User talk:TParis: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:59, 6 April 2013

This is TParis's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

If you have come here to change my opinion, be ready to also change yours.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

Burnout

Given the past year, you have went through a lot. If you ever feel close to burnout, please let me know.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GA bot

Sarcasm but pointy sarcasm

Just saw your edit summary after replying. Please redact or give context to your completely inappropriate comment. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the link, you'll understand why your request is actually pretty ironic.--v/r - T P 12:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd hit it"

Hey, I just happened to notice your comment on ANI from yesterday, where you said "I saw a hot 17 yr old girl downtown the other day. I'd hit it." Now, I know you were being deliberately provocative to make a point, but can I ask that you reconsider using language like "I'd hit it" (or, for that matter, commenting on women's hotness) on-wiki? It's a very lad mag, objectifying sort of way to refer to people, especially in a conversation that's semi-related to sexual victimization. Even in service of making a sarcastic point, it still brings the "female types not welcome here, we're busy judging whether we'd 'hit' you or not" temperature of the place up a notch. I know that wasn't what you were going for, at all, so I wanted to draw your attention to how it can feel to a woman who reads it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fluffy, that's not the message I was trying to put out. I'll keep it in mind in the future. I definitely agree that making Wikipedia welcoming for female editors is a good thing.--v/r - T P 21:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Just a note to say that I was impressed by your advice on AN/I to LGR re: Viriditas. Worth remembering, not just in the specific case, but generally as well. Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing links to contemporary pagan websites on "Roman polytheistic reconstructionism"

Hi there, I think you have done some nice things with this page but I am concerned that you seem to be trying to strip all links to websites about this topic - people who look up this page are naturally going to be interested in finding other websites on this topic and the only link you have left in is to Nova Roma - which is not the only website on this topic. I am in no way affiliated with the Cultus Deorum page, however I do think it is a good website which is why I included it under External Links. I really think it is very important, for the people who are interested practising contemporary Roman polytheism, that this entry include links to external websites on this topic.

So that you know - probably the best websites on the Religio Romana are: - https://sites.google.com/site/cultusdeorumromanorum/ - http://novaroma.org/nr/Cultus_deorum_Romanorum

Note that Nova Roma is an organisation that aims to recreate the structure of the Roman Republic, with the Religio Romana being part of this structure. Another organisation that aims to recreate the structure of the Roman state is the Res Publica Romana at respublica-romana.com. Note that many people who are on the path of the Roman way to the Gods are unaffiliated with either Nova Roma or the Res Publica Romana - worthy though these organisations are.

The best Religio Romana blogs, imo, are: - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religioromana/ - http://romanpagan.blogspot.com/ - http://lases.blogspot.it/ - http://romanpolytheist.wordpress.com/ - http://goldentrail.wordpress.com/

Excellent free online translations of ancient Roman literature are available at: - http://www.naderlibrary.com/ (scroll down to classics) - http://poetryintranslation.com/index.html#Latin: - http://sacred-texts.com/cla/index.htm (scroll down to Roman)

For more resources on the Roman way to the Gods see: - https://sites.google.com/site/cultusdeorumromanorum/english/beginner-s-guides/beginners-guide-study - http://novaroma.org/nr/Reading_list_for_the_cultus_deorum - http://romanpagan.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/pagan-resources.html - http://religioandpietas.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/research-sources-for-cultus-deorum.html

I hope you will be considerate of the people who are genuinely on this path - and allow links to information about this path online to remain on wikipedia. Note again - I am not affiliated with Cultus Deorum.

Regards and best wishes, Ragnii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragnii (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnii, I'd love for Wikipedia to be a resource for the folks on this path, but it's not. It's an encyclopedia. The policies on identifying reliable sources is very specific that blogs are not reliable sources and neither are self-published websites. A quote from the policy says, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." That cuts out nearly everything on your list. The translation websites might be reliable but that would need a little more looking into. Adding the links to generate traffic, helping folks find these websites by using Wikipedia, is link spam and not acceptable. I'm sorry.--v/r - T P 13:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been adding these links all over Roman topics. You should remove them all or you may be blocked as a spammer. References need to be third party published reliable sources that go through an editorial review by a reputable organization. Even external links says to avoid "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"--v/r - T P 14:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, TParis. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every other entry has external links why not this one?

Hi there,

I am the one who inserted EVERY SINGLE REFERENCE in this entry for Roman polytheistic reconstructionism - if you go through the edit history you will see that for yourself. I am not a spammer and my edit history speaks for itself. I am very concerned you are pushing a Christian agenda here ...

Regards, Ragnii

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 |}</div>
 <!--Template:WikiProject Breakfast invitation-->
+== Every other entry has external links why not this one? ==
+Hi there,
+I am the one who inserted EVERY SINGLE REFERENCE in this entry for Roman polytheistic reconstructionism - if you go through the edit history you will see that for yourself. I am not a spammer and my edit history speaks for itself. I am very concerned you are pushing a Christian agenda here ...
+Regards, Ragnii