Jump to content

User talk:Astynax: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 33: Line 33:


:I may be able to have a look tonight. Available time for Wikipedia has tended to come in fits and starts the last few weeks, though that should be calming down the remainder of the week. [[User:Astynax| &bull; Astynax]] <sup>[[User talk:Astynax|<span style='color:#3399CC'>talk</span>]]</sup> 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
:I may be able to have a look tonight. Available time for Wikipedia has tended to come in fits and starts the last few weeks, though that should be calming down the remainder of the week. [[User:Astynax| &bull; Astynax]] <sup>[[User talk:Astynax|<span style='color:#3399CC'>talk</span>]]</sup> 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

== Requesting input ==

I have recently restored a tag to the [[Ebionites]] article, which had earlier been removed when the article became eligible for formal mediation by another party. The formal mediation has been accepted for some time, but there has been no mediator and, thus, no mediation. One of the other parties to the mediation has apparently challenged the placement of the tag. I personally believe the records at [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard]] regarding the "fringey" as per [[WP:FT]] nature of Robert Eisenman's theory and the content at [[User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor]] which indicates that his book ''[[The Jesus Dynasty]]'' received relatively weak reviews is sufficient for the tag to remain in place pending resolution of mediation. However, I would very much welcome input by any other editor, positive or negative. You have recently been among the more active editors at the Religion WikiProject, and on that basis I would request your input on the article's talk page regarding this matter. Thank you for your attention. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:06, 22 December 2010

Note: contents of this page are periodically archived by a bot. If there have been no recent posts here, that can result in no messages being displayed below. Older messages are still readable in the archives (above). New messages may be added here.

Empire of Brazil

When you have some free time, could you review some of the sections in Empire of Brazil? They are: Provincial and local government, Armed Forces and European immigration.And if you're capable of, please you may shorten the text in any way you believe it is possible. This article, my friend, is going to be our masterpiece! ha ha ha --Lecen (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished putting the reference citations into the new format. I will put those sections on my list of things to do during the next few days. • Astynax talk 23:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time. Next article I'll nominate will be Teresa Cristina's. I didn't like the way the history section has been done. It's still large. I will rewrite it and make it more simple. One day I'll make a larger and improved version in History of the Empire of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Teresa Cristina: yes, it does. I will request its removal later. --Lecen (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done with "Foreign relations", "Independence and early years", "Anarchy" and "Consolidation" subsections. If you are able to, feel free to make it shorter. All that is left now is the history section and the lead. --Lecen (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly believe it, but I've finished the entire text. Wow! If possible, make it smaller, please. I'm pretty sure that this article has everything to be raised to Featured status. --Lecen (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to continue to go through it in small sections, as I am expecting visitors and time will be limited. That is great that you have completed! • Astynax talk 10:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry. Meanwhile, could you add another alternative text to a picture in section "President of the Council of Ministers and downfall" of Carneiro Leão's article? I changed the litograph used because I found out that the artist made it following his looks in the 1850s, not in 1843. --Lecen (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion required for query about Empire of Brazil article

Hi Astynax,

I have a query about a particular passage in the Empire of Brazil article. Lecen has tried to explain it to me but I still have issues with it. Could you possibly have a look and see if my concerns are valid or not? You can find it here in the articles talk page.

Thanks in advance Arthur Holland (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to have a look tonight. Available time for Wikipedia has tended to come in fits and starts the last few weeks, though that should be calming down the remainder of the week. • Astynax talk 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting input

I have recently restored a tag to the Ebionites article, which had earlier been removed when the article became eligible for formal mediation by another party. The formal mediation has been accepted for some time, but there has been no mediator and, thus, no mediation. One of the other parties to the mediation has apparently challenged the placement of the tag. I personally believe the records at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding the "fringey" as per WP:FT nature of Robert Eisenman's theory and the content at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor which indicates that his book The Jesus Dynasty received relatively weak reviews is sufficient for the tag to remain in place pending resolution of mediation. However, I would very much welcome input by any other editor, positive or negative. You have recently been among the more active editors at the Religion WikiProject, and on that basis I would request your input on the article's talk page regarding this matter. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]