User talk:Mocctur

Death and Funeral of Otto Von HAbsburg

How can a picture of a sarcophagus of an ancestor more relevant than the picture of the dead man him self ?????????????????

There is a separate article on the man with lots of pictures. The article on the funeral is complementing the biographical article, so no need to use all the same pictures. A picture from where he will be entombed (which is a world famous crypt and major tourist attraction in Vienna) is highly relevant. Mocctur (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Austro-Hungarian Empire was not the only multinational state in 1867

Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic minorities were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900. Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too.

Second: Austria and Hungary wasn't one state but two state, linked by personal union due to the monarch: Francis Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.61.209 (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out, but I'm aware of this. Mocctur (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Master

The problem with the rationale for your statement is that the Duke of Kent is an anomaly. Most Grand Masters are regular people who are not otherwise notable, and as a matter of fact, the Grand Master pro tem is the one who actually does everything on a day-to-day basis at UGLE. Therefore, I do not believe that your addition is representative of the position at all. MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the United Grand Lodge of England is probably the most important grand lodge in existence, and a look at the list of the GMs of that grand lodge and its predecessors shows that high nobility and royalty are very strongly representented over a very long time until this day. Also in other European countries the GM was often a royal or even the King himself. In the European tradition, the GMs are definitely not "regular people who are not otherwise notable". Even in the case of non-royals, they are usually prominent people who are notable in their own right. The Duke of Kent has been the UGLE GM for almost fifty years, and there has never been an UGLE GM who was not a royal or a peer. I don't understand how this could be interpreted as an anomaly, it's rather a prominent and characteristic example of the situation in Protestant Europe. Mocctur (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are accurate, if you limit your scope as you have. UGLE works its own way, as does every other jurisdiction. However, Freemasonry has a worldwide scope, and for example, the third oldest jurisdiction isn't in Europe (and I'm not so sure the UK is really Europe either), but the United States (namely Massachusetts) and as such, there are 50 US state jurisdictions that have nothing to do with nobility, and where the Grand Master serves for only 1-3 years (which was the case in the early years of UGLE). So I see a 50-1 leaning in favor of no connection to royalty whatsoever just in that context. Moreover, there are many new GLs being formed today in Europe where there is also no royal connection. So it really is a statistical anomaly to have a GM who is royalty and serves for life. MSJapan (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it should be a problem to mention how things work in several European countries. The article is short, and should be expanded upon. Nobody has claimed that American Grand Masters are royals, but it's noteworthy that many European are/have been for a long time. More material on how things work elsewhere would also be welcome. Mocctur (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it causes bias, which is to be avoided because it leads to skewed articles. Given that Freemasonry is worldwide, to limit things to a "few European countries" pretty much skews the article in that direction, which is not accurate. Moreover, nothing is by any means "standard"; every jurisdiction sets its own rules as to how the Grand Master is elected and how long he serves. Hence, we have avoided elaborating on the issue. MSJapan (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry started in Europe, where many of the oldest organisations within freemasonry are found. The article is short and should be expanded, not be kept short on purpose (see Wikipedia:Wiki is not paper). In an article on this office, it's highly relevant to mention that this particular office was/is often held by royals or monarchs in some countries on the continent where the office and freemasonry evolved. The article only has a short paragraph on this. Expansion on the different practice in America and elsewhere would be most welcome. Mocctur (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Since this is a collaborative editing process the use of edit summaries is a big help to other editors. Please consider using them all the time, and especially when deleting material or tags. Will Beback talk 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. This edit is unhelpful. Please do not repeat it. --John (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attacked anyone as anyone reading the comment on that deletion review page are able to tell. Citing policy has nothing to do with "personal attacks" and if a personal attack had taken place, it would somehow involve another person (a target of the alleged "personal attack"). Whether you disagree with WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a policy is irrelevant. Please do not post fake warnings on user talk pages to gain an advantage in content disputes you are involved in and to bully editors who cite policy you may or may not agree with. If you disagree with the policy, take it up elsewhere and obtain consensus to change it. Your comment above constitutes a personal attack against me as an editor and an abuse of a warning message in order to attack an editor holding the opposite view as yours in an ongoing deletion review (where incidentally your position is a minority position and my position seems to be the consensus position and eventual outcome of the review). Please do not repeat it. Mocctur (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, this edit constitutes a personal attack and I strongly counsel you not to repeat it if you wish to retain your editing privileges here. Be warned. --John (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I warn you again against making false allegations of personal attacks when there are none as proven by the diff you provided, in order to harrass an editor holding a different opinion than you in an ongoing deletion review. I find that your behaviour is an attempt to influence an ongoing deletion review by harrassing editors with opposing views with frivolous allegations of non-existent personal attacks. If you continue to harrass me and/or abuse warning templates, I'll initiate a request for comment against you. I also take note of the final decision in the deletion review, which did not go your way despite your behaviour. Mocctur (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 adorno award controversy

hi mocctur, i appreciate your notnews and soap, but it is news, and the award itself is the controversy, not just butler receiving it. there are three RS given, and i can find plenty more. (only chose three as i think it is sufficient). one of those outspoken was an official diplomat. other sources include: http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16225396,00.html and wall street journal europe: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443921504577641351255227554.html - please self-revert, thanks. Soosim (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You posted the exact same text in Butler's bio. We don't need to have the same text in both articles. Butler was awarded the Adorno prize specifically for her work on gender theory, as someone who is cited tens of thousands of times in Google Scholar. Her views on Israel (which are hardly controversial or particularly uncommon in Europe) have nothing to do with the prize. Flooding the article on the prize itself with the opinions of right-wing Israelis, i.e. not a widely held opinion, on a matter that is completely irrelevant for the prize for Butler's work on gender theory, is inappropriate. If there is any notable controversy relating to Butler it belongs in the Butler biography, not in articles on any prizes she might receive for unrelated reasons. Mocctur (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to your points - if she is mentioned in both articles, then the criticism can be in both. her views of israel are very relevant since that is indeed part of the reason she received the prize (see the berlin jewish museum controversy, for example). and since both she and the prize are turning up day after day in RS with criticism, it belongs on both. Soosim (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A complaint about your edits has been filed. It appears that you have revert-warred at three different articles in the last couple of days on matters related to the Nobel Peace Prize. It would be to your advantage to respond at WP:AN3#User:Mocctur reported by User:RJFF (Result: ) and agree to stop the war. A centralized WP:RFC is one of many ways this could be addressed within policy. Continued reverting is not one of them. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship? WP:COI?

Hello Mocctur,

please do not falsely accuse other editors of advocating censorship or being in a conflict of interest. I might be in a COI if I edited Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats or Party of European Socialists, as I am a social democrat (albeit I try not to let my own political positions lead me when editing Wikipedia). But I am very far from being sympathetic or supporting of right-wing Eurosceptics like the EFD group. Funnily I already have been accused of having an agenda to malign right-wing Eurosceptic parties, namely UKIP, and to throw around "far-right" labels. Now you accuse me of the opposite. It is really hard if one tries to be neutral and to defend a neutral point of view. --RJFF (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be polite

Howdy, I just wanted to remind you to please be civil (it's a pillar!), including in edit summaries, e.g. on 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. It's much better for Wikipedia if we all assume good faith and recognize we're all here to create the best encyclopedia we can, right? -- Schneelocke (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German People's Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal (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) 11:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited House of Schönborn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinals (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) 11:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ratzinger family for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ratzinger family 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/Ratzinger family 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 template from the top of the article. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christoph Schönborn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal (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) 11:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You cannot just delete sourced material"

Can you point me to the policy that says that? Ryan Vesey 02:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, a personal attack by a single purpose account, accusing other editors of having an agenda, is not "giving a reason". His edit counts as vandalism. Deletion of sourced material in such a way is a case of vandalism. The article is not supposed to be a hagiography, and the material is balanced and well sourced, whether the new account likes the BBC or not. Mocctur (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joel Osteen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lay (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) 11:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]