User talk:Bede735

Celtic Folkweave

If you undo a redirect, please explain why in the edit summary or on the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Celtic Folkweave. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got any defense? I'm just not seeing how this album is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good job. Thank you for acting on this and actually improving the article. Got anything on Mick Hanly now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll see what I can do for Hanly. Bede735 (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

You're making my poor little article on The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (song) much better! Thanks! - Brianyoumans (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating the article. It's a great song. Bede735 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Knopfler

Just a quiet thank you for the upgrade to many Mark Knoplfer articles. Note my user name. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for remembering Jim's accordion. I saw the recent Montreal show and he played it beautifully. Bede735 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detail in plot

Please explain why you restored that detail about the walk in the park in Autumn in New York (film). I fail to see its importance to the story. Debresser (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the point in the film where the main character leaves his childish ways behind him after admitting to his daughter his regret for abandoning her. In the next scene, he returns to Charlotte to face their relationship honestly and responsibly. Bede735 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is interpretation. Possibly on a symbolic level. I won't argue with that, because I also had that feeling, but I suppose you agree that the sentence looks absolutely trivial if taken at face value. Debresser (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas

Hello. Thanks for all the great MK articles. :-) Altered Walter (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Walter, for the new category. I'm still working on the remaining tours and other MK articles. Merry Christmas. Bede735 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	Germany Barnstar
	For your superb work on Rolf Magener. Keep up the great work!! Merry Christmas! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, doctor. Merry Christmas. Bede735 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Grey

Sorry about this edit. I could have sworn I searched the navbox for his name and couldn't find it. I thought it was just goofy vandalism. Mea culpa; thanks for fixing my mistake. Ntsimp (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. His name did not display in bold in the navbox because it linked to a section in the article. Bede735 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Basilica of Saint Mary Major, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. stop removing my oppose. I am not rwflammang. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, but I've been an editor here since 2007. I notice you've been a contributing editor for 2 months and 5 days (not including your 5 edits in 2008) so I'm sure this is a simple mistake. As a beginning editor, you seemed a little confused about the discussion on Talk:Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. After User:Rwflammang did not sign his edit, you added a second duplicate "Oppose" for him. When you added that second duplicate "Oppose" crediting Rwflammang, User:Johnbod pointed out your mistake and removed the duplicate vote. You then inserted the duplicate "Oppose" vote again in this edit. I'm sure it was a simple oversight on your part. I moved your comment about Rwflammang to its correct location, and deleted your duplicate "Oppose", knowing you would not want a false vote counted. I clearly described my edit in the Edit Summary, which you apparently did not notice. If you have anything further to add on this issue, please use Talk:Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. Thanks. Bede735 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I replied on my talk page. the welcome thing is part of the lvl-1 (good faith) template. I try not to patronize, or assume bad faith, and avoid biting anyone undeservedly. I was a bit frustrated with my comment on there being repeatedly removed. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Papal intro consistency

I was trying to make the papal bio intros consistent by removing the awkward reading of "Pope X, was pope". Why did you partially blanket revert me? Now you've made it more confusing. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentences of the papal articles were consistent—all starting with "Pope [Name] ..." I do not see a compelling reason to change this. Bede735 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the intros of papal bio articles, starting backwards from Pope Francis, before you revert me again. Note: I've overturned your reverts of yesterday & today. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RFC on Papal article consistency

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RFC on Papal article consistency. Elizium23 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

I think you should (your choice) either continue making your changes or start reverting them. The Rfc seems to have stalled. Above all we need consistancy on all Papal bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will, as soon as the discussion is closed at WT:CATHOLIC, indicating no concensus for change on points 1 and 2. Bede735 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The duration of an RFC is typically 30 days, so we still have half the time to go, unless we should experience some miracle of consensus before then. Elizium23 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors voted to remove Pope from the common name in the lead based on the arguments presented in the discussion at WT:NCCL#Pope_as_part_of_the_name. One of the two in fact suggested we should "centralize these discussions, since they seem to be getting at the same basic issue." A few days ago, an administrator closed that discussion, writing, "Consensus is against changing the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." Do you think this will change any opinions? Bede735 (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gold on WikiProject:Catholicism navboxes

I saw you added a background color for Template:Opus Dei. Is their a Wikiproject:Catholicism policy that all navboxes become Gold unless otherwise colored (Marian, religious communities that specify colors, etc.). I had left Opus Dei uncolored wondering if it should be colored gold. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a policy. Last month a few editors changed the color of some Catholic navboxes from yellow to gold (the Vatican flag color). I added gold to some of the Catholic navboxes that they missed. I left the Marian navbox red because its the color of the Legionaries of Christ logo. The main Catholicism navbox is protected, so I left a request on the talk page. If you think the Opus Dei navbox should retain the default color, or be a different color, you can either delete the word "gold" or replace it with another. Bede735 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the said editors. it was changed from yellow to gold to match the Vatican flag, and to reduce eye strain due to the very bright colors. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good change. Bede735 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now I know. I have already created a few Catholic Navboxes and planned on creating more. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Around a Small Mountain poster

Hey! Thanks for updating an older film article. I was wondering why you changed the poster for Around a Small Mountain. Since it's a French film using the French poster makes a lot of sense. I was reviewing the MOS:FILM and looking at the previous film talk archives I came across Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_22#Posters_for_foreign_films. It seems it should have the French poster. Thanks! Peppage ^ಠ_ಠ 04:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the infobox image for Around a Small Mountain because I moved the article to the current title per WP:TITLE. The old poster was for the original French title, 36 vues du pic Saint-Loup. I see the discussion from 2008, and I see it references MOS:FILM#Image, but I do not see anything in MOS:FILM#Image that indicates original foreign language posters should be used for English titled article. It could be that the guidance has changed since then. I've also checked WP:FILMNFI, WP:IUP, and Template:Infobox film and found nothing. Template:Infobox film indicates: "Insert a relevant image for the film. Ideally this should be a film poster, but a DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or other film-related image may also be used." I think the practice of using the original theatrical release poster makes sense if the title matches the article title, but it doesn't make sense when the titles are different or in a foreign language when the article is in English (and vice versa). If you find specific guidance indicating that it should, let me know and I'll change it back. Bede735 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bedson socks

Thanks very much. He's become not much more than a run of the mill vandal, doing it just to annoy. At least a dozen socks a week, probably more, usually blatant. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's now editing under this user name: Special:Contributions/I_am_(not)_Iron_Man. Bede735 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Please get someone to CheckUser me. I've just been editing anonymously for years (in a variety of areas) and finally created an account today. No sockpuppetry at all. I am (not) Iron Man (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]