User talk:Contaldo80/Archive 1

Recent edits to Akhenaten article

He, just a note to say that I deleted your additions to the above article due to the fact that they were in breach of the copyright guidelines on Wikipedia. These additions [1] were taken from this article [2]. Your later additions are OK, and have references, so they are fine from a copyright point of view. Markh (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In England we use the term 'overtones' rather than 'undertones' - it's a term common to the English language, so do spare me the lecture in grammar. Thanks.Contaldo80 —Preceding comment was added at 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed the article you edited is on an American writer. In America we use the term 'Undertones' rather than 'overtones' - i'ts a term common to the American language. If you want to be spared the lecture "in" grammar then get it right the first time, boy. Thanks and bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melatope (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm aware that Melville is an American writer, I wasn't aware though (as far as I know) that contributors to Wikipedia need to post their contributions in American English! Thanks though for the tip old man - and incidentally I had to no idea what you meant by your comment "And I've decided with Wikipedia period"? Makes no sense to me. Perhaps when you have some time you might deign to translate for us simple mortals. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your impertinence is utterly unacceptable. Do not use that tone with your elders, young man. I ought to take you over my knee and give you a good spanking.

Melville

By the way, I can give this compliment back for your recent Melville edit. --Cyfal (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Melville

Please see my discussion on the Melville talk page. I agree with you that the interpretation of homo-erotic themes in Melville's writings is a valid one but we should not be using references from 1949 and 1950 unless for a specific reason. Within academia doing so is generally avoided. I believe we should still retain some mention of these themes in his writing, but it may be better to do so under the specific novels (i.e., Moby-Dick). --DixitAgna (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rhodes

{{WikiProject LGBT|class=B|importance=|nested=yes}}
Is that what all this endless debate has really been about? If so, I really think you should have declared your bias/interest.
Personally, I don't think it is entirely appropriate to add this project label to the page. On the other hand, you (obviously) do.
Could I bother you to explain to me why you think it is appropriate? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And just as I was about to hit the "save" button, it occurred to me that if I was going to bother you with a request to explain your POV, it obliged me to explain my POV. Mmmm. This isn't particularly well thought out, but here goes anyway.
I believe (hope?) you have formed the opinion that, in general, I'm interested in the whole story, and preferably a balanced presentation of it. I did not feel it was useful to remove all mention of Rhodes sexuality. But then again, I also did not feel it was useful to go on and on at great length, and in great detail, about it.
Rhodes was not obviously and blatantly gay, nor did he make a point of advertising the fact. But on the other hand, for those who wanted to put two plus two together, it wasn't hard to come to the conclusion that the answer could very well be four. It wasn't obvious, but it wasn't a big step either. On the whole, it really wasn't a big deal. It just "was".
Putting the LGBT label on the page seems (to me) to turn it (unnecessarily) into "a big deal", and hence (in my POV), is not really appropriate.
Looking forward to your response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have a much better understanding of a number of things now, and I think that's good.

"Maybe you're very quick to jump to conclusions." - Well, "very quick" is a relative and subjective term, and I (of course) like to think I would never do such a thing (no, I'm not that delusional), but it is indeed entirely possible that I did "jump" rather too quickly. However, my intention was not to make a judgement; it was to try to understand your motivation. My apologies.

"Adding the article under the LGBT project simply flags up that there are aspects of the article that are of interest to those interested in LGBT issues." - Fair comment. Adding the article to the "Trains" project certainly doesn't mean the subject of the article is necessarily a train!! Yes, it would seem I did jump to a conclusion rather too quickly ...

"I do think, though, that people are making a little too much about this whole Rhodes issue." - I'm not sure what you mean here.

"I think it's frankly wishful thinking to view it through the prism of a set of 'manly friendships'." - Agreed.

"Let's take a deep breath and move on." - Mmmm. In theory, that's laudable. However, in practise, I think that (in general) people (including me) are more interested in pushing their own POV!

"but have made sure that any edits are sourced from reliable and credible material." - Agreed.

"I haven't put my 'personal view' in any of the article text at all." - Agreed.

I was more refering to the Talk page where, as you correctly point out, you are "absolutely entitled to".

"Incidentally have you been on a Rhodes' Scholarship" - Sadly, no.

"if so, shouldn't you have declared a personal interest?" - That's a good question. My first reaction was, "How is having been a Rhodes' scholar relevant to discussing Rhodes' sexuality?". Then I thought, "Mmmm. That's a good question. I can't give a simple yes/no answer to that one.".

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments sound fair. By adding the article under the LGBT project I was simply intending to flag up to readers that there are aspects of the article that are of interest to those interested in LGBT issues - so that it's easy to spot from a first glance. I isn't my intention to unbalance the article; so please do revert if it looks a bit heavy-handed. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Given your explanation, no, I don't think it's heavy-handed. And hence, I now neither think I should revert it, nor anyone else.

(However, I am concerned that others may jump to the (wrong) conclusion like I did ... )

Again, thanks for your reply. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you!! (Flattery is likely to get you exactly where you want to go!) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh!

Molte grazie. Haiduc (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored Material

I restored a bunch of deleted material to the Bacon article. It is bound to be reverted by the "owners" of the article, so you might want to have a look and weigh in/keep an eye out. Cheers! Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim Burgess (producer)

For reasons I don't fully understand, I seem to be responsible for creating a page for this guy. (I blame Freud and my parents - they're all dead, so they're all pretty safe targets.) Do you know anyone who'd have some interest and would like to help, or better still, would like to take over from me? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your invite to contribute to this article. I know absolutely nothing about the guy but will take up the challenge! Might be fun! Contaldo80 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you couldn't know any less than I did when I started! Thanks for the response. Clearly, he was a very talented guy. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Hey Contaldo80,

After seeing your posts on Francis Bacon (kudos), I thought you might be interested in looking at Talk:Conversion therapy and perhaps examining any ownership issues that might be more apparent to someone not involved in editing it.

Cheers,Conor (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: John II of France

Sorry about that. I was just cruising through the recent changes and saw that someone had added something about someone being gay. It instantly registered as vandalism (incorrectly, I hope) in my mind and I reverted it. I went back and put your revision back as a Good Faith edit. I let you guys work it out on the talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ndenison ^talk 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bacon lives (allegedly)

You asked if Mr Arion met Francis Bacon, but he may well think he has. I see he has done many edits to the Ascended Master articles and other Theosophical stuff, under his various incarnations: Alburesz, Arion, and Arion3x3. He has a habit of removing from these articles any edits which show references to debunkers. The user who added the Faked Death stuff has only contributed to the Bacon article and one about an Ascended Master who apparently reincarnated into Bacon.

Those who believe in this stuff say that Bacon literally ascended from Earth as a Master, so presumably they object to anything said about him which in their eyes detract from his perfection! --Straw Cat (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Newman

That's helpful information - many thanks for helping clear the debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I am NOT of the Roman Catholic persuasion, I have lived in the immediate area almost all of my life and with some time to spare this afternoon, went looking for the Oratory country house and the graveyard - while I was most impressed by a 'new' walk into the Lickey Hills (I had never realised existed!), I was also amazed by the sheer length of new fencing which now surrounds what must have previously been wide-open land. I cannot blame the RC Church for the planned move for the other reasons cited - but somehow doubt that legally the new fencing can stay in place - without formal planning permission - in what is "green belt" land. Kind regards. "IHS" ps I will try to keep this page updated as the planned move into 'Brum' progresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.209.65 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Henry_Newman"

update 06-08-2008

[[5]]

Oratory planning issue resolved

Nitramrekcap (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman"

'Contaldo80', is this really the correct form - surely it should be punctuated in some way? It reads as though "Cardinal" was one of his three christian names? I would appreciate your input!

[[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.149.65 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"IHS" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.149.65 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

re:Stuart

Thanks for your kind comments on my talk page. Maybe I'll return to discuss about Stuart and to writing this article but certainly not in the situation when the one side is not a constructive partner for discussion. It's simply wasting of time. As I've already said in that discussion, my private opinions about homosexualism would probably be not very different from that of Sceptik, but I'm not engaged in wikipedia to conduct any ideological war or to abuse the people who don't agree with me, but to look for a truth and to deliver it to the readers in my articles. When someone has no respect for the truth, is not interested in looking for the truth, and abuses his adversaries, there's no sense to discuss with him. CarlosPn (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2008 (CET)

Cellini

Is there any chance of your working through the Cellini rticle with appropriate references? Leonardo is under attack from all sides, so I'm rather tied up, and Benno definitely needs attention! Amandajm (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Amandajm (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: 90.218.111.106

Will do!
He pinged across my radar after vandalising a page that was on my watchlist. I only noticed his edits this morning; he seems to have been most active last night... not seen any movement today so far but I will be paying close attention to his future activity.
Cheers,
OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Gays Already Can Marry

Why did you delete the below? I was not rude to your or inappropriate. Further, it was not a vandalism. Don't you value intellectual freedom?

"Gays have every right under the law to marry, just as everyone else does. If a gay man wants to marry, he can go marry a woman of his choosing. No one is denied the right to marry."

Sorry if I am not making my comments correctly, or in the proper places.

69.124.185.8 (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are for improving an article; they aren't for general discussion of the topic. If you want to discuss the topic in general, there are many interesting discussion forums on the Internet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Stuart and Sceptik

Hello again, Contaldo. I noticed your recent diligent reversions on the Henry Benedict Stuart page; I agree with you that this looks like Sceptik's style. I've just noticed a new anonymous addition to User talk:Sceptik, the timing of which is surely not coincidental. The poster writes as though Sceptik is active, although a glance at his contribs page shows that he's not added a thing since his ban. My personal feeling is that someone has been having a root through the sock-drawer. Any thoughts? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll pursue it. User:Gwen Gale appears to be our ally here, as before; there are also formal channels we can use. Thanks for your response! AlexTiefling (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed this at User talk:Gwen Gale - if anything else suspicious happens, just let me (or Gwen Gale) know! Thanks for your help. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter Mullen

Thank you for your recent edits to Peter Mullen. Your text includes some details that are not in the Vardy source you provided. Do you have any additional reliable sources, specifically for the dates and the reinstatement? Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to David and Jonathan article

Before you smooth the reader's (and your own) path with a stroke of the pen, what about checking your facts ? You would blunder less and avoid making a fool of yourself. Open any decent, scholarly book on homosexuality in the Bible, and you will see that it is absolutely banned for Israel in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 - nobody save for the most extreme devotees of gay theology denies this fact. However, the condemnation itself raises difficult historical issues ; being comparatively late (it is post-Exilitic, ca. 560 BCE), it shall not be deployed against a possible same-sex attachement of David and Jonathan in the late tenth century inasmuch as their story was handled by the redactors of the book of Samuel (whose last revision seems to have been roughly contemporaneous with the redaction of the Holy Code of Lev, where the prohibition of male sexual coupling is contained) and may have preserved age-old traditions about the two characters. In the same way, the personal agenda of a scholar, viz. whether he is openly gay (Boswell, Halperin), openly homophobic (Gagnon), openly gay-friendly (Ackerman) or without commitment (Zehnder, Nardelli), shall not be confined to silence when it shows in their work. This in no way is pulling punches in an ad hominem manner. Last but not least, of course the David and Jonathan entry is less than adequate - the core of the question lies in very subtle shades of meaning in the Hebrew, anthropological and historical probabilities for and against a non-mainstream sexual behaviour, and minutiae of Biblical narratology ; but the article succeeds in providing the reader with a gist of the problem while pointing out where further illumination can be seeked. Is this not the very goal of Wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.69.4.219 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Contaldo80. You mentioned the Bible not being the word of God and not being written by just one person. Ironically that the Bible was written by 40 different authors, most of whom never met, over about 1500 years, in three different continents, and in three different languages, while still maintaining one central theme and internal consistency, is touted by Christians as evidence to the divine nature of the Bible. You are correct that some things in the Bible are intended symbolically and not literally. That in itself can hardly be a reason to one you doesn't believe the Bible is not divine in origin though. Best Regards.192.88.165.35 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

speculation vs examination

I have made a comment at Talk:Cecil Rhodes#speculation vs examination. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

Cardinal Del Monte

I notice you've been editing the Del Monte article. You should include info from Creighton Gilbert's "Caravaggio and his Two Cardinals" - in addition to much info on Del Monte himself, it includes material on Caravaggio in Sicily. PiCo (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cowboy culture

Have made a useful addition to the article Cowboy. Doubt that it will stand. Visit while it's hot. PiCo (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Ganado

Contaldo80 - your allegations were deemed to be libellous. Do not pursue to lay such allegations or action will be taken to trace your identity.

Thanks for your interest in this article - but I would appreciate it if you at least gave me two minutes to tidy things before tagging it etc! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The only time i see article's, is the instant they are created. As of such, the only time i can tag an article is then. Maintenance tags such as the ones i added are not a thing to worry about really; A lot of article's have them. Its just a signal to fellow contributers that an article has a need for certain activities. In case the original contributer does not return, other people can take up the work required.

Of course, you are free to remove the tags altogether when they are no longer valid. Also, if i am placing maintenance tags such as those added, it is also a sign that the article is in ok shape, as i can be quite generous with placing WP:PROD, WP:CSD and WP:AFD templates at times as well :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cowboy culture

Your section seems very mature and balanced. Balanced in itself, but it touches on a wider question, which is the cowboy ethos (or do I mean mythos?). I don't think the article treats this at all at the moment, tho I haven't read it closely in a while. But the cowboys were just a specific manifestation of the all-male working societies which are always being created, in all sorts of environments - I'm thinking of the tramps and hobos of the Depression era, the military world throughout the ages, modern-day oilrig workers, the list would be endless. Sex, or sublimated sexual attraction, were/are a part of this, but only a part. It ties in with the "buddy" relationship - did that term first come into use in the West? probably not, but you see what I mean no doubt. And certain values, such as helping strangers (combined with a distrust of strangers also), and certain cultural practices, such as the creation of epics and legends (sit round the campfire at night and sing about the Yellow Rose of Texas, or in an earlier age, about King Arthur). In short, I think it could be simultaneously shortened and lengthened. PiCo (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

St. Lucy

Please note the Saint Lucy's Day article mentions: "Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Norway, Finland, Malta, Italy, Bosnia, Iceland, and Croatia" in the intro. Some of these are Scandinavian countries, others are not, therefore I have changed the text in the Saint Lucy article accordingly. The Saint Lucy's Day does need expansion to properly reflect the Southern European tradition of St. Lucy's Day which persists even among Italian-American communities on the East Coast. --Boston (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

more Rhodes

Re: This edit and the comment: (Think we reached consensus on this a while back.)

Yes, I agree. I also "Think we reached consensus on this a while back". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - as you can see this fell off my radar!! Only just got round to noticing. Also a bit worried about the text in the main body of the article about sexuality. I thought we had reached consensus amongst ourselves in June last year that we wouldn't go into too much detail but set out the issues as a marker. Comparing text to what we settled on then and what we have now it all looks quite different. There's a lot more repetition for example that says the same thing several times - not conclusive evidence etc. Also reduced the references to Pickering even further. Would appreciate your advice on whether it's worth me trying to argue for a reinstatement of what we had or if you think on balance the thing's not worth pursuing? Many thanks. And here's the June 2008 text below:

Rhodes never married, pleading that "I have too much work on my hands" and saying that he would not be a dutiful husband. However, several writers have suggested that there are convincing reasons to believe Rhodes may have been homosexual, although admittedly the amount of direct evidence is scarce. In particular, in discussing this issue the scholar Richard Brown observed: "there is still the simpler but major problem of the extraordinarily thin evidence on which the conclusions about Rhodes are reached. Rhodes himself left few details... Indeed, Rhodes is a singularly difficult subject... since there exists little intimate material - no diaries and few personal letters."

Brown also comments: "On the issue of Rhodes' sexuality... there is, once again, simply not enough reliable evidence to reach firm, irrefutable conclusions. It is inferred, fairly convincingly (but not proved), that Rhodes was homosexual and it is assumed (but not proved) that his relationships with men were sometimes physical. Neville Pickering is described as Rhodes' lover in spite of the absence of decisive evidence." According to a biography by A. Thomas, the "greatest love of Rhodes' life" was Pickering, also the son of a clergyman, who had moved to South Africa with his family. Rhodes and Pickering lived together in a cottage in what one government official referred to as an "absolutely lover-like friendship".[13] Rhodes’ devotion was evident when he rushed back from important negotiations for Pickering's twenty-fifth birthday in 1882; on that occasion, Rhodes drew up a new will leaving his entire estate to Pickering. Two years later, Pickering suffered a riding accident. Rhodes nursed him faithfully for six weeks, refusing even to answer telegrams concerning his business interests, yet Pickering died in Rhodes' arms; at his funeral, Rhodes wept hysterically.''

Contaldo80 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow reply. When I get a chance, I'll have a look - probably tomorrow. (Oh. It's past midnight. - probably later today.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, sorry about the delayed response, but (my) life seems to be a bit (lot) "like that" at the moment. (e.g. It's not midnight here yet, but it is 23:30 on a Friday night, and it has been a long week!) Never-the-less:

I thought we had reached consensus amongst ourselves in June last year that we wouldn't go into too much detail but set out the issues as a marker. - Yes. But one of the "joys" of WP is that it is a moving target. (i.e. Whatever the situation was last week, there's no guarantee that who-ever is around this week will have the same opinion(s).) So, although it's rather trite, the most functional response I can make is: "That was then. What's the situation now?" (My personal answer: "I don't know - I haven't been paying attention.")

Comparing text to what we settled on then and what we have now it all looks quite different. - If you say so. (I have no reason to doubt you, but as I said, "I haven't been paying attention".)

There's a lot more repetition for example that says the same thing several times. - Really? I'm looking at this:

Rhodes never married, pleading that "I have too much work on my hands" and saying that he would not be a dutiful husband.[12] However, some writers and academics[13] have speculated about the possibility that Rhodes may have been homosexual, although admittedly the amount of direct evidence is scarce. In particular, in discussing this issue the scholar Richard Brown observed: "there is still the simpler but major problem of the extraordinarily thin evidence on which the conclusions about Rhodes are reached. Rhodes himself left few details... Indeed, Rhodes is a singularly difficult subject... since there exists little intimate material - no diaries and few personal letters."[14]

Brown also comments: "On the issue of Rhodes' sexuality... there is, once again, simply not enough reliable evidence to reach firm, irrefutable conclusions. It is inferred, fairly convincingly (but not proved), that Rhodes was homosexual and it is assumed (but not proved) that his relationships with men were sometimes physical. Neville Pickering is described as Rhodes' lover in spite of the absence of decisive evidence."[14] Regardless of the nature of their friendship, Rhodes’ was clearly close to Pickering since he returned from negotiations for Pickering's 25th birthday in 1882; on that occasion, Rhodes drew up a new will leaving his estate to Pickering.[15]

I'm not disagreeing with you, (it's too late and I'm too tired), but I'm afraid I must be missing your point. In my current state of mind I haven't noticed a lot of repetition. (To be blatently honest, I haven't noticed ANY repetition - maybe I'm just too tired.) Hmmm - See PostScript!!

Also reduced the references to Pickering even further. - That one I am capable of having noticed! If you think it adds value to the article, and doesn't contravene your own criteria, then put it back in (with an edit summary that explains the reason for your addition).

Would appreciate your advice on whether it's worth me trying to argue for a reinstatement of what we had or if you think on balance the thing's not worth pursuing? - Well, as it happens, my personal opinion is "neither". I think I'd better explain!!

[Is it] worth me trying to argue for a reinstatement of what we had - Short answer: "No". Either reinstate it, or don't. But don't waste your time (and everyone elses) arguing about it first. You can't guess who will agree or disagree, and you can't guess the reasons of those who disagree. Decide what you want to do. Do it. Explain in the edit summary why you are doing it. Be willing to address the concerns of those who disagree with you, and be prepared for the fact that someone may actually have a reasonable concern. (Not every response is always from someone only interested in their own pov - just most of them ... ) If it helps you, I'm happy to back you up. Just don't forget to alert me if you feel you want my help. (Unless, of course, you are pushing an entirely stupid point-of-view, but to date I haven't seen any evidence of you doing anything like that.)

So what now? Well, you either have confidence in what you want to do, so do it. (But only if you are happy to defend it.)

Or you have reservations. (In which case you should ask questions of people who you trust to give you a useful answer.)

(BTW: If you prefer to discuss this with me out of the public eye, you can send me email.)

Good Luck! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

PostScript:

It is now daylight, and there's enough caffeine in my blood.

Yes, it is repetitive!!

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

PostPostScript: Never-the-less, I'm not sure that complete reversion is necessarily the best solution. I suggest you put there whatever you think fits best and is most consistent with the style of the article. If (in your view) reversion does that, go ahead. Just don't forget to indicate your rationale in the edit summary. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Howdy! Just doing my "end-of-month-housekeeping", and noticed that although it has been inactive, this conversation is still open. Did I supply the information you were seeking from me? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - it's me, I've been very slow in getting around to this!! I really do appreciate your comments though, and will use them to make changes to the Rhodes article. Thanks again for taking the time to look at this - much appreciated. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I actually enjoy interacting with people who are NOT arrogant, self-opinionated, and "know" that they are always right. I'm very happy to try to provide assistance whenever you want it and I'm able to provide it. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Edward II

Hi -- I agree with you about the first sentence (I queried the editor who removed it but got no response), but I'm less sure about the second. It seems unlikely that Edward III was actually given a choice in the matter, under the circumstances. Looie496 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Keeping cool

First, I would like to thank you for your constructive and helpful edits on English Wikipedia. I am concerned, however, that a contentious situation is developing between you and User talk:Radi0mania. Please remember that because we all communicate through typewritten text only (also remember that English is a second language for many users), it is easy to misunderstand another user's meaning or to read a different tone or more emotion into another user's comments than were intended. I'd like to ask you both to keep cool and take a moment to review WP:Etiquette and try to find a way to work together. I doubt either of you will go away, and I very seriously doubt either of you will change the other's mind, but if we all focus on improving the article's text and avoid taking a political stand, we may all be able to get along and improve the article by sticking to verifiable information. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I'm going to take your sensible advice and avoid rising to the bait, despite unwarranted insults from User talk:Radi0mania. I've made clear that I'm happy to debate the merits for and against category labels on the talk page if that is the wish. Best wishes. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhodes (again)

Good-O! Let's see how long it lasts unaltered this time! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice! I was a bit slow in getting it done - but got round to it in the end! Best wishes. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Edward Heath

Your edits on Edward Heath are sheer hearsay and innuendo. Please stick to wikipedia guidelines. Your desire to discredit a great man have no place in this archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.132.235 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• For info -Now magazine.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I do actually know. I was trying in fact to be ironic; and to make clear that I thought the comments made were rather impertinent and over-familiar. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misunderstood. --Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"impertinent and over familiar" from an unimportant wikipedia editor who is trying to ruin the reputation of a great man and former Prime Minister? If anyone is being impertinent it is you. Do you have no regard for his family with your scurrilous allegations or are you satisfied with your little piece of the internet? An encyclopedia is based on evidence you dullard. Beleive me you would never fulfill the criteria for a proper editor in a proper encyclopedia. Go back to your PS3.--86.155.105.72 (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone investigate this editor

Most of his edits are making unfounded accusations of homosexuality against various individuals. How can he be allowed to do this? Answer??--86.157.192.49 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

MILITANT GAY POV ACTIVIST

Ths user's only contributions to Wiki are slanderous accusations of Homosexuality against individuals. Perhaps someone should investigate her/him/it. Possible troll trying to harm the LGBT community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.26.172 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page Archives

P.S. (Unrelated) You might want to think about talk page archives. (And then again, you might not.) There are many ways to "skin that cat". From my biassed POV, the easiest solution is to create a sub-page like User talk:Contaldo80/Archive 1 (the standard) or User talk:Contaldo80/Archive 01 (my biassed preference), then with both this page and that one open in edit mode, "Ctrl-X" from this one, and "Crtl-V" to that one. If I'm being obscure, I'm happy to try to be less obscure (i.e. don't be shy about asking me to be less cryptic); also, there are heaps of examples to look at on most people's talk pages, should you feel the need. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - I hadn't realised how much debate I had generated! Contaldo80 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

archiving

If you want help setting up an archive just ping my talkpage. -- Banjeboi 22:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rhodes (again!)

Despite your disagreements, you and Wiki alf are doing a great job on Cecil - I haven't made an edit since February. Many thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:180px-Kard Scipione Borghese.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:180px-Kard Scipione Borghese.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)