User talk:Notpietru

This is Notpietru's talk page, where you can send them 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.

Welcome!

Hello, Notpietru, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Valetta

"Pepper" is just too evocative and imaginative. What we are looking for is not so much a dumbed-down word, but rather an actual number or, most likely, just the vague statement that there are watchtowers. It's hard to appreciate since we were all taught how to write in an "interesting" manner, but encyclopedic writing is not quite that way! Just the dull facts. Thanks for asking. Student7 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta

Hi Notpietru, Can you fix footnote 99 in the Malta article? I have no idea what the relevant source is, but hope that you do. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello, sorry I reverted the wrong edit before than re-reverted it as opposed to the "relieved" change it reads with only the verb as if releived of something bad - with the bad being implicit without the historical action named in the sentance so the phrasing is not fullMasterknighted (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear agressive editor, thank you for your kind words. When it reads "relieved" it does not in the sentance indicate relieved (what?). It therefore reads as if the people who the victors were relieving were in turn a nuissance unworthy of being named (and hints at a deeper resentment).The historical action should be accounted for rather than the prejudicial way it reads now.. The sentance is incorrect... one rule was replaced with another not one pitcher replaced another unamed hurler. I really do not feel it necessary for you to insult me, my competance with English is not measured by my random encounter with you.--- Masterknighted

I came, I saw, I edited- I am through though this person hopes that you finish the sentance by stating (relieved of what)and do not let the word hang around unoccupied. Not completing the phrasing leads to dangerous connotative inferences arising. I do not feel that it is productive for me to revert your reversion but rather to speak to your possibly enlightened side and see the error of the current wording- rather than it being about historical writing it is about lack completion and comprehension as the particular passage goes. You are perhaps far more passionate about this than I.Masterknighted (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

Hi, Notpietru, I've responded to your post on WP:AN/I#User:Imbris [1]. :) Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese dog / Publius

My apologies, I had thought the effect of your edit was different than it was. Yes, of course, some sources do say that Marial was referring to Saint Publius / Governor Publius, though others do not. But the text seems to be an accurate reflection of this, so I agree. Mango juice^talk 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "extant"

Thanks for the comment although it would have been nice had you kept to the wikipedia suggestions of being polite and being welcoming. As a matter of fact I do know what the meaning of "extant" is and I also note that the Apostolic See article makes no distinction between "extant" and not.

--Demdem (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dun Gorg

Yes indeed he would. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul

I haven't time to check Malta as well as my other subjects like Proxima Centauri but it's good if you review what I write. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening

What happened with this edit? You erased half the article. Similar here. Wknight94 ^talk 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Unfortunately, those edits were from 2007, so reverting undid over two years of other contributions! In that case, there is no choice but to undo the edit by hand. Wknight94 ^talk 14:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-

Jude 1:10

Maltagenealogy.com

Ahem. The link I've been removing from these articles is being pushed by a serial sockpuppeteer who has three accounts indef blocked for abuse of editorial privileges, and a couple of admins are seeking a spamblock on the site Wikipedia wide [MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#maltagenealogy.com_and_saidvassallo.com]. These edits are not remotely vandalism, and I would appreciate you ceasing to characterize them as such. RGTraynor 11:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the Malta aricle

I'm sad that you call my edits "aggressive". You should too. Because if the same yardstick were to be used all around the same description would be applicable in your removing a reference to a newspaper article which quotes a Professor of Linguistics on the origin of Maltese surnames (not that the Islamic sound to a surname like "Abdilla" should escape anyone, mind you). But if that's not enough for you, head off to p. 31 of Lutterell[2] on forced conversions. You might find some consolation in the fact that, like newspapers, Oxford scholars of history get their history wrong too. That, however, does not mean you should rush off into the arms of a sanitised version that gets pandered about.

(There's also the part on the arrival of Roger the Norman and the origins of the Maltese flag that got removed. Castillo gets cited as a source but, brazenly, his qualification of "according to tradition" is removed).

On the other hand, I was re-assured to hear my edits described as "sprawling". Sometimes I fear that removing things that, at best, are irrelevant might be mistaken as vandalism. Point on grammar taken too (yes, sometimes I edit in a hurry which I shouldn't) although I note that you've re-introduced the line "Abela's writings worked with the Knights of Malta".

One final note. I'm not here to fight an edit war. Just to note that there's to weights and two measures you apply in the case of my edits and others which you seem to value highly if not for their correctness (which they don't have), for their, ahem, "charm".

Cheers.

Demdem (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur

Please see Talk:Minotaur. I invite you to explain what the problem is. Thanks, Elphion (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Notpietru, with your history of edit-warring blocks I would have thought you ought to know better than to use Twinkle-revert combined with a false accusation of vandalism to revert a good-faith edit, as you did here (and here). It is rather plain to see for everyone that this paragraph was indeed heavily WP:OR and pushing for your WP:POV; therefore I will remove it again. If I see you abusing Twinkle like this again, I will blacklist you from using the tool. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The information is entirely valid" [3]? Well, let's see:

The whole paragraph is unsourced.
"little is done by the breed clubs to reeducate the public": not merely a neutral statement of fact, but insinuates that the the clubs have a moral obligation (to "reeducate") do do something differently. That is obviously somebody's POV – probably yours.
"This raises a major ethical issue": says who? Again, obviously pushing a POV, and not even very subtly.
"the misappropriation of national symbol": again, whose opinion is this?

If you really think this paragraph has a chance of staying in as a legitimate encyclopedic statement, then you really, really have a problem with this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it needs work; but it tackles an important issue, one that should receive sourcing etc. It relates important information. And if unsourced, POV material is always delete-worthy, three quarters of this project would disappear. The information must be shaped, pruned and verified. One of the "unsourced" template things could be used. What should not happen is the entire removal of important information that is (conveniently) ignored throughout the rest of the article. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is not just unsourced, it is also, as I just explained to you and as you have conveniently ignored, very obviously POV. You are free to include a new paragraph covering something about this topic once you have found a way of presenting the issue fairly, neutrally and on the basis of sources. But since I find it hard to imagine how such a paragraph would look like, given that the whole thing is basically about POV-pushing, the default is to delete. That's the way it works here, not the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This point is actually covered in most literature about the breed. Presumably you're unfamiliar with that. The point is, it's explaining the way "Pharaoh hound" is a fanciful but artificial name given to the creature in order to make it more marketable where silly people are concerned. There is no conclusive link to Ancient Egypt. The para goes on to associate this with a slight against a national symbol, which is perhaps taking things a little far. However, the principle is sound and repeated on any article dealing with the misappropriation of national symbols/national symbols themselves. I'll let the matter rest - butcher the article if you must. I'll fix it when I have the time. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation at Minotaur

Hi! A user has filed a request for mediation in the dispute you are having with User:Elphion about the wording used in the article Minotaur. I'm going to take a look at this case and try to help you come to an agreement that meets Wikipedia policies. The first step is making sure that everyone is on the same page. Please indicate that you are willing to participate by leaving a comment at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-20/Minotaur. Once I am in touch with both of you, I'll start a discussion to try to find common points of agreement between you, and we'll all work from there to agreement on the disputed wording. Thanks! — æk ^Talk 10:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus of Nazareth

Dear Notpietru, rather than simply reverting and treating others' entirely reasonable edits as vandalism, you need to enter into discussion on the talk page. Your apparent refusal to do so is not good practice on Wikipedia and leads others to assume you are not acting in good faith. garik (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notpietru: My edits on the List of people who have been considered deities page do not qualify as vandalism as you asserted; I made the edits based on discussed consensus on the talk page. Jesus of Nazareth belongs on the page. If you dispute this, please discuss it in the talk page before systematically removing him - continuing to do so amounts to vandalism on your part, as you have provided no rationale. Provide your rationale and we can discuss it. Saying "supreme bad taste" does not qualify as an argument. Not many people dispute that Jesus is considered a God, but if you have evidence against that please provide it on the talk page. Watercracker (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valleta

One of the things we are trying to do in Wikipedia, is give the same "feel" and structure to articles so that readers feel comfortable reading them. Place articles are edited in a similar manner. For the subtitle in Valetta, it seems to me that Landmarks or Culture fits. If not, you might look at other articles to see what does. I have looked at a few and those two seem as appropriate as any. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request pictures

I saw on Requested pictures/Architecture that you were looking for pictures of Malta. I spent my last holidays and enjoy it so much that I took hundreds of pictures (temples, festas, churches and panoramas). Should you need something, drop me a line. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qim altar.jpg

This image (originally uploaded by you) is about to be deleted. Can you please expand its description? --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is in public domain, just indicate it in the description template. Thanks, --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas

Regarding this, the word linked is creation so we should link to an article that explains this term, not to an article that also assumes knowledge of what creation is. If you want to also link to Genesis creation myth then that is fine, but the sentence will have to be reworked. I can have a go at doing that if you want. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maltese nobility. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. My apologies for posting to your talk page after you indicated you did not want it, but WP:3RR requires notification of the editor cited. RGTraynor 10:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 1 month for disruptive editing, in particular the rampant edit-warring on Maltese nobility, the personal attacks against other editors in the same context, and the outright refusal to understand the principles of the no-edit-warring policy of this project, as manifested here [4]. The block length is because of the multiple earlier blocks on your old account, showing a long history of persistent disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Notpietru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking admin has a history of prejudiced behaviour in my regard, I request that this be reviewed. Also, reasons for 'edit warring' clearly explained, and 'personal attacks' variously justified across the Maltese nobility talk page. Also, I don't see how 'past actions' can be indefinitely used as a weapon against my contributions, since I have greatly enriched this project especially with regards to articles of Maltese interest/related to Malta. Coming up against cliques and disgruntled editors shouldn't justify a month long ban. Constructive comments are appreciated.

Decline reason:

You are clearly in violation of the rules against edit-warring at that page; the rule applies to all of us, even when we are certain that we are right. Your unblock request puzzles me, since it seems to indicate that either you don't understand the rule against edit-warring, or you think that it does not apply to you. I was also surprised at how quickly you assumed that people who disagreed with you on a content issue must disagree because they are 'racist.' 'Racist' is a pretty strong word to throw at anyone who hasn't clearly earned it, and it isn't clear to me that disagreement over the status of Maltese nobility is racially motivated. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The long block is not just for this incident, but because blocks increase in length, and as User:Pietru, you have already been blocked six times for edit-warring and personal attacks. Blocks tend to get longer each time; you should expect that, if you engage in edit-warring or personal attacks again, the next block will probably be either three months, six months, or one year, depending on the blocking administrator and your own actions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Notpietru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Indeed, the edit-warring is glaring. But regarding "personal attacks" (!) - how else can those comments on the Maltese nobility talkpage be explained? And why is racist a "pretty strong word" when it's part of the fabric of so many peoples' consciousness. The editor who made the offending remarks let slip an expression of true belief - this is troubling, beyond the bounds of Wikipedia, into the real mechanisms which govern human interaction and personal thought. It's not the status of Maltese nobility that was deprecated, and even a superficial reading makes that amply clear. Maybe these are cultural differences, but surely some level of respect is universal. Otherwise, Wikipedia would fall apart. I request that the block be reviewed again.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 12:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Notpietru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not intend to participate on the Maltese nobility page further, because those editors who have claimed ownership over it do not make me want to contribute. Also, the main editor seems to want the page deleted altogether (see talkpage), which is something I oppose. I am not a "disruptive" user, and the nature of contributions over the last 6+ months are plain to see. I understand why I have been blocked, and of course the reverting is untenable. The personal attacks, in so far as they cause offense, also deserve reproach, because I was myself offended by the editor's comments. I attempted to explain why, but the editor has refused to understand my perspective; sometimes, people must agree to disagree. I do not foresee myself causing further disruption, and don't think I have been a damaging influence on Wikipedia at all. My contributions are useful to the best of my ability, whenever possible, and in whatever small (or big) way I can offer. I don't entirely expect this request to be successful in lifting or diminished the block, but felt that I should make some sort of attempt at responding to the above criteria. This is all.

Decline reason:

Your large number of reverts at Maltese nobility easily justifies a conventional 3RR block. Your claim that you were 'reverting malicious edits by racist editors' makes me wonder what you are doing here on Wikipedia. In your unblock dialog, you continue to defend the term 'racist.' I suggest that you don't have much interest in supporting the goals of Wikipedia, and that an indefinite block is justified in your case. Usually, people who are making unblock requests try to show they are capable of good behavior. This does not seem to be one of your interests. If you don't show willingness to make proper unblock requests, your talk page should be protected. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Notpietru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Have you read the requests? They make clear that my defence of the reverts was untenable, and that my use of racism denoted an expression provoked by comments left on the talkpage (however, I have since realised that perhaps I am reading into those comments something that wasn't there). I don't see how this could have been missed - I'm fairly sure we're both writing in English (dialog/dialogue, behavior/behaviour aside).

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Have you read the requests? They make clear that my defence of the reverts was untenable, and that my use of racism denoted an expression provoked by comments left on the talkpage (however, I have since realised that perhaps I am reading into those comments something that wasn't there). I don't see how this could have been missed - I'm fairly sure we're both writing in English (dialog/dialogue, behavior/behaviour aside). |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Have you read the requests? They make clear that my defence of the reverts was untenable, and that my use of racism denoted an expression provoked by comments left on the talkpage (however, I have since realised that perhaps I am reading into those comments something that wasn't there). I don't see how this could have been missed - I'm fairly sure we're both writing in English (dialog/dialogue, behavior/behaviour aside). |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Have you read the requests? They make clear that my defence of the reverts was untenable, and that my use of racism denoted an expression provoked by comments left on the talkpage (however, I have since realised that perhaps I am reading into those comments something that wasn't there). I don't see how this could have been missed - I'm fairly sure we're both writing in English (dialog/dialogue, behavior/behaviour aside). |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Re maltese aristocracy

Again, reviewing the editor's latest comments on the Maltese nobility talkpage, contrasted with a decision to KEEP the article (and the strange reasons given: Malta's by far the smallest country in Europe to have such an article relevance of that observation??), I fail to see how such behaviour can be lauded. What am I missing? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, what are we missing? I cannot see any racist comments on the talk page, including that last comment. Vague allusions to a "British agenda" do not at all convince me. I also don't see where we laud anyone's behavior, unless you consider your block a mark of approval for your opponent's edits. They are in fact unrelated. Note that I'm neither British, nor involved in editing the article.--Atlan (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the editor being rude, at best? I mean, I'm not that quick to take offense but can't see how this guy's arguments are logical, beyond being evidence of some kind of xenophobia or ignorance. With regards to his latest comment, what does Malta's size have to do with the inclusion of an article about its historical nobility? And what about this earlier comment, and I quote: ...the whole reason a Royal Commission was appointed in the first place to sort out Maltese titles was because a whole whopping lot of people demanded recognition of this title and that purportedly granted to some ancestor or another by the crowned head of some ephemeral state or another. It'd also be interesting to know why the British bothered at all, instead of dismissing the whole business as gimcrackery from a tiny island with a contemporaneous population similar to Southwark, which would have been consistent behavior from them.

These comments are insulting on every level; these are not polite things to say, especially from somebody who obviously has no idea what they are talking about. And yes, I have taken these comments somewhat to heart because of an intimate connection with the subject matter. But this doesn't diminish the fact that this editor's behaviour is, in my opinion, inappropriate. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this talkpage is being observed by the editor in question: I have not followed this article. All I have contributed, in fact, was the (rather amusing and surreal) image. I do, however, believe that there is a place for this article on Wikipedia, and that improvements should be made. It would benefit that editor to read about Malta, Maltese history and the Maltese nobility - why else contribute to Wikipedia if not to learn in the process? There seems to be very little learning on display. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There is an extensive bibliography attached - have you attempted to read any of the books cited? I suggest you do. Also; many of the issues the editor brings up are evident in the British nobility article. Perhaps it should also be deleted? Of course not. These articles are of intrinsic worth. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]