User talk:Bistropha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Chonak)
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for the translation[edit]

I have announced Regensburg Cathedral at Portal:Germany/New article announcements. You can add any other articles you translate or finish there yourself. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 17:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, i am from Germany, i am very sorry for my bad english. I need an extraordinary translation for my wiki artikel, please contact me asap- Sandaa--Veden11 (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans Scharoun[edit]

Many thanks for the translation. --Mcginnly 11:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Berlin Border Crossings[edit]

Thanks for completing the article; I took a look and made some minor copyedits, great work! (Patrick 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

Re: New Madrid Earthquake[edit]

Thank you very much!! (I know this it late, but I do really appreciate your work). -RobbyPrather (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hellenic College and Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology[edit]

There are proposed merger tags on both article pages now, with the discussion taking place at Talk:Hellenic College#Merger proposal, per our discussion at Talk:List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts#Holy Cross?. It's also been listed at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to see if anyone else will weigh in, preferably with some research/background on the topic. --Aepoutre (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You are really rocking it with the HCHC research. I like. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I'll try to go by there for some photos this week. Chonak (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Very nice! --Aepoutre (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral[edit]

Updated DYK query On February 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Excellent photo! --Boston (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Well it may be in AAS, but as is, Wikipedia seems to be the only source on the web and a whole pile of other sites have picked up that fact. I wonder what will happen if someone invents an encyclical for a pope with a title that sounds real and adds it to Wikipedia. In time, it will be "truth"... I think Wikipedia needs professional fact checkers. I am no theologian, so I can not check all of Leo XIIIs items, but on computer science items, I also see serious quality problems.... I have started adding a few page for encyclicals on the Vatican site - not that I have time to add them all, but at least we need to hope for a job category called fact checker I think. Cheers History2007 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd love that job. If it's any mitigation: from what I can tell, the only sites picking up the reference to "Parte humanae generi" are sites that automatically copy everything in Wikipedia, so it's probably not really propagating into derived works written by human beings. Exception: the WP article "Mariology of the Popes" mentions the document too, so it's possible that the unsourced assertion in Pope Leo XIII influenced that article. Chonak (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think over time, it may get into other documents. The strange thing is that if that is a real document, no one else mentions it. Usually EWTN, some other Church site, some GoogleBooks item etc. will find it. If GoogleBooks can not find it, it is misspelt, or wrong, wit 70% confidence on my part. And, it would not be hard to write a simple program/bot to check that type of thing. I think Wikipedia is short on technology and heavy on knowledge... But that is another story. History2007 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Petty vandalism on Reformed Episcopal Church[edit]

{{adminhelp}} Hi! I need advice from an admin.

User apparently has some unexplained beef about the External Links on the article Reformed Episcopal Church, and has been deleting and/or vandalizing one of the links, three times so far in March, including today. I have left messages on the article's talk page to invite the user to discussion, but there was no response, only another bad edit. How can/should I proceed from here? I will leave a message on the talk page for that IP address to see if there's a response. Thanks. Chonak (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The vandal needs to vandal multiple articles before you can report it to AIV. I'd suggest you to continue to revert the changes, making note on the edit summary that it you are reverting vandalism to prevent misunderstanding on potential 3RR issues. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Chonak (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, further to the above - I can't see the bit in talk where you've discussed it; which section is it in? --  Chzz  ►  19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • See Talk:Reformed Episcopal Church#Doctrinal controversies for my comment (19:34, 9 March). Since I posted the adminhelp request, the anonymous user has revised his latest edit and made it acceptable, so I'm satisfied now. I left a note at User_talk: to thank the user for repairing the sarcastic edit. Chonak (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, cool. I was going to suggest you try speaking to the user, if you hadn't - it was a very long talk page, so the user might not have seen it. Glad it's all ok. Happy editing, --  Chzz  ►  20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested[edit]

As you have recently edited Andy Martin (American politician), I am writing to request your input at the article talk page, sections Vexed and disputed are the ones which outline the current issue. Many thanks in advance for your time. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism in Israel[edit]

Going to redirect this article to Catholicism in Israel. --Opus88888 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia[edit]

Hi. I was glad to see you looking at enhancing the article. Let me know if you would like to split the work; my sister just entered, so I'm interested in helping improve the information about them available online. Thanks! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. It would be good to see more improvements to the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia article (NPOV material, references, etc.) I'm in school now and a bit too busy to try to coordinate the task, so feel free to do as much as is convenient for you. Seeing your mini-bio, I'm sure we'll meet in person sometime (I know the music director at St. Clement's and sing there occasionally for events.) God bless-- --Chonak (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yousif Benham Habash[edit]

Last August you created an article about Yousif Benham Habash. There already was an article about this person at Yousif Habash. As you know more about the subject than I, could you merge the two articles together?
It's upto you on what info should be merged into what article. When you add content from the source article to the destination article, the edit summary should contain, "Merged content from [[<source article>]] to here". (this is required by the license Wikipedia uses)
When finished, a redirect needs to be done. Leave me a message if you want me to do the redirect or for any questions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I'll put them together. --Chonak (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


Brownie Neumüller Ferdinand cropped.jpg
SwisterTwister has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work![edit]

Thanks for your work on Normae Congregationis.

Oct13 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase[edit]

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Joseph Anthony Galante has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Wikipedia has a policy called "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • If the article (in the "Life and career" section) was not adequate, that's OK; someone can add the event when he's installed. --Chonak (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly enough to document his resignation, but the new bishop does not attain his office until the installation, and therefore the see is vacant between the period of Galante's resignation and the new bishop's enthronement. There is more information in my discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lombard College[edit]

Thank you for your concern about copyright infringements on Wikipedia. However, I have reviewed the issue you raised concerning the Lombard College article and have concluded that there is no problem with that article. Please see Talk:Lombard College for more information. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Bistropha. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Catholic television for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catholic television is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic television until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks. The page originally was a redirect to CatholicTV, but after a user created the page about the Nigerian organization, I changed Catholic television to a disambiguation page. (In fact, he originally attempted to create the page about "Catholic Television Nigeria" by scrapping the content of CatholicTV!) --Bistropha (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Bistropha. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:The Works TV affiliates[edit]

Just a note that I've askes for a C1 of this category; network no longer exists, so there's no stations it affiliates with now, so I've emptied it. Nate (chatter) 15:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from German[edit]

Hello Bistropha,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

  1. Elfriede Grünberg Award  Pass (I translated one line that had not been translated yet)
  2. Embassy of China, Berlin

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that one. I've struck the other one since someone else is looking at that one, now. We still have plenty more articles to be assessed, though; can I send you a couple more? If so, please let me know, and add {{ping|Mathglot}} to your reply. And thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


The WP:LEAD is meant to summarize key points from across the entire article. Removing details from the lead just because they're in the body is a contradiction of the lead's purpose. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comment. Considering that the lead of that article after your recent edit is quite lengthy, it seems there is some room for varying opinions about which details are key points important enough to present in the lead. I have raised this topic in the Talk page. Best wishes. Bistropha (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)