User talk:Manannan67

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your edits and expansion of Saint Chrodegang! Sıgehelmus (Talk) \|д=) 17:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston, NY - tide-ware

Your revision to Kingston, NY: Revision as of 03:40, 29 September 2015 included a reference to the city becoming a "tide-ware coal terminal". I am unable to find other references to this online, and wonder about your source, and what "tide-ware coal" might be. 72.76.101.209 (talk)

Replied on your Talk page. Mannanan51 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC) (GOT IT, THANKS!)[reply]

IPs editing Popes

Mannanan51, the IPs editing Popes may go further back than we realize.

Please check out:

There are at least two more apart from the two I listed above. All seem to located in the Phillipines, all making a series of entries at the end of last month. See "Mass changes to pope articles by new user" on Catholicism Talk page. I don't think they're getting this from Miranda. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the edits of Job Labasan, I believe this editor is the IP. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Bosseron Chambers has been accepted

Charles Bosseron Chambers, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MadeYourReadThis (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Knights

You are correct that the article is very US-centric. I think the Canadian and Mexican councils are pretty well established, but with one or two historical anomalies all of the councils outside North America are recent establishments. This isn't to say they should be covered--they should--just that there are going to be far fewer sources on them... and I don't speak Polish, etc. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Brychan, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You changed the text sourced to Koch so that it no longer reflected the source. Please don't do this again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Manannan67. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Doug Weller talk 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Your addition to New York Foundling has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. /wiae /tlk 15:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

de Capillas

I've undone your merge pending further discussion. I think the merge should go the other way, since that article has a lot more history. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon firehouse

Well, the building I took the picture of is the one at the address listed on the Register.

But it might be helpful if we can pull up the nomination form and see ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of the Innocents

Would you like to have a look at my changes to Massacre of the Innocents? I've tried to make it readable, balanced, and not too long. PiCo (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations:

I could not find where the lengthy discussion in the lede summarizes anything in the text; maybe it should be moved down to a prefatory Background section.
Reference to Thomas Paine doesn't seem to add anything since he wasn't an historian, biblical scholar nor theologian; not sure his opinion is any more valid than that of Galileo, if indeed he had one.
"Those who deny that the inspiration of the story is theological rather than historical point" - are these necessarily mutually exclusive?
"(No explanation has been offered for why it should be absent from Luke's gospel, or why Mark and John have no infancy narrative whatsoever)." Don't know that any explanation is required. Different writers at different times with different sources for different audiences; variations between Matthew and Luke are discussed somewhat in the "Nativity of Jesus" article.
Perhaps some of the images in the gallery could be moved to the appropriate paragraph in the Arts section where applicable. Not sure why the link to Commons was deleted, as it appears that is sometimes recommended in preference to galleries.

Appreciate the time you've put into this, it shows. (I will look for some needed citations tagged in the Arts section.) Mannanan51 (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to take all your comments into account - thanks for the time. The gallery and the commons link: I happen to like galleries, as Christian art is, in my opinion, quite beautiful. About the commons link, I have no idea what happened - I don't think I intenmtionally reloved it - if you want to restore it, feel free. :) PiCo (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theodorus and Theophanes

Please start a proper proposal discussion, & I will comment. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle

Hey, thanks! That was on my long-list of things I never quite got around to doing Nzd (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit to Louis-François Duplessis de Mornay

See here. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is my understanding is in the public domain -as was duly noted in the citation. If this is incorrect, please advise. Mannanan51 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I've spent 6 minutes looking and I can't find something explicitly stating the licensing of the websites' contents. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 00:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

n.b.

"This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1924. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S. (see Help:Public domain)". -from Wikisource.
(See also: Catholic Encyclopedia#Online versions).
"Knight chose the 1913 15-volume set because the later editions are still under copyright protection. Not only is the 1913 version in the public domain, but it is also thought by many to be the superior version."[1] -from the New Advent website. Mannanan51 (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That works. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Encyclopedia

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Catholic Encyclopedia, please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make it up, I copied it from somewhere. See: "Category:Contributors to the Catholic Encyclopedia"; but I believe I saw a different page with more names listed, which is why I deleted the section in the article that I started on contributors. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen of Sheba visits King Solomon

I've edit all information that I could found about that painting. Please, can you control if this page could be good? Thank you. --82.56.171.191 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philip II of Spain is depicted as King Solomon, Mary I of England as the Queen of Sheba, and Viglius van Aytta as a king's soldier. Then even the other king and queen's retinue could be depicted as Philip and Mary's related characters. Can you find if there are sources about it and their attires? Thank you! --79.44.235.74 (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you find the English translation of the Latin text in the composition? Thank you! --80.182.55.164 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is going on? I see messages from three different IPs, most of whose edits have been largely disruptive. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Cave of Saint Blaise you included material copied from Veles (god). That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions to Criticism of the Catholic Church

Thought I should let you know that I added your material to Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church. The Paganized Christianity subsection is going there. I don't know exactly what the Criticism of the Catholic Church page will look like when the split is completed, but you are welcome to start now if you like. As for the transclusion tags on the Christianity and Paganism page, I re-added them. When you removed them, it took out the Anglo-Saxon subsection on Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what the "The Anglo-Saxon conversion" has to do with "Alleged corruption of the Catholic Church"? Mannanan51 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an example of pagan influence. It is not corruption from everyone's perspective, but such crypto-paganism is regarded as such by Restorationist and Protestant apologists such as the ones you used earlier. It other words, it is a topic of such allegations.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just where is the pagan influence? ---Please note that the Protestant apologists (those were not my sources, they were already cited) each wrote well over 100 years ago. Newman (author of the Young Lady's Guide) penned his tome during the midst of the nativist movement. Mannanan51 (talk)

I won't be able to keep an eye on things today (2019 Venezuela coup attempt); please ping me if input is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge made without consensus

I am of the opinion this redirect was unjustified; this had been discussed prior to the move and had the approval of four editors and the input of one other. (this is a copy of the message listed on the other page)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is the problem? You, yourself, placed the banner on the page indicating that it needed "to be cleaned up or summarized". I am doing both. ...and I quote: " I don't know exactly what the Criticism of the Catholic Church page will look like when the split is completed, but you are welcome to start now if you like." So I did. Three separate editors have indicated that the split you initiated was at the very lest "problematic". Other observations were "dreadful", "misleading" and "laughable". Given that the Catholic church is a rather large, ancient institution there will no doubt be a good deal with which one could take issue. Much of the excessive text was disorganized and immaterial. This is not the place for lengthy, incoherent dissertations. All that is needed is a brief description and a link to the appropriate Main article. In fact, IMHO that is the best approach in order to be as realistically comprehensive as possible -and it does not require discussing some elderly bishop who may have passed gas someplace. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cleanup banner was for the main page, not this one. I just had a thought: If you support me moving the corruptions page to community draft per the comment made by Hyperbolick (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC) (and later restated on his talk page), I will withdraw my objection, both here and on the talk page. (The page would need to come out of draft via the formal process this way.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem a bit more appropriate if you would direct your comments to the Main page, as (1) it keeps discussion in one place, and (2) there may be other users would have some views on the matter. Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

will do--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Your patience and diligence in cleaning up the wreck that occurred at Criticism of the Catholic Church are appreciated, and thank you for finally giving us a Criticism article, that has been missing since the 2008 days of the five Catholic Church FACs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

Typo in your notes?

Would you find the text from which you are duplicating your added cites such as

The Catholic Encyclopedia and Its Makers, Encylopedia Press, Incorporated, 1917

and fix the misspelled word 'Encylopedia'? I've cleaned up several of these now, e.g. this, and would like to think there'll not be more.

though I've not yet done

as found with this search: ~"Encylopedia" "Catholic Encyclopedia"

Not the only one misspelling 'Encyclopedia', but I'm finding one editor using copy-n-paste can duplicate the same error many times. I'll need to use a tool to fix the 84 times "Uncloudy Days: The Gospel Music Encyclopdia" occurs, all done by one editor, now gone for over two years. I wonder how many were fixed in the meantime? Speaking of which e.g. Shenme (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have verified the other 58 articles, and made two corrections. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Log in problem; wouldn't recognize password; no email to reset; instructions said create new account and then use move tag. No move button. Redirected talk page to new account; can't redirect old user page.

Please help me with...moving User:Mannanan51 to User:Manannan67

Manannan67 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are. Huon (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manannan67, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Manannan67! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Accounts

Hello Manannan67, I see you have use de two accounts. I just wanted to know if you read over https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ALTACCN&redirect=no . To be honest, Wikipedia is somewhat boring except for the occasional stubborn Wikipedian. I just wanted to stop by and say Hi.Manabimasu (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please note discussion directly above. Sign-in got screwed up. I solicited assistance. No longer use the old account, and I don't think I can access it anymore. It redirects here. This is just a continuation of the previous account I can't get into. An administrator handled it. I gathered that was all that was needed. Manannan67 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]