User talk:Contaldo80

Welcome!

Hello, Contaldo80, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  karmafist 03:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Preca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marsa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Sullivan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Amending an RfC

Hi, regarding this edit. It was not necessary to remove the |rfcid=205BC23 parameter, since Legobot (talk · contribs) handles a changed opening statement perfectly well. Regarding this edit: the presence of a second {{rfc}} template confused Legobot, as may be seen from the following two edits. To add another RfC category, it is merely necessry to add it immediately after existing categories, as in {{Rfc|reli|soc}}. In summary: {{rfc|reli|rfcid=205BC23}} could have been altered to {{rfc|reli|soc|rfcid=205BC23}} and Legobot would have handled it in its stride. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Ways Ministry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Hickey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Contaldo80. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Contaldo80. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

As has been pointed out to you many times, when an edit of yours is reverted the proper response is to take it to talk and change the consensus. Simply making the edit again is edit warring. Please do not do this. I once again will point you to WP:BRD. I suspect that if you take it to heart that your editing experience will be much improved. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The proper response is to take note of the argument being made, to consinder what changes need to be undertaken to address valid points according to guidance and then to take action. This is not edit warring and I’d be thankful if you tried to tar anything you disagree with as edit warring. In the same way the argument for consensus should not be used to block any edits because one editor has a particular desire for their form of their article to stand - regardless as whether this is good for the article or not. Contaldo80 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand that it can be frustrating when you can't get your way, but WP:CONSENSUS is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making." When you ignore it, and simply WP:EDITWAR, you are violating this. Repeatedly making the same edits after they have been reverted is edit warring. Again, please review WP:BRD. It is best practice. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you stop intimidating me please. I don't think I need to be lectured on "getting my own way". If you think there is a case of edit warring then take the appropriate action - and don't use threats as a way to silence editors you do not agree with. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel intimidated. That wasn't my intent. I also don't want to have to involve an administrator. I was hoping that we could work this out ourselves. If you review the pages I cited and adopt those best practices, it shouldn't be necessary to escalate this. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. Let's try and press the reset button for 2019. I know I'm not perfect myself. We evidently take different positions on these sensitive subjects, but I think if we work together and show willing then we can make articles better. I promise to try hard on this one. Best wishes. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Healing the centurion's servant

Dear Contaldo80,

Please have a look at my remark at Talk:Healing the centurion's servant. Cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William III of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem: John J. McNeill (Catholic priest, theologian and author)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as John J. McNeill (Catholic priest, theologian and author), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article36352038.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/nyregion/john-mcneill-priest-who-pushed-catholic-church-to-welcome-gays-dies-at-90.html?_r=0 https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/patron-saint-lgbt-catholics-john-j-mcneill-90-dies, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:John J. McNeill (Catholic priest, theologian and author) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, John J. McNeill (Catholic priest, theologian and author), in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:John J. McNeill (Catholic priest, theologian and author). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:John J. McNeill (Catholic priest, theologian and author) with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:John J. McNeill (Catholic priest, theologian and author) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I see that you've also been edit-warring with the IPv6 editor to remove the copyvio blanking template. Two things: first, as an experienced editor you must know you shouldn't be edit-warring, anywhere, ever, for any reason; and second, you shouldn't be removing the blanking template, which carries in large letters the message "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". For the moment, you can disregard the CCI Notice above – I really hope that we're not going to find that to be necessary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Justlettersandnumbers. To be honest it wasn't my intention to edit war - once I felt I was slipping into that then I deliberately held back. I had genuine concerns with the way that this other editor was approaching the matter. Particularly as their edit history suggests a combatative stance on a range of articles. They also failed to list the copyright issue correctly and so the opportunities to respond through that route were not straightforward. A look at the article did not suggest the copyright issues extended throughout the whole article - only really in one of two places. Part of the issue is that the number of sources available for the subject matter are limited and so the article text will somewhat need to align with what we have if we aren't going to get the alternative response - which is that the text isn't close enough to the source and so can't be used. My intention was to fix those egregious examples where I saw them as a way forward. The other editor just wanted to blank the whole thing. I must assume good faith on his part of I have been burnt many times by editors with a strong religious motivation wanting to use the supposed rules to write out any mentions of gay catholics. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Contaldo80! To be honest, I wasn't too impressed by anybody's behaviour there – I left a note for the IPv6 editor also. The copyright problem does not affect all the text as far as I'm aware, but whoever deals with it will surely check for older problems too as a matter of routine. As in all our articles, the facts, ideas and concepts of the source can be freely represented in our article, but the language used to convey them must be entirely original, not that of the source. You can rewrite the page without the copyvio (click the third "show" link at middle right for a special page to start that on), or – if you prefer – I can just revert the problem edits and leave you to rewrite/re-add that material as you wish, as I have already done at The Church and the Homosexual. Let me know? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant - thanks. Much appreciated. Can you maybe revert the problem edits and that will let me see what we have left in the article and what we need to focus on in terms of improvements. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've done that now, and came here just to tell you that. However, I'm seriously unamused to see the section below this. I thought I'd just warned you about edit-warring, and that you had listened? Your edit-summary "Hello - do you actually listen? You are not behaving in the way expected of editors. I will just keep reverting and we'll end up nowhere" strongly suggests that I was quite wrong about that. Just keeping on reverting is exactly what you must not do. Please take this as a final warning: if in any article you make the same revert more than once (unless removing copyvio or reverting blatant WP:BLP violations or vandalism, of course), you should expect consequences. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Your recent editing history at The Singing Nun shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I have declined your 3O request for the above article on the grounds that there are more than two involved editors currently. 3O is intended for disputes between only two involved editors (hence "third opinion"). You are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

The discussion may be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (The Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

nice work - Added a couple of refs

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Keep up the good work Just Thank you AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Saint Helena

Hello. Please, do not vandalize the page on St Helena of Constantinople. Wikipedia is not the right website to attack religious beliefs. Please, try to be neutral. God bless! --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

My changes were not vandalism. At the same time religious beliefs are irrelevant to Wikipedia and to editing. We deal with facts only. And finally don’t push your patronising superstitions with your “god bless” with me. Thank you Contaldo80 (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I will start a talk page on St Helena, and feel free to participate. Perhaps, we can reach a compromise. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

I regret that it has come to this, but I have reported you for edit warring. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure why not. Somewhat inevitable after I made a complaint against you. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Bainbridge

You added a statement and source at this article with this edit, but neglected to add a page number. Can I ask you kindly to provide the page number? It'd be greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

yes of course. Give me a day to get hold of the book again Contaldo80 (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

newest reverts on Padre Pio

the user Rafaelosornio is deleting some of my new information. his argumentation is weak. i presume all is about a religious point of view. what do you suggest to do about that? Mr. bobby (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not about a religious point of view, it is about that the central part of the article is pure content of a single author. The full text of Sergio Luzzatto should go in its corresponding section or create a new article on Luzzatto's book. Apparently who wrote the huge section of Luzzatto's book has conflicts of interest. Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Don’t have this conversation on my talk page Contaldo80 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Mehmed the Conqueror

Why do you feel that ParthikS8's added material contradicts the eyewitness reports on Mehmed, like Leonard of Chios? The editor finds that these contradicts the claims of homosexuality, but I don't see anything in them that does.:

"This created an association to the contemporary Christians and Greeks of the Turks as lustful people." ... "Thus boundless lust became assigned to Mehmet. Historical fact however describes a generous man who after capturing Constantinople, worked to restore economic, social and religious stability (both Islamic and Orthodox Christian) to the city."

He is the same user who removed Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies from the talk page.

I am also quite concerned with him adding a hadith supposedly predicting the life of Mehmed, sourced only to a website. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds disruptive to me. Risk of them violating NPOV. Suggest we work together to ensure the article is not distorted further. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Hello, I'm Egghead06. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Vince Hill, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Burgess (producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Britannia Hotels

Hello, I think I brought the Britannia Hotels article closer to reality now. If you think I have not done enough justice for the growing general perception of Britannia Hotels as "Britain's worst hotel chain", please let me know and I will try to find more sources. --Minoa (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Sounds good! Thanks Minoa Contaldo80 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Just reverted a very suspicious edit of Britannia Hotels this page needs to be watched. Devokewater (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You beat me to it

Thanks, you beat me to it at Catholic Church and homosexuality, reverting this edit by 87.60.89.102 (talk · contribs). Normally I go overboard on AGF, especially with new users, but removing the defining sentence in so obviously a POV way, I probably wouldn't have been as kind as you were in your edit summary. (Most likely I would have reverted with no message; or perhaps a link to WP:POV and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Anyway, thanks for monitoring the article, and keeping it sane. Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC) All good. Thanks! Contaldo80 (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)