User talk:PaulGS

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


Hello, PaulGS, 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!  Dr Debug (Talk) 02:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Felix II[edit]

I have apologized on two Wikipedia pages for an error I made; but I wonder if I must, in a sense, withdraw one of my apologies. Perhaps you can help me avoid having to apologize for an apology! I undoubtedly did make two mistakes. One was to suppose wrongly that the reference at the foot of the General Roman Calendar as in 1954 page was to that calendar, when it was instead a reference to the 1962 calendar. The other was to miss the word "papae" in my copy of the reproduction of the original Tridentine Missal. The change I made as a result of the latter mistake was certainly wrong, and I have undone it (see Tridentine Calendar). But I now wonder whether the change I made on account of the first mistake was instead correct. I have a copy of the Missale Romanum published in 1952 (with Pius XII's revised Holy Week texts included). For 29 July it gives "S. Marthae Virg. Semiduplex. Com. Ss. Felicis, Simplicii, Faustini et Beatricis Mm." You will note that it does not call Felix a pope. (The original Tridentine Missal has "Marthae virg. semid. & comm. ss. Felicis papae, Simplicii, Faustini & Beatricis mart.")

Do you have a Missale Romanum of the early 1950s that has, instead of what is in my 1952 missal, the words "S. Marthae Virg. Semiduplex. Com. Ss. Felicis II Papae, Simplicii ..."? This is what the Wikipedia page on the 1954 calendar says (in English). Lima (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a Missal (mine is from the 1930s), although I do have several Breviaries, including one from 1956 (still with Semidoubles and Octaves, but with the Holy Week changes), and "Ss. Felicis II Papæ", etc. is listed. The "Roman Breviary in English", printed in 1951, also lists St. Felix as a pope. A 1952 breviary (but without the Holy Week changes) also lists him as a pope. PaulGS (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Moving that 'alternate use' was a good move--in the introduction to the article it's meaningful, in the context where I found it it was not. Thanks.Drmies (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oct 2008[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of songs in Rock Band 2. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. This is especially odd considering a talk thread was opened regarding this change. -- TRTX T / C 03:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for cutting out the legalese. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but the information it had there was wrong. PaulGS (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Just noticing that a lot of your edits do not use edit summaries. Those are very helpful for other editors to know what you were doing and, especially, why. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Liturgical year[edit]

Hi, [edit] cites no sources, making it impossible to work out what "previously" refers to: previous to the 1962 revisions maybe? Sparafucil (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Winter olympics[edit]

Please be careful when reverting vandalism. You just undid some good edits that came after the vandalism. Abc30 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you just restored them. Sorry and thanks. Abc30 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Woman with seven sons[edit]

I notice you've put a accuracy dispute tag on the article. Was it for the whole article, or just for the section? If it's about the Catholic feasts, I copied that from the Maccabees article, so I'm not as sure about that (though there are references). Anyway, please put your reasons on the talk page. StAnselm (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tag after some further checking. The Martyrology for August 1 refers to the woman and her sons; the ninth Lesson and the Collect for the Machabees do not specifically mention them, but since the Martyrology does, that's good enough for me. PaulGS (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Decemberists[edit]

Hi there, you recently brought The Decemberists to AfD. If I understand correctly, what you would like is for the article to live at the title "The Decemberists" and not "The Decemberists (band)". What you are proposing is a move and you should bring it up on the article talk page. I see that you've done that, but I encourage you to continue with that there. I'm going to close the AfD you opened, since you don't seem to be asking for anything to be deleted. --Danger (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Love Symbol Album and File:Prince logo.svg[edit]

I have reverted your restoration of this symbol to that article. Using a non-free image as a 12px icon is not supported by WP:NFCC, particularly #8 significance, and it fails #1 as being replaceable by text. The cover of the album, which exists on the article, adequately conveys what the love symbol is, making File:Prince logo.svg redundant in any case. Lastly, you placed the image into the article 4 times. #10c requires a separate, specific rationale for each use, meaning you would have to add 4 rationales to use it 4 times, even on the same article. Please do not restore this file to that page again. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court addition[edit]

Hello. Your recent addition to the Supreme Court page seems a bit malformed, and has a dangling clause ("in which...") I'm reverting it for now as I'm not clear what it was supposed to say, but if you could go back and write it out correctly, I'm sure the addition will be welcomed. Magidin (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Time in Indiana[edit]

Hi Paul, in regard to the Time in Indiana article, why are you reverting a change that you have described as 'acceptable'? PhilKnight (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Since either is acceptable, there's no need to change it, for the same reasons we have WP:ENGVAR PaulGS (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed this. We don't link to well-known geographical entities or languages. --John (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psalm 51, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divine Office (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) 08:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Please stop deleting RS-supported material. Claiming it is POV -- when that is non-sensical. And claiming that it is too detailed -- the RSs cover it, and I trust their view as to what is worth covering more than any editor's personal opinion. Please take this as a warning -- the repeated deletions of RS material are becoming disruptive. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords[edit]

Your edit has been reverted on multiple occasions by a number of different editors, so rather than try to start an edit war, read WP:BRD and open a talk page discussion. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)