.s, Railways and International Politics: Paths of Empire, 1848-1945. 2006. London: Routledge. Pp. 217-238.
  • Edward Thornton in [48]

[49] --(23:21, 8 August 2012)

Some removed from above: 20:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The accession of the USA and after[edit]

The emergence of the north American federal republic, as the United States of America, among the "Great Powers" of the long 19c.

Historiography of American Political History by Richard J. Jensen [50]
Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1886-96 by Richard J. Jensen (25 Oct 1971) User:Rjensen
American Political Development, A Bibliography for Teaching and Research [51]

-- (22:31, 11 August 2012)

--(07:50, 12 August 2012)

About Edits - cross-refs &c[edit]


Qexigator advises that, when the convenient distribution of information over sets of articles with a topic in common is being considered, the prospective use of the articles for PDF download or for making a book needs to be taken into account, as mentioned at Talk:Royal Institute of British Architects. -- (21:43, 14 July 2012)

-and see Wikipedia:Books and Help:Books/for experts (09:10, 18 July 2012)


  • Noting 2 revisions about Raymond Unwin PRIBA, by ---
1_at 18:28, 14 July 2012 (→‎History: adding architects)

The roots of the UK town and country planning systems... through the work of thinkers such as Ebenezer Howard and the philanthropic actions of industrialists such as the Lever Brothers and the Cadbury family, and architects such as Raymond Unwin, PRIBA, and Patrick Abercrombie.

and 2_at 18:18, 14 July 2012 (→‎Early years: m link)

Raymond Unwin was born in Rotherham, Yorkshire and grew up in Oxford, after his father sold up his business and moved there to study. He was educated at Magdalen College School, Oxford. --(20:07, 14 July 2012)

Wikis and online reference[edit]

Some Wikipedia articles have a list for links to online source books, such as Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (William Blackstone)

Other links for research and online reference can be found at:

Five Doré Images[edit]

Charon [[67]]: Gustave Doré's illustration to Dante's Inferno. Plate IX: Canto III: Arrival of Charon.

  • "And lo! towards us coming in a boat / An old man, hoary with the hair of eld, / Crying: 'Woe unto you, ye souls depraved!'" (Longfellow's translation)
  • "And, lo! toward us in a bark / Comes an old man, hoary white with eld, / Crying "Woe to you, wicked spirits!" (Cary's translation)__'Dante's Inferno translated by The Rev. Henry Francis Cary, MA from the original of Dante Alighieri and illustrated with the designs of M. Gustave Doré. New Edition With Critical and Explanatory notes, Life of Dante, and Chronology. Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co. New York, London and Paris',printed c. 1890 in America. [[68]]

Dante [[69]]: The caption reads 'In the midway of this our mortal life, I found me in a gloomy wood, astray' Canto 1 lines 1,2.' [[70]]

Don Quixote [[71]]: Miguel de Cervantes - Don Quixote - Part 1 - Chapter 1 - Plate 1 "A world of disorderly notions, picked out of his books, crowded into his imagination" '. The History of Don Quixote, by Cervantes. The Text edited by J. W. Clark, M.A. (Sometime Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge) and a Biographical Notice of Cervantes by T. Teignmouth Shore, M.A. Illustrated by Gustave Doré. In Two Parts. Part I. Cassell & Company, Limited, London, Paris, New York & Melbourne. Originally published 1863; This edition 1906. [[72]]

Jonah [[73]]: "Jonah Cast Forth By the Whale" [[74]] [[75]]

Landscape [[76]]: Landscape in Scotland. Source Walters Art Museum [[77]]. Date ca. 1878[[78]] --(12:43, 23 April 2012/ 22:28, 23 April 2012)

and Doré's Wandering Jew[[79]] --(16:52, 2 October 2012)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Frederick Hiebel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Privy Council[edit]

Sorry, but I do not understand your comments on the Irish case. The UK and dominions agreed that dominions could stop appeals to the Privy Council, which they all eventually did. How is Ireland exceptional? TFD (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I had not knowingly made any comment about that. Perhaps I may mention that I have not adopted the content of the obviously garbled quote, which bears no comparison with the law report, but is not far off the mark. The fact is, in the Irish successor state right of appeal to UK Privy Council was ended, unsurprisingly. Qexigator (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There was no right of appeal to the Privy Council until it was created by the Anglo-Irish Treaty, recognizing Irish independence. TFD (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that was agreed by the negotiating parties at that stage of the process of secession by the successor state, which resulted in 1949. The history of the appeals to the JCPC from Irish courts from 1922 to 1933 was tempestuous and short. Appeals to the JCPC represented to Irish republicans a further diminution of the already compromised sovereignty granted by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and the emergent Irish Free State government fought strenuously to undermine it.[80]. De Valera seized each opportunity as it came. Qexigator 07:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC) + (Irish) Constitution (Amendment No. 22) Act, 1933, an act so to amend article 66 of the Constitution as to terminate the right of appeal to His Majesty in Council. [16th November, 1933.][81] 13:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
+ In the time of the union of the kingdoms, the UK House of Lords had had jurisdiction in Irish appeals, [82]) such as Daniel O’Connell's appeal from a decision of the Irish Queen’s Bench in 1844 ( The Judicial Role of the House of Lords Before 1870 p.11)[83] --Qexigator (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you actually think a successor state emerged in the year 1949? I'm curious! Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Is the question hypothetical or actual? In point of jurisprudence, it could be arguable either way, depending on the issues, the contending parties and whether the case were one of private or public law, or of domestic or international law. "Emerge" is a process that takes place in the course of time, sometimes in successive stages, and the passing from one stage to another may be in the eye of the beholder, promoter, advocate, judge, commentator or historian: no problem! Let it be acknowledged that Cosgrave and de Valera were skilled operators. Qexigator (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I was asking your opinion. What you'd said that I referred to suggested you thought yes. But I am no wiser on what you think. Best, Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Official Languages of Canada[edit]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Knoper (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Homemade! Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What a surprise to find this undeserved treat at tea-time! The origin of the word, first attested in English in 1650, is obscure but may come from a root meaning 'to tie, wrap up, pile up'...The tradition of layered breads by Turkic peoples in Central Asia suggests the "missing link" between the Central Asian folded or layered breads (which did not include nuts) and modern phyllo-based pastries like baklava would be the Azerbaijani dish Bakı pakhlavası, which involves layers of dough and nuts.[84] Now, that's what I call useful information, emblematic of Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And to think that I once believed my grandmother had mastered the art of preparing a baklava! I'd better send her the link to our article :) Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Multiple references to a single work[edit]

There are several ways to handle multiple citations to the same book, e.g. Steiner's autobiography; see Wikipedia:Citations#Citing_multiple_pages_of_the_same_source. You have been repeatedly adding multiple references that are not cross-linked, which is not one of the preferred choices. Could you read the linked style sheet and comment?

At present the article uses the {{rp}} style. I'm happy to go with any format. I suppose we could use another style for Steiner sources -- or change everything over (not something I'd like to take the time to do). HGilbert (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Let those with the know-how do it, but do not spoil the actual text, sources or citations contributed by bona fide editors for the sake of such things. For example I previously pointed out the failure of the link to chap. 14. Qexigator (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you are trying to preserve direct links. I've tried to incorporate these into the existing format: the citation goes to a general one for the book, but each citation should have its specific link. The format for references to a book that is cited in multiple locations is to put in the general reference, then a specific note for page/chapter. In case you want to add more, this would look like the following: HGilbert (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
<ref name=Auto/>{{rp|[http://www........Chapter_3 Chapter-or-page-number]}}.
OK, but not necessarily easily done if not used to it. Qexigator (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Usually it's not so complicate, but you wanted to supply separate links to each chapter. I had to figure out how to do that readily. . HGilbert (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again[edit]

I want to talk about this edit. So, does the "common law" in that article refers to the English law? So it's not about "jus commune", I guess. Komitsuki (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Briefly, that is so, yes. The Common Law (of England) grew from the Court of Common Pleas (England) and Court of King's Bench (England) and came to apply to British colonies in North America, now USA and Canada, and in other parts of the world which are now Commonwealth realms.
  • For a typical definition for English Common Law see[85]
  • "Full Definition of COMMON LAW: the body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the United States except Louisiana."... (Concise Encyclopedia): Body of law based on custom and general principles and that, embodied in case law, serves as precedent or is applied to situations not covered by statute. Under the common-law system, when a court decides and reports its decision concerning a particular case, the case becomes part of the body of law and can be used in later cases involving similar matters. ...Common law has been administered in the courts of England since the Middle Ages; it is also found in the U.S. and in most of the British Commonwealth. It is distinguished from civil law."
  • For historical background, see[86]: "English common law_ Originally, procedure in English local and feudal courts resembled quite closely that of other countries with a Germanic legal tradition. Unlike the continental European countries, however, England never romanized its indigenous procedure but instead developed a procedure of its own capable of substantial growth and adjustment. England’s ability to do this was likely a result of two factors, both related to the strong monarchical system that followed the Norman Conquest (1066): the creation of the jury system and the establishment of a centralized royal court system. The jury allowed the flexibility of lay participation while offering a substitute for the antiquated methods of proof of the traditional Germanic law—ordeal, trial by battle, and wager of law. The central (royal)courts led to the creation of a definite legal tradition, the common law, and to the administration of justice through permanent professional judges and their attendant clerks, instead of the popular assemblies or groups of wise men who rendered justice elsewhere...."
  • and see[87]: "common law, also called Anglo-American law, the body of customary law, based upon judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases, that has been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages. From it has evolved the type of legal system now found also in the United States and in most of the member states of the Commonwealth (formerly the British Commonwealth of Nations). In this sense common law stands in contrast to the legal system derived from civil law, now widespread in continental Europe and elsewhere. In another, narrower, sense, common law is contrasted to the rules applied in English and American courts of equity and also to statute law. A standing expository difficulty is that, whereas the United Kingdom is a unitary state in international law, it comprises three major (and other minor) legal systems, those of England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Historically, the common-law system in England (applied to Wales since 1536) has directly influenced that in Ireland but only partially influenced the distinct legal system in Scotland, which is therefore, except as regards international matters, not covered in this article. "
  • This resulted in the kingdom of England developing a different legal system from the countries of continental Europe (and Scotland). Those countries came to follow instead the ius commune "in its historical meaning...a combination of canon law and Roman law which formed the basis of a common system of legal thought in Western Europe from the rediscovery and reception of Justinian's Digest in the 12th and 13th centuries.

Qexigator (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

+ See recent edits:[88] and[89]. --Qexigator (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Absolutely great for the edits. Thank you for this explanation. Komitsuki (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you comfortable with how the composite term "Commonwealth realm" is used on Wikipedia? You use it above. While "realm" is official and properly used, "Commonwealth realm" is a composite term that, as far as I am aware, was literally invented on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an influential website and no doubt it has started to be used in some other places since its invention. I wonder if you have any other thoughts on this. Although it is firmly embedded now, I think its regrettable that the term is used on Wiki as if it were an officially recognised term like "republic" or the like. No consiutution of any country describes the country as a "Commonwealth realm". I've been party to fruitless discussions on the related article in the past. For example, asking that Ireland be omitted from the list of "Commonwealth realms" as that is an example of Wiki literally trying to re-write history. Ireland was never in the 20s-40s described at the time as a "realm" nevermind a "Commonwealth realm". Personally, I would like a section in the Commonwealth realm piece exploring the origins of the new (as I believe it) Wiki invented compsoite term. But this was, I think from recollection, rejected in discussions too in the past. Sharing some thoughts. Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Given that both the words "dominion" and "commonwealth", like others such as "democratic" or "political", have a range of uses; and accepting the way in which language changes in place and through time (we only need to think of English variations within the British Isles and in the land of Ireland and in USA and elsewhere, without going further into examples of other tongues); and observing that "terms of art" are usually distinguishable by context; and noting that a consistent use of "Commonwealth realm", such as now more or less prevails in Wikipedia articles, can be an aid to accurate communication: my view of the present state of the matter is that there is no further need to resist, or to deprecate, the manner in which "Commonwealth realm" is being used in Wikipedia; and that whether or not skilled lexicographers will in retrospect attribute its use generally to the influence of Wikipedia may be a question of conjecture on their part or a result of the proper application of the science which they profess. Thanks for asking: Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I suppose I disagree with you on it being an "aid to accurate communication". Quite the opposite I think. The way it is used inaccurately represents the position and misinforms. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you give instances (Wikipedia links) showing where its use inaccurately represents the position and misinforms? Qexigator (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed ...[edit]

In response to (what seemed to me to be) a reasonable question from User:Andrewa, I've initiated Talk:Six-star rank#"What am I trying to achieve with this page" which asks anyone in general, but "interested parties in particular" (which includes you) two questions. You have been invited to reply - even if that reply might be "no comment". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


Since we were working together the last time I edited at the alt med page, I just wanted to let you know that I'm Arc under a new username. The comment I made may just be a one-off though, depending on my mood in the near future. Cheers, Sunrise (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

OK fixed and removed. 14:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Collaborative journalism (LuxLeaks)[edit]

if organised by ICFIJ how can it be "without affiliation to a common parent organization" per "Collaborative journalism" rather than synthesis by activists external to Wikipedia? Is this a claim or verified?

You're engaging in a literalist interpretation of a wiki page, which is frankly, ridiculous. None of these journalists are "affiliated" with the same parent organization. ICFIJ is a network that allows them to work collaboratively.[90] Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

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.

Gëlle Fra
added a link pointing to Nike
added a link pointing to Walloon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. 12:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Head of State[edit]

FWIW, my stance is to exclude the Australian (or any other) example & include the term 'representative'. Also, my stance is to oppose the inclusion of the John Kerr-image, as it'll only encourage the Australian HoS dispute topic. For reasons I can't elaborate on, it's best I stay away from that discussion. But, pleas note that my stance there, hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Noted. The comment confirms a certain hostile POV which shows trouble for others could have been saved if its maker had refrained from intervening there in the first place. Please discuss there not here. I have made it known there that in my view Pete's explanations are usually better than others. 07:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Dipping my nose (very slightly) back into the discussion-in-question. You'll find that the core of the discussion/dispute, has been & is - Australian head of state's identity. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but the purpose of the article is not to resolve contending opinions among editors (who are not necessarily well enough informed) about peripheral constitutional points concerning, apparently, only the conduct of a governor-general of Canada and another of Australia, when each resolved a crisis of domestic politics arising at different times and from different causes, when rival opinions are not conclusively determined by RS, after a time lapse sufficient for dust to have settled and authoritative text-books to have been revised and published, either expressing the same or different views. If any such RS can be produced, it would be good to have it specifically mentioned in some other article than the one whose topic is "heads of state" generally, and leave "Head of state" unencumbered, expressly or impliedly, with side-effects of a squabble about the status of governors-general in the differing milieu, traditions and circumstances of two major Commonwealth realms. Qexigator (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please put this kind of thing on whatever Talk page you see fit, but not here. I shall soon remove it as an inappropriate intrusion. Qexigator (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That shows no respect. I would welcome your retraction. Qexigator (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Head of state, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constitutional convention. 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) 09:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.09:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leopold III of Belgium 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:
  • ''The Constitution of Belgium, Coordinated text of 14 February 1994 (last updated 8 May 2007)''.[</ref>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

done 12:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Head of state, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State. 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) 09:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

done 09:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Jonathan Westphal concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jonathan Westphal, 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) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Head of state, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fifth Republic (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) 09:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC) done. 13:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


I believe that we are close to one of the milestone of the article, that it had lost before and you have recently contributed for a while there but some of the edits seem dubious, not in your part but others. Would you enable your email from the preferences or email me? Thanks and inform. SamuelDay1 (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain 'milestone' etc here. Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thinking.. of[edit]

You are thinking of looking at Spirituality anymore? It's been a pretty while that your talk page even appeared on my watchlist. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's still on my Watchlist. Qexigator (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Westphal has been accepted[edit]

Jonathan Westphal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Order of St John[edit]

Hi Qexigator: we have a major issue boiling with persistent revertionists such as Miesianiacal who, whilst being fanatical about interfering with articles, seems especially so ref the Order of St John. I haven't the faintest idea why he/she presumes to be the great know-all on this subject, but is constantly displaying him/herself to be a chump. I am a senior member of the Order, members of my family are acclaimed historians on the subject and for the life of me I can simply not understand why this Miesianiacal persists in describing the Order of St John as a new creation of 1831. This is patently untrue. Could the Order of St John article somehow reach an equilibrium whereby at least it reflects the truth. It is a revival order - I can go on and on but this point should be so self-evidently clear I simply fail to understand what Miesianiacal's agenda is?

Best M Mabelina (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Suitable npov encyclopedic wording is not always the same as may be acceptable in a work for which an author or publisher has personal responsibility, and can elaborate on points in ways which would not be suited to Wikipedia. One example, we need to be alert to the use of loaded terms such as 'established' or 'revived.'[91] [92] There can also be questions of presentation and editing style where the facts or description are not disputed. On other pages, I have found my edits, and those of others, intended as npov improvements have been further improved or corrected by another editor, and vice-versa. In my experience, editors sometimes intervene who know too little of a topic, and sometimes being friendly or hostile to a topic or subject area can unduly influence editorial judgment, and most editors err at least occasionally. Qexigator (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Okidoki - I fully understand because I am not perfect but how to get this Order of St John fixation sorted? Cheers M Mabelina (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
PS. beyond this you'll no doubt be able to see in the archives that I have corrected much (most obviously & recently incorrect display of insignia) so it is a bit frustrating to get bogged down in such a futile contre-temps (as I am sure you can appreciate!) best M
+Noting [93], perhaps its status for civic, formal and legal purposes could properly be "society" before the incorporation by royal charter, just as some of the colleges in the University of Oxford, for example, started as a "society".
More generally, I would like to see the text of the original and later charters. Links in the article's citations do not work for me. Qexigator (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I know what you mean - I styled it at one point as self-styled which isn't far from the truth - it was a langue ie a branch of the Order of Malta which picked up on the fact that the Order of St John had languished in pretty much limbo ever since the Dissolution of the Monasteries etc... but its properties remained & its organization in the early 19c was extremely ad hoc so I don't know how Wiki would like to describe that... Cheers M Mabelina (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Basically Queen Victoria put it back on a solid footing where it had become chaotic under the Hanoverians / politically awkward under the Stuarts / having supposedly been officially abolished by the Tudors! A real mess but it muddled its way thru until Victorian times - not sure that should be part of the article tho!
What is most difficult to explain (especially when constantly interrupted by ignorami (excuse me)) is that there are couple of St John peculiars which have remained throughout - so it was neither active nor dead before the 19c...
The back history is fascinating, but not necessarily to all readers. It needs to be briefly but sufficientty stated in the article, which should be mainly about the chartered body as from the first charter of 1888 to the present day. The back history should be based on the content of the charter preamble, but without sight of the charter texts, I do not feel able to comment much further. You are you probably aware of the history of the Temple, London:- Templars - Hospitallers - two of the four Inns of Court, formally called 'Honourable Society of ...', being unincoporated bodies, and the peculiar status of the Church, outside the bishop's jurisdiction. Qexigator (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes! At last somebody who understands.. I have been trying to get this point over but whenever I make an amendment some fool messes it up - you can appreciate how utterly tiresome this process is....
PS. the idea of me going to town on quoting preambles of charters when I have faced such silly opposition & downright hostility on this subject had been out of the question but if you think that the ignorami won't make it a pointless exercise (by collecting that info) then perhaps I could do it - what do you think? It should be so simple but has become so complicated & vexed..
If you can link from here to the charter texts, please do so, and I will be able to comment. If not, please put the content of the preamble here, but be careful of copyright. Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Just on a practical level, this will involve me going to the Guildhall Library to get scanned copies (if they will do them) and why should I bother (apart from I don't like seeing inaccuracies prevail) when faced with such contrariness from various quarters? Would it not be better to see if one of the awkward squad yet again contradicts & to hope that someone other than me can correct them? This has become extremely... well... you know.... M Mabelina (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at the latest from Miesianiacal illustrating why it is unappealing to put much effort into the Order of Saint John article. Could somebody explain what these revisionists' agenda is? M Mabelina (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikpiedia editing guidelines and policies and the Manual of Style. Most of my "revisionism" is correcting your edits to suit any or all of the aforementioned. Beyond that, if something is challenged on its lack of sourcing, provide a source (again, per policy). If the problem with an edit is explained to you, respond directly in a proper discussion, not with personal attacks and non-sequiturs. Hold to all that and I'm sure you'll find resolutions far easier to achieve. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes but I don't believe you because you were one of the main protagonists against properly naming the order & then you shifted your position etc etc...
Mab.: If the preamble is not online, and there is no other source, then I would not urge you to make copies at Guildhall and transcribe here. Have you any contact with the Order who could help? Qexigator (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course I do but I don't know how pleased they will be to know what a wrangle this has become - let me see what I can do. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there: it's still going on - how utterly pigheaded can this nexus of Wikipedians be? Could you perhaps explain that in no sense was the Order "established" in 1831? I cannot believe Wikipedia can put up with such drivel... but anyway... Zut alors M Mabelina (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Let the 1888 charter be seen[edit]

This comment results from perusing the discussion at User talk:Mabelina[94] after receiving a notification referring to my Talk page. I note that the two editors in the duologue are 'confrere/conseur', one of a USA priory and the other of a British. My understanding of the historical position was and is as stated in the quotation: the 'Order of St. John is not the same body as the original Order of the Hospital of St. John (which emerged [sic] into the Order of Malta)'. My editing pov is that it would greatly help editors in this connection to have sight of the 1888 charter, or at least of a well-informed paraphrase. Is there any good reason for this not to be supplied? In the meantime, I feel uneasy about 'established in 1831', unless the royal charter so states. If the preamble to the first charter of 1888 followed usual practice it would formally recite the origins, attainment, and aspiration of the body of persons who had petitioned the monarch for her to grant the charter; and thus the question whether it is more apt to use 'revive' or 'established' or 'instituted', or some other word, could be resolved. It may be that some editors have neither seen it nor have sufficient expertise fully to understand its significance as an historical document. The information in the article suggests that the 1888 chartered body cannot be considered in a strict sense a 'revival', as if the British monarch were reconstituting and re-establishing a previously dissolved, suppressed or dormant order which had been formally constituted by a regal sovereign or a Roman pope. Qexigator (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

OK - couldn't agree more - instituted is how I described OStJ 1888's change of circumstance (which just happens to be how the order describes it too!) but overriding MOS considerations soon put paid to that. Let me see how I can get hold of an easy to publish version of the Royal Charter. Thank you for your comprehension of the subject (& am I imagining it or is there are concerted effort by a few Wikipedians to reinvent official protocol, language & style?). Best M Mabelina (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh just by the way the American counterpart's use of consoeur is incorrect but had I corrected him it would only have led to further tribulations..!
& in answer to your last & most astute point - the Order of St John was instituted in 1888 as a Crown order & therefore is a new foundation - but my previous attempts to educate the MOS crew fell on deaf ears so had to go along with their daft ideas of history - the Langue est. 1831 was certainly a revivalist order (but it was Malta not St John - not sure they have twigged that). As sovereign order it dates from 1888 & I believe it is most significant that it is fully recognised in and by all sovereign states (refer UN definition) but this could antagonize some less realistic catholics insofar as SMOM is not recognized in the same way (even though it styles itself as Sovereign Military Order etc). I have begun to believe that this might be the agenda of my edit-warring counterparts (I can't see what other agenda they could possibly have). Anyway instituted in 1888 is as matter of fact as it can be & forget all the previous stuff (altho rightly some sort of historical narrative might be helpful to some - after all Queen Vic's decree incorporated all former St John properties). Would be interesting to see what would happen if the MOS crew argued with her!!! M Mabelina (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
PS. Of course the order was (via English sovereignty) under Papal supremacy prior Reformation - it is just that the Tudors forgot to abolish it - or more likely given the toing and froing Catholic/Prot .. Protestant/Catholic no senior courtier had the time or nerve to suggest it (if only Cromwell had lasted longer than 1540!)... I have to empathise that it is mighty confusing to the untrained eye but why the MOS crew has picked on this to contest baffles (well completely beyond) me..

PS. Like you I don't feel very comfortable with things as they are & it is a constant battle with 3 or more self-styled MOS gurus. Anyway I am not so familiar with the higher echelons of Wiki but do you know how I could go about getting these pursuers off my back? I am sorry to have to ask but maybe you might have an idea what to do... Thanks M Mabelina (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mab., since you ask, let me say that the way you write, in the article edits and here and other Talk pages, does not always make it easy to follow the points you are making, even on points about which one is already sufficiently well-informed. Once more, sight of the 1888 charter, and a proper undertsanding of it, would let certain doubtful points which occur in the article be settled. Qexigator (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Linking North America in the Canada article[edit]

There was a discussion on the article's talk page and we decided that linking nations and oceans, and definitely linking the continent, was a violation of WP:OVERLINK. We do not want it linked. Please explain why you feel it's necessary on the article's talk page. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit summaries explained.[95], [96] Your failure to specify is not helpful. Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 May[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) 00:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OK done.Qexigator (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop removing cited text[edit]

I have cited the quote both to Goethe's poem by name and to independent sources that confirm the attribution. Please revert your reversion and do not engage in edit wars, take it to the talk page next time. HGilbert (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not engage in edit warring. Please desist from false accusations, and be quicker to engage in constructive discussion. Qexigator (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about my tone; I grew very annoyed you kept reverting even after I added more information you requested, especially since a clear attribution had already been there in the initial citation I placed with the text. In all politeness: Please do check the citation next time before claiming that the information you are seeking is not there. HGilbert (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)`
Once more a tiresome accusation, of want of diligence. I checked and checked again, before your latest edit in the series, which, with some thought for the purport of the first in the series and the context, could have been there in the first place, and annoyance avoided. We should consider such comments from other, obviously collaborative inclined, editors as giving a helpful stimulus to clarifying. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


I think, after all the work done at Perth Agreement, Succession to the British throne, and other articles, we have enough information to build a better explanation of the succession arrangements among the Commonwealth realms. I've begun a section at Commonwealth realm#Succession. Please add in what you think is pertinent and we can finesse the composition over time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A worthwhile aim, and may it turn out well. My main concern would be to tweak/refine to avoid words importing the notion of 'sharing' the monarchy. There are one or two sources which could be invoked to support that notion, but in my personal opinion (or as it may seem, foible), not unfounded in reason and common sense, it is fundamentally flawed (as I have previously commented elsewhere), and, if that were not accepted by anyone pushing for that notion, I do not see Wikipedia as the place to enter into debate about it. My second concern would be to tweak/refine text to avoid editorial constructions appearing to be, or close to, OR or SYN persistently pushing any other flawed notion, but again, I am reluctant to have to get into Wikipedia debate on such contested points. Qexigator (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Funny that, immediately after I read the above, I read in a source a quote from the UK's Fabian Commission on the Future of the Monarchy: "But equally the UK could not allow other states to prevent reform of its Head of State simply because they currently share the same incumbent." I don't know whether its "the monarchy" you feel can't be shared, or the person who is monarch, or both...(?) Regardless, Wikipedia is always a work in progress. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that information, but if anything it confirms my position as stated above. As we all know that body is sponsored by the Fabian Society with a well-kown politically motivated agenda,[97] and is not to be regarded as the voice of Wikipedia, whether or not any or all editors happen to favour its views, opinions or party political programme. Anything from a source such as that must be regarded with some reserve. As stated at Talk:Succession to the British throne (19:57, 20 May 2015): It makes better sense to speak of a shared history of the peoples and their laws and governments, from colonial times to independent statehood, up to and beyond the Perth Agreement changes, than to speak of awkward abstractions such as shared monarch, or parallel lines (19:57, 20 May 2015), and see also Talk:Monarchy of Canada - 'Royal Family' (17:41, 5 March 2015). Qexigator (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)