User talk:Contaldo80

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive One; Archive Two


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:

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)

We're on Twitter![edit]

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!
Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group logo.svg
Hello Contaldo80!
Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk)

Improvements for LGBT in the Middle East[edit]

Hi, Contaldo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for contributing!

I appreciate your desire to work on LGBT in the Middle East. If you don't mind, I took a look at your submitted paragraph and I am going to ask you to do the following:

  • Say who determined/decided the Middle East was the "worst" area to be LGBT - That is an opinion statement and it needs to be qualified by a verified statement from an NGO or a notable expert. If is your personal opinion it is Wikipedia:Original research which is not allowed on here
  • How and why is it the worst? How is that determined? The reasons must come straight from the sources. Trying to do Wikipedia:Synthesis (taking contents of two sources and making an original interpretation not supported by either source) is also considered Original Research

I also took the liberty of restoring the Klauda paragraph. You did not give a reason why it should be removed. I believe it should stay because of the sourced commentary on how Middle Eastern LGBT attitudes were influenced by late 19th/early 20th century European attitudes.

If you have any questions, contact me by typing {{ping|WhisperToMe}.

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't add the material you mention above. I just moved it around, so if you think it can't be substantiated then take it out. I took out the Klauda sentence as it didn't really seem to make much sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from LGBT in Islam into Mehmed the Conqueror. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't distort sources to make someone look more gay[edit]

  • Please, don't distort sources, that you add yourself, to make Kobylianska look more lesbian than she really was. You add words that are not in the source (there is no claim the correspondence was "romantic", and there is no claim about "preventing living openly together", etc.). You also write that Ihor Kostetsky believed that "Kobylianska was lesbian", while the source that you added just said that he only "suggested" that their "relationship was lesbian". It's not quite the same. Moreover, you totally ignored the fact that same book also states that "there was probably little or no physical contact between the two women".
  • Also, please don't delete sources that prove that Kobylyanska was not quite lesbian and actually fell in love with multiple men (even if the sources are in Ukrainian). Unless you can show me the rule that prevents using Ukrainian sources.
  • Don't delete my {{fact}} request for sources. It's still unclear which personal experiences became the basis for Valse melancolique. (It could not be her relationship with Lesia, since the two only met three years later.)

In general, it's quite strange that you, apparently, don't know any of the writer's biography, but you go as far as to add words from your head that totally distort the writer's life and her tender friendly relationship with Lesia Ukrainka. It's like the only thing that interests you is to make her look more lesbian. --Amakuha (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In general, it's quite strange that you, apparently, don't know any of the writer's biography, but you go as far as to add words from your head that totally distort the writer's life and her tender friendly relationship with Lesia Ukrainka. It's like the only thing that interests you is to make her look more lesbian. --Amakuha (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If you do not retract your comments then I will issue a formal complaint against you. Specifically claims that I have deliberately distorted the sources to promote a personal agenda. And frankly who are you to say that the picture is "too lesbian" - did you personally know the woman? I've explained why english sources are preferred - so make the effort to find them. Kostetsky's "suggestion" of lesbianism is semantics. I haven't ignored the additional material that suggests no physical contact - I wasn't aware of it. So don't accuse me of totally ignoring anything. Besides which this is point is made elsewhere in the paragraph. "Personal experiences" refer in general - they aren't linked to any one specific moment in time. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

By this edit you deleted all information that I added, even from your own sources. What's the point? --Amakuha (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for revisionist political activism[edit]

In regards to a number of articles, but especially Áed Dub mac Suibni, you need to stop trying to promote the revisionist agenda that these people were somehow "LGBT". All you have provided as proof is a polemic account of one of his opponents Adomnán of Iona in his Life of Saint Columba, where he is attacking the King and the rival religious institution he was connected to at Tiree, by claiming he is a "bloody murderer" and attempting to cast him as immoral. It is pure synthesis to start adding LGBT categories to such articles. Any claims made by Adomnán (who was born decades after Aodh's death) need to be contained within quotation marks, not presented as objective fact. Claíomh Solais (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Get lost you irritating little nobody. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I imagine that little old thing called accountability is irritating to a single-issue editor, but I suggest you remain civil. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Accountability? To who? To you? I've come across loads of poor editors over the years. Congratulations - you've already made the top ten!Your shining sword is pretty blunt. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Accountability to basic standards such as referencing and the attribution of controversial claims to specific people in quotation marks where appropriate, rather than just presenting them as fact. You're not very good at this whole civility thing as you? I don't find such snipes very constructive. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
"Attribution of controversial claims to specific people in quotation marks". I don't think you have a clue what you're talk about. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Herbert Ganado. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Simply going to the talk page to discuss a dispute isn't enough, you also need to stop edit warring yourself. In particular, calling your opponent's edits vandalism is a sure-fire way to get blocked as it gives us little confidence you understand the edit-warring policies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. How long have I temporarily been blocked for? It's not clear. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
24 hours. However, if you can convince me that the block is superfluous and no longer required, I'll unblock. The closest scenario I can think of from my own experience is Talk:Graham Chapman#Categories, which I eventually just threw my hands up in the air and thought "you know what, it's just a category, nobody really cares". That seems to work well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally I hope you realise that the other editor that you just blocked has circumvented you by using IP and has just made some edits to Robert Sarah. You will see that they are based in Venice. I think this is an editor that is deliberately tracking my edit history to amend my edits on the grounds they present too positive a view of homosexuality (hence the edits to Walter Kasper, Benvenuto Cellini and Herbert Ganado). Note the change from "LGBT rights" to "LGBT ideology" and you will see that I'm not being that paranoid about my earlier concerns on neutrality and failure to act in good faith. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Well personally I don't think "rights" vs "ideology" prevents me from understanding what the article is talking about, so I would leave it be for the minute, and see if anyone else reverts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok I'll take your advice and be hands off for the time-being. Although "ideology" is a very loaded term and intended to suggest that LGBT people are not automatically entitled to human rights. There isn't really such a thing a LGBT ideology and none of the sources refer to it. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Contaldo80 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Thank you. Please can I have this temporary block re-considered. I acknowledge that I exceeded the 3RR and apologise for that but was conscious of trying to avoid edit-warring - hence the appeal to adminsitrators. In my defence I was responding to an editor that is (i) unregistered (ii) has edited this article and others (Benvenuto Cellini) in the same way using different IP addresses based in Venice (iii) failed to engage reasonably on talk or justify the removal of the categories beyond a superficial and cursory justification. That's why frankly I viewed the edits as pretty close to vandalism. Having dealt with the issue of homosexuality on many article pages I have also come across many instances of where editors remove material with no justification because the subject is seen by many as a contentious one. If the editor has made the case first that the category were problematic (for whatever reason) then that would have given me more confidence that the edits were intended to be constructive. However, I accept that on occasions it's good for me to learn a lesson and be careful about 3RR - so will abide by the decision if that's what's needed. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Fine by me; I accept this was a one-off and things got a bit over-heated. Happens to us all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but the same editor (still in Venice) has then gone under IP as well as (as above) to amend articles on Walter Kasper, Godfred Danneels, and Cormac Murphy-O'Connor to link them to the highly dubious St. Gallen Group. I think they're making a mockery of wikipedia. I'd welcome your advice as if I revert the amendments then it's going to end in another edit-war.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours as blatant block evasion. has only got the one edit at the moment, so I will leave that be for the minute. If they jump IPs again, I'll consider a range block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok - thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Dark-World25. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to John Chrysostom have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dark-World25 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. Hello Contaldo80. As one of the most prolific editors of the Edward II of England article, would you mind leaving a comment or a !vote as to whether King who died with a hot poker up the ass should be deleted? Thanks. --Nevéselbert 13:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aelred of Rievaulx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Cardinal Sarah article[edit]

I think you may have been under the impression that I added the word "legalization" to the title of the section for Sarah. I actually removed it. Please check back to make sure you didn't misunderstand. Display name 99 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry mistake. I thought it was legislation anyway. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

...surely wrong[edit]

I'm such a plonker! There goes what little credibility I had... Haploidavey (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. I'm afraid I've been a bit heavy-handed in my criticisms. Mainly because I'm annoyed at editors such as Clive Sweeting who are pushing some sort of political agenda. Thanks for your help and suggestions! It's good now. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Contaldo80. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raymond Leo Burke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern League (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) 20:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


If you make such comments as "You need to see a therapist" again I will be forced to report you for breaching WP:CIVILITY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael O'hara (talkcontribs) 14:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fuck off. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours. You are welcome to resume editing in a respectful manner, once your block expires. --Yamla (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear if you were informed of the discussion at WP:ANI. It's currently available here. I mention this because you should have been informed. Also, because a number of other editors noted that you were somewhat baited, here. --Yamla (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging - no, I wasn't aware. Looking at the guidance on blocking for incivility - it suggests it should rarely be used, but I'll leave you to judge whether you've been a bit quick off the mark. "Blocking for incivility is possible when incivility causes serious disruption. However, the civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon and blocking should not be the first option in most cases....his is not to say that blocking for incivility should not or cannot happen, but immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing" To be honest I'm happy to endure the block if it means I don't have to stand down from my earlier comments. I have dealt with Claimh Solais on a number of different articles and his editing is extremely polemical and non constructive. In many cases his descriptions of individuals/ groups (particularly LGBT) is deliberately offensive. He is playing out his personal issues and prejudices and I am serious that he needs to deal with them rather than mess about with wikipedia. I didn't think Michael O'hara was likewise acting in good faith in censuring me- he's an editor with a history suggesting an interest in the religious right (an interest in creationism). If he regards me as an editor pushing a "pro-LGBT agenda" then he'll want to make me look unreasonable as far as he can. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what being blocked means. Yes, you do still have to 'stand down' from your earlier comments. They are completely unacceptable and you will be blocked if you make them again. Civility is key here, and if you can't abide by that, the door is that way. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Tarage - I'm afraid I don't know who you are and I really don't care. Any further discussion on this issue I will have only with an administrator. I find you coming to my talk page and posting your comments extremely impertinent. Keep your advice on doors to yourself. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You are the poster child for WP:ICANTHEARYOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to you I'm also the "poster child" for WP:I'MNOTLISTENINGTOYOU Contaldo80 (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carlo Carafa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trent (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) 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained revert in Gay concentration camps in Chechnya[edit]

Hi Contaldo80, if for some reason you don't agree with this edit, please explain why in the article's talk page. Some statements in the article were attributed to Novaya Gazeta, but they were actually sourced by unrelated websites (, which is against policy. WP:SWYRT says that a statement should be attributed to a source only if the reference can directly verify its origin.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's maybe discuss this issue on the article talk page rather than my personal talk-page. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
No need, seems like it was a case of a misleading edit summary ('Undid revision 815934517 by Underlying lk'), I have nothing against attributing a source if the correct reference is used, the current version is fine. Cheers,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
No actually - I find it really quite irritating when editors to come to my personal talk-page to discuss an article edit. This creates a problem in terms of transparency as other editors won't be easily able to follow the thread. Such discussions are most sensibly done on the article talk-page. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)



This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!


Reverting two people won't work see WP:3RR this is a required warning. -- GreenC 14:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)