Hello, Antique Rose, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ so others will know who left which comments.
And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
Ello there,
Pretty and plusgood user page you've got here, by-the-way. (=
Mmm, here's a rose from one of the articles I've made myself.. DrWho4203:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather go with the other picture ... "hosiery" is about more than women's stockings. It's a sexy picture but it's unique to a particular garment, while the other one suggested all the garments in the category (which include socks). Daniel Case20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was necessary to show hosiery being worn for people to recognize it. I suppose I could have taken some of my wife's pantyhose and added some unworn socks of my own, but I didn't think I could equal the aesthetic qualities of the Flickr image.
For now I've decided to keep the pic you put in, though (but I stil think it's a little too in-your-face sexy for a navbox. What I liked about the image I used in {{lingerie}} was that it suggests everything about lingerie without immediately being identifiable as a specific article of lingerie ... ditto with the pantyhose-off picture). But I think that if we ever have a separate hosiery brands navbox (always a possibility), we should use that one there. Daniel Case00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over your contribution history and per our recent discussions:
Hello, Antique Rose/Archive and thank you for your contributions on articles related to fashion. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Fashion, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of fashion and related articles on Wikipedia.
Thanks for your welcome. Wikipedia does seeom to have a vibrant (i.e. fights like cats and dogs) community. I'm looking forward to taking part in it. I'm off to find some things to gnomify now... --Archaro22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as an interesting example of synchronicity, I love roses and Latin (rosa rosa rosa est est). The garden of the house of my youth (I think there's a book in there somewhere) was filled with roses of many varieties, antique and modern. Sadly, I no longer live in a house with a rose garden. One day, though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaro (talk • contribs)
Thank you for your welcome. Wikipedia is HUGE! Anyways, I need to ask you a question, if it's okay. Is it possible to change your username?--Hanpingz23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in general. You sure get back to people quickly. In addition, how do you put images in your main user page? --Hanpingz23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up that Andrew Saul (ex-CEO of Cache and Brooks Bros.) has been nominated for featured article status here. Any input, comment and suggestions would be greatly appreciated, there is not that much info on him as it relates to the fashion industry, and being an !expert, I'm not quite sure how well I can flesh it out. Please feel free to comment and/or improve the article. Thanks! MrPrada21:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO such comparisons are POV. You can't create a reliable and trustworthy encyclopedia based on "feelings". Heinrich Himmler was responsible for millions of lives. I fail to see how one can compare this with the acts of Che Guevara. Antique Rose (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Che Guevara was quoted as saying in the London Daily Worker as "Had the missiles (referring to the missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis) remained we would have used them against the very heart of America including New York." This quote is in the very wikipedia article on Che. Using nuclear missiles against America would've undoubtedly taken millions of lives. So in that area there is a legitimate comparison of Che Guevara and Adolf Hitler. That said, I plan on returning to the Himmler article and mentioning Che Guevara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.118.69 (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted the administration against your vandalism acts and about jayjg, who must be the same person. Why don´t you contact the admistrator and do the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.238.83 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are deleting my contribution, which is an authentic contribution, since it cites documents and its sources. If you desagree with something, you discuss it, add more documents proving the contrary. Why don´t you contact the administrator to see what he thinks about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.238.83 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you reverted some changes on User talk:Qprods where the editor blanked the talk page of warnings with an edit summary of "rvv". I ran into this one time and it was explained to me that it is not vandalism to remove warnings from your own talk pages. From WP:Talk:
Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user.
Dear Antique Rose. Thank you for your help on the article about Robert Sungenis. This new editor has just come along and reproduced an entire article written for Sungenis verbatim in the body of the wiki article (130.13.217.229 ). He also keeps misstating the documented facts as to what has caused the controversies (it was not about Catholic dogma). And has made many statements that are clear pov and/or original argumentation.
I have a feeling he is not going to stop and be reasonable. I hope I'm wrong. I also noticed the other place he edits is the Heinrich Himmler article.
If he keeps at it, any help you can continue to provide is appreciated.
The Lingerie article-could somebody by any chances merge the section right within Hoisery, not mentioning Hoisery should be revamped and updated.
Atkinson 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Irish Princes Tombs
Why did you reverse my factual edit of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Pietro_in_Montorio regarding the Irish Princes tombs? The part that I replaced was incorrect. It still is incorrect, now that you reversed my edit.
For your reactivity today. I've lost any hope with this long run vandal. I had many accounts globally blocked yesterday by a Steward as I found quite many during my last IP check - I bet he did not like. Clem23 (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very long story. He used to be a user on fr:wp (and at a lesser extent nl:wp). He has strange behaviour but was able to contribute normally for more than 6 months. Then he was blocked for 2 weeks for heavy trolling and started insulting the sysops (it was mid-2006). The block was extended and he was coming back every day to insult and damage the encyclopedia in many different ways (wrong infos in the articles, fake articles). It became worse in february-march 2007 and since then he never really stopped (proxies, socks, seldom a week passes without a problem). I'm far from being his only target... He has 4-5 blogs also. He is just completely crazy, no other explanation has been found. Clem23 (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clem, I would strike the uncivil comments that you made above towards a user if I were you, especially considering you are currently in a bit of an altercation with them that has admin attention. Thanks in advance -t BMW c-11:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bwilkins, go and read that before talking about what you do not know. He promised many times to cut us into pieces (saying things sofly, I can translate you a few comments if you are still interested) - even Anthere (talk·contribs) had to do something (and was insulted also btw). This guy is completely crazy, I'm always stunned about the average low reactivity on en:wp about him (there are exceptions and very helpful people, fortunately). This guy is not only our problem - he is a global problem for all the project (even though he is doing more harm to fr:wp and nl:wp), sticking to stereotypes (be kind to him even though he is a vandal - with over 400 accounts should I state), closing the eyes or trying to defend him only hampers any efficient reaction. If you have something to tell me do not bother Antique Rose with that, I bet he had enough of MS stories for today. Clem23 (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Just wanted to let you know that I whole heartedly agree with your revert on CG in regards to the attempted insertion of blatantly hyperbolic & polemic external links. I'll be on the watch for an IP return and hope you will as well ;o). Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antique Rose, I am discussing this matter ONLY with Kan8eDie, or whatever the username was. Please understand that I know princess gowns exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.38.106 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP changes so quickly that we cannot block effectively; I was hoping to be able to convince her to stop herself. I am sorry for wasting some of your time on this too, but I have finally put in a request for semi-protection, which is the only thing we can really do now. A shame.— Kan8eDie (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. You know, I could repeatedly state that I know that purple pigs with ballet skirts and goggles exist in the jungles of Borneo, but I would have a very hard time proving this for a fact. Please read this. Antique Rose (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t know if the link is necessary or helpful, but again you are not telling the truth. Pancevo is mentioned several times in the posted link. See: chapter 4, chapter 5, and chapter 11.--Speidelj (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you haven't voted in the Models.com template deletion discussion, so since you were the first to comment on its need for being first via the talk page, I just thought I'd let you know in case you were interested in voting and just hadn't noticed. A number of points have been made so if you wanted to add your opinion, feel free, although it might get closed or re-listed soon. Mbinebritalk ←02:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I am on the verge of becoming anorexic, what should I do? I don't want to be fat but I don't want to worry my family. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.39.251 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trinity
There's a distinction to be made between interjecting something that is argumentative as if it was true and everyone agreed upon it, and noting the arguments and/or disagreements among various parties. In the article on the Trinity, in the section on logical coherency, I added a quote from an author, and I quoted it as his point of view. As such, it's not an argumentative point of view in the sense in which you're referring to, but rather an objective fact about one person's or groups' point of view. In other words, quoting someone's argument is not argumentative in the sense in which Wikipedia struggles against.
What I added is, in fact, much less argumentative than the sentences which preceed it- the 4 short opening sentences for instance which are quoted not as someone's opinion but as objective truth.
I'll include the edited section for your referece:
If God has compositional parts, they are either finite or infinite parts. If finite, then God is finite. If infinite, then there are multiple infinities. Each case becomes a denial of monotheism. The belief in compositional parts has been regarded as a heresy since the establishment of the Nicene Creed, and reaffirmed in Protestant Creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith which state "God has no parts."[79] T. Dougherty, however, in a recent work, argues that "compositionism" was the position most commonly adopted by Christians prior to the Arian controversy, and has consistently held sway among common believers. Dougherty argues that the traditional formulation of the doctrine in which each person is thought of as being equal to the whole essence contains a logical impossibility - "like trying to conceive of a 100-page book, each page of which is the entire book." [] In contrast, Louis Berkhof describes the doctrine of the Trinity requiring belief in a "simplex unity" and not a complex (or composite) being. "There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence" and "The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons."[]
If I had simply said "such and such is a logical impossibility" that would be argumentative, but it's a completely different story when you say "so and so believes such and such is a logical impossibility." I'll check back for your response. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.118.238 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright dude, I tried to tone it down a little. I myself am a Trinitarian, so no ridicule is intended. Let me know what you think. Also, check out the book that I footnoted if you're interested in the Trinity; it's really good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.44.85 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you could help me with the article for Robert Sungenis. An editor who has previously been reprimanded and who is also an associate of Robert Sungenis (Mark Wyatt - WyattMJ) has put warning signs that the article may be up for speedy deletion and other warnings. Is this justified? And can he simply put up a warning like that on his own authority? (Or did someone give him permission).
The article is the result of a lot of back and forth and careful research. Although there could be some things that are out of date or whatever. The last time he got involved it was as if Sungenis were writing the article himself. So I could use some direction and help if you would be so kind.
UPDATE - Sungenis' board member has apparently found a couple of sympathetic admins who have complete gutted the article. All the documentation is gone - including documentation from Sungenis' own articles. It's a travesty.
I appreciate your concern regarding this article. I really can't see why it should be deleted. The main thing here is to abide to the policies of BLP and provide the article with reliable and authoritative sources. Antique Rose (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maximillian Kolbe
www.auschwitz.dk/kolbe.htm
The link above is an Auschwitz site. As a devotee to Saint Kolbe, I have tried to correct the erronious prison number you keep listing for Kolbe. His number was 16770. Please correct this and have a blessed day.
207.108.136.239 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I wish you would have inserted this source when you edited the article. According to this source Kolbe's prisoner number was 16670. I'm sorry that I templated you, as I now see that you acted in good faith.
While this edit was unsourced and involved a fairly obvious conflict of interest, it didn't constitute the sort of obvious vandalism, blatant defamation, etc. that is acceptable to revert using rollback. Moreover, to reverse, without explanation, what was quite likely a good-faith attempt by the subject of a biography to correct an article about herself is just plain rude. Please don't do it again. Erik9 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Keep your hair on. :) Keeping WP:BLP in mind, I don't think I'm misusing the rollback function. But if my action was so wrong, how come no one reverted it? And by the way, are you quite sure that Refaeli is Bar Refaeli herself? Anyone can register that account. I don't appreciate you badmouthing me calling me "rude". Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Antique Rose (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the fact that User:Refaeli might not actually be Bar Refaeli herself, and that the edit cannot be reinstated, because it is unsourced. However, not every edit which should be reversed is, ipso facto, reversable using rollback. Per Wikipedia:Rollback_feature#When_to_use_rollback,
The 'rollback' links provided by Wikipedia's interface provide a standard edit summary of the form "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y". These should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users. Reversion for other reasons should be accompanied by an explanatory edit summary, and must therefore be done by a different method.
Especially in consideration of the possibility that Refaeliis Bar Refaeli herself, it would have been courteous to provide "an explanatory edit summary" when reverting the edit. Erik9 (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, if you insist on using the rollback button whenever reversion is necessary, your rollback privileges may be revoked. Erik9 (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will keep this in mind. But please respect the talk page guidelines when you're talking to or about me. Calling me "rude" is not in line with Wikipedia user conduct. Assume good faith and do not call people names. Antique Rose (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I explained and discussed them in Talk. Just because I removed a lot of material doesn't mean I'm vandalizing. As I said in the comment, those are supposed to be summaries that link to a main article. Somebody had basically copied all of the material from main articles into the summaries. For instance, there are two main articles on the Christian view of Jesus, which were linked to at the top of those sections, yet those sections duplicated it extensively. The "summaries" are longer than most articles. I don't really mind if someone reverts it--I sort of expect it. But, it should be someone who has read my explanation on the Talk page, and made an informed choice to disagree with me.Noloop (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your enlightening comment. I acted too hastily. I won't revert again. Nevertheless I think you should seek consensus before you make that kind of radical edit. Antique Rose (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits to the Leighton Meester personal life section. Wanted to inform you that certain vandals keep hitting the personal section in the Sebastian Stan article (ignoring the edit note about sourcing). I'd just appreciate knowing someone else was also keeping an eye on it if it's not too much trouble. Thanks. -- 4.249.87.88 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Multinational Force - Iraq. 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. I understand that there are reliable sources on both sides of the issue. I am not making a decision on this, but I'm quite sure that this is an edit war over the reliability of sources, and not blatant vandalism. Therefore, WP:EW applies. I suggest you pursue dispute resolution, starting with a discussion on the article talk page.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I understand your comment, but I was merely removing incorrect information provided by cross-wiki vandals 190.10.0.121 and 201.198.133.51, both Costa Rican IP addresses and maybe proxies. I have tried to reason with them, but they have insisted on reverting the article. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information isn't necessarily incorrect - they've got good sourcing to back it up - and the IPs are not proxies as far as I can tell. The IP is most likely a shared IP, and may well be reallocated on a regular basis. Try and engage in a friendlier manner rather than using phrases such as "Please, do NOT continue your rabid edit war.", which will only foster resentment. Remember to assume good faith when discussing with them, but these aren't vandal edits, and we shouldn't treat them as such. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Antique Rose, I admit that I was wrong. It doesn't have to be "princess" to be fit for a princess. I tend to switch networks based on my location. I offer a truce. Do you accept?--142.68.39.79 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Antique Rose, the issue I was trying to address was that while it may be true that 'Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people', many of those people (like me a baptised
Catholic) have not practised their faith for many years. So while the Church still regards them as lapsed members and include them in the count, it is potentially highly misleading for the majority of people reading Wikipedia who do not appreciate the distinction between practising and lapsed Catholics and will come away thinking there are 1.147 billion of the former in the world. In fact, if that were true one in six of the world's population would be attending weekly Mass. That was why I tried to qualify the figure with an admittedly vague statement (not having the global figures for practising Catholics: does anyone?) and when that was reverted I suggested we add the word 'baptised'.Haldraper (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for explaining your train of thought to me. How would you like to rephrase the wording, in detail? But, then again, how does one define "practising" Catholic. What does it take to qualify as a "practising" Catholic? Is there a universal definition? If I follow the minimum of requirements of the Church – does that make me a practising Catholic? AntiqueRose — Drop me a line20:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of your edits are quite good. However, I think a few of the earlier edits that you called 'controversial' and without reference were more or less correct based on the rest of the article. For example, in the opening paragraph, there is no mention of the scientific queries or the position of the scientific community at large. Being the first paragraph, it serves as an overview and should therefore at least mention the position that opposes the more common belief.
I have added a sentence that I think completes the opening paragraph and provides a clue of what is to come later in the passage. I would be pleased to hear if my addition better suits your expectation of a fair, and complete overview.
OK. Your addition seems to balance the article. Although, in matters as delicate as these, it's very important to cite your sources. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line22:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! :-) By the way, in my opinion, I believe that where men were semi-formal clothes, women wear cocktail dresses. For black tie, I assume they wear very simple gowns. For white tie, women wear ball gowns. Finally, I believe evening gowns go along with men's formal wear that does not fall under "white tie" and/or "black tie". Very logical, eh? ;-D--142.68.14.128 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Luis Carlos Galán
May I know who in the world you are and for which reason you keep deleting my contributions on "Luis Carlos Galan"? I even cited the newscast broadcast in which those facts were announced so what do I need to do for you to leave my contributions alone? Do you have any grounds to refute my contributions? Sithknight1 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Antique Rose, and I have deleted the "fact" about Galán's suit once. Is that information notable? The source given for your edit – "Newscast - Noticias RCN Colombia - Air date 08/18/2009 - Noon edition" is nearly impossible to verify. Could you provide a hyperlink? AntiqueRose — Drop me a line01:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a wikipedia expert so maybe you can teach me a thing or two. Basically what you're trying to say is that for anything to be posted on wikipedia it needs to be online somewhere else? Because the main reason I posted this contribution was that this fact was aired on a newscast yesterday (Which was the 20th anniversary of Galan's assassination) and I realized this fact (Which I found very interesting) was nowhere to be found online. So I thought: What better place than wikipedia to post this fact online for the first time ever?
So shall I assume then, than if something is said on the news, let's say on the radio or on TV, even if one cites the source and airdate of said radio or TV broadcast, if it's not online as well it can't be posted on wikipedia?
And one more question: Let's say for the sake of argument that I taped this news broadcast. Copyright law prevents me from posting this online so other people can verify it. But let's say, for argument's sake that I set up a videoconference with you and show you the broadcast. So you go: "ok, it's verified". And leave the post like it was in the beginning. So does this mean that for my contribution to be left alone indefinitely I'm gonna have to hold onto this tape and set up daily web conferences with every single wikipedia user that feels like challenging the validity of the post? Because if that's the case, wikipedia is not the sum of all human knowledge as it's touted to be. It would be nothing more than the sum of all the internet. And it would be inspiring to think than the boundaries of human knowledge go beyond those of the web.
Thank you for your comments! Well, Wikipedia is pretty much all about verifiability. Information, especially biographical, has got to be verifiable, i.e. anyone should be able to check the sources provided for any kind of information. You cite "Noticias RCN Colombia" when writing about the suit Galán was wearing when he was assassinated. I don't mistrust you, but it would be great if the editors and readers of Wikipedia could be given access to this source. Does RCN Colombia have a website? Or, maybe you could consider linking to the Colombian National Museum. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you know! I Found it!!!!!! I have edited my contribution to include a link to a video site where you can see the broadcast. If you're interested, look at the video, pause it at 3 minutes and 14 seconds and take a closer look, just after Galan's widow speaks to the camera. You can see a close - up of the Ugo Pellegrini's label on the inner lapel of the suit. Thanks for all your help and guidance on this. Like I said, I'm pretty new to the way wikipedia works but I thought this was an interesting fact, nowhere to be found on the web. Cheers! Sithknight1 (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Antique Rose! This is the first time I've ventured into religion-themed articles, precisely because I was afraid of fighting for NPOV. I understand religious passion, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It should describe a person completely, not from one POV. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, you advise me to refer to talkpage, but you never respond. Why? If you keep ingoring my requests for discussion, what option will I have beside edit war? Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about my excitement; judging by your edit summaries, you shouldn't be getting more excited. I am trying to reach a consensus; if you continue your POV edit war while ignoring my requests for discussion, you'll end up being blocked much sooner. Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is he an administrator or someone who can block me? No. His opinion about my attempts to achieve neutrality is just as much important to me as is yours. I don't what I did to deserve animosity on your part. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you confuse animosity with my intention to keep the articles about the Blessed Virgin Mary and her Son in accordance with NPOV. If your edits also were NPOV, they wouldn't suffer reversion each time. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line23:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you confuse the article about the Blessed Virgin Mary with Mary (mother of Jesus) and the article about Jesus with the article about Christian views of Jesus. Just a correction to your last sentence: if my edits were also your POV, they wouldn't suffer reversion each time. I cannot understand how someone who respects and venerates Mary and Jesus wants the articles about them to be less than fine; a biased article will never be fine. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A biased article will never be fine." I totally agree, and that's way your edits are reverted. Ridiculing the Christian faith will take you nowhere. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line09:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now your reversion of my edit is reverted by a sensible user who doesn't think that I am ridiculing the Christian faith. You seem to be another user fond of calumny and ridiculous accusations, which is why I will not bother asking why you think that I am ridiculing the Christian faith. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering if you have a reference as to when Kiss became Kiss? I believe that you are correct that it was January of 72, but if you look at the opening sentence of the article it says December of 73. If we could source it it would make life easier for everyone. Thanks J04n(talk page)21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Gerbe stockings.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.orgor a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Gerbe stockings.jpg.
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Pjacobi (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for the boilerplate. The real copyright is clearly by the photographer having done the artwork for the package. Re-photographing it doesn't create an independent work. --Pjacobi (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's in effect a reproduction of another photograph. One has to aim for some reasonable middle ground or otherwise no product package could ever be shown, but in this case it was too obvious. Perhaps of fan of boxes, so that no cover art is visible in full, would be OK. But I'm not an expert where the actual boundary is to be drawn, only had noticed this (unfortunately) very clear case. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personalism
Hi, is Herman Van Rompuy not a notable personalist? He gives conference on this subject in his life. And I think we can consider him as a notable person, can't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.58.109 (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it didn't help my efforts to try and get those folks to discuss the merits of their change instead of going on reverting. Amalthea15:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am showing that it came to me that receptions can be for anything. Evening gowns are worn to balls, right? I think ball gowns are rather old-fashioned, designed for dancing rather than formal occasions. Apart from all dresses, a dinner gown worn to semi-formal events like a state dinner, maybe. It is more formal than a day dress but less formal than an evening gown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.137.211 (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you happen to have born into a christian society doesn't make Atheism nonsense. Your belief in dogmatic faith is the actual nonsense. Be aware that 4 billion + people like at christinaity the same way you look at the worship of Zeus or Thor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.152.87 (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you cited as your reason for removing the source as it being a violation of This policy however it is not. World Press Review is a reputable news source. and according to the policy that you cited this is the rule ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." this is the case with the source i listed, it was written usccb and world press had editorial oversight, it meets the burden required by the rule you cited. I am putting it back in, it is valid.Smitty1337 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nevermind sorry to bother you, i should have finished reading the policy before going off half-cocked, for living people they are forbiden i'll go remove it again Smitty1337 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain in more detail why CE is an incorrect date format? I noted from your comment that some other articles use AD rather than CE, but what does that have to do with this article? Are their guidelines as to what type of article should use one or other other date format? Atom (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS, "Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it." What would you think about removing the AD for most of the places it is used in that article? Atom (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a tad confused right now. Maybe you were right from the beginning. Should we make this change in all articles with BC/AD then? AntiqueRose — Drop me a line03:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing back pantyhose content removed in cleanup
I am new to this editing process so if I'm not doing it right on this talk page, let me know. In response to what I added, all I'm adding is a fact that disputes the argument of the arrest. I'm not changing the article stating that an arrest might have occurred, but adding a response made by a former producer and lawyer that personally knows Dobrev. Back in September of 2009, Wikipedia added the arrest story and the response made by the producer. Then, the whole thing including the arrest was deleted. Now that the alleged arrest story is back, I thought I'd include the response made by the producer. I respectfully disagree that it was spam. Maybe it's the sources I'm using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlphilly (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to biographies of living persons, reliable sources are especially important. You may read about this here -->> Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Blogs, twitter and facebook are generally not considered to be reliable sources. Maybe we should consider deleting the arrest story from the article in question. Best regards AntiqueRose — Drop me a line19:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried using other sources, but they also seem to be eliminated. I didn't want to change the entire article, because it seemed to be a more radical change rather than contibuting something that just adds a different interpretation. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlphilly (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Audrey Hepburn
Can you please do a reference check on Audrey Hepburn. It's not well known but Audrey Hepburn did have Jewish heritage. It's stated in biographies and Internet searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.113.128 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in discussions going on here [1] and [2]. If not don't worry about it. I just thought I would inform you of the situation. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk03:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find. Before heading for bed last night I suddenly thought that I remembered an editor from a few years ago attempting to add in this Jewish stuff. I did a brief scan through the edit history but didn't find it. I may not have had enough time to go back far enough. Oh well back to normal editing for the moment. Have a good one. MarnetteD | Talk11:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith
An IP was trying to add info to an article but you warned as a test edit here. The user unnecessarily felt "bullied" and was turned off by joining Wikipedia. Please do not use that kind of templating unless it is obvious vandalism. Thank you – Tommy[message]01:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I Believe
With all due respect, you can't change what I believe. Although I respect how strict Wikipedia is and have recently changed aticles to look make Wikipedia-like, I still believe what I believe about fairy tales, especially Princess Aurora. She is my favorite Disney Princess and the most beautiful. I just want you to know that I still have my beliefs about what Princess Aurora wears; she does live in a fairy-tale world after all. Please don't try to change I believe. Thank you. --99.192.48.29 (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! You say that you want to write what "you believe". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an emotional playground. If I believe that Mickey Mouse is a real mouse and lives in northern Nigeria, people would revert my contributions and eventually block me from editing Wikipedia. Your edits have been reverted many times, and you have also been blocked before. Please, do not continue with your fairytale-inspired edits. These incorrect edits of yours will only be reverted, by me, or some other editor. I am so sorry to have to say this, but you're only wasting your time. If you want to write about what "you believe" about fairytales, please, start your own website. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line15:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not writing any of it anymore. Not on Wikipedia. I'm just asking that you respect what I believe. Nothing else. I already said before, I know Wikipedia is strict. Please don't tell me what to believe.--99.192.48.29 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling you what to believe. You're free to believe whatever you choose, but you can't write that on Wikipedia. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of the empire waist silhouette myself, but what is column exactly? Also, the article states that a ball gown always has a full skirt and a strapless bodice.--142.177.24.80 (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article says the evening gown can be any shape, and sheath is one of them, along with mermaid, A-line, and trumpet, and empire must be one as well. But how can a trumpet shape be described, exactly?--142.177.24.80 (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out that trumpet shaped means that the gown is tight fitting and flares out at the knees. So those four plus empire, dropped waist, and princesse (hanging in an unbroken line from shoulder to flared hem). Thanks for your help though. :-) --99.192.64.133 (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added sections to the evening gown article explaining 7 different styles: sheath, mermaid, A-line, trumpet, empire, dropped waist, and princesse. Thanks for your help! :-) --99.192.94.246 (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Antique Rose. I note that you have reverted the recent moves of the Rome rioni. A new naming convention for Italy was agreed a year ago, under which all Italian placename articles, if they need to be disambiguated, should be placed under Placename, Region. The policy is clearly set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Italy. You should also note that disambiguating by parentheses is deprecated for placenames. Your reverts are directly contrary to these guidelines. I note that you also claim there are lots of villages called 'Borgo' in Lazio. There may be, but either they have no articles on English Wikipedia, and are therefore irrelevant when considering disambiguation; or they are not simply named 'Borgo', and therefore do not need to be disambiguated. Please abide by the convention that was agreed and arrange for an administrator to undo your reverts. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the discussion that led to the new convention concluded that frazioni (the equivalent in the rest of Italy of Rome's rioni) should be treated the same way as comuni or any other placename in Italy. I hope the above doesn't come across as too harsh a tone. I know only too well how difficult it is to keep up with naming conventions, particularly when they change, and have been caught out myself before now. However, the article moves did provide a link to the convention in the History. A side effect of your reverts, by the way, has been that the appropriate article is no longer highlighted in the Rioni of Rome template at the bottom of the page. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, but I wasn't aware of this new naming convention. Could you please show me the discussion about frazioni, rioni and comuni? AntiqueRose — Drop me a line01:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and find it—it's hidden in the archives somewhere. I had to find it for someone else a couple of weeks back, so shouldn't be too hard! Skinsmoke (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to clean up the article a bit... It's way TOO messy. And you are being just plain rude reverting my hard work on trying to make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharee (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 July 2010
I noticed you're having problems with this user too. I've been monitoring their contributions for the past half hour or so, and I noticed that they were contributing to this userspace (both of the userspaces look to be test pages for the discography of some unknown person named Alexis Free). That and the fact that the usernames are similar makes me think that this person is violating WP:SOCK. What do you think? –Chase (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
According to the Britannica Online Encyclopedia, a princess gown is made out of fitted sections of material and is worn over a crinoline and flares out at the hem. Sounds princessy, I think. I just thought I let you know about what I found. I hope you like it. --99.192.78.218 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listen. Forget what I wrote before. I should have said "princess style dress" rather than "princess gown". As far as I'm concerned, princess gowns are only in fairy tales. Especially for Princess Aurora. You don't think that is too far-fetched, do you?--99.192.53.47 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you're right that there is a certain princess style or a princess cut, and not a princess gown or princess dress per se. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line21:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:UP#CMT and WP:DRV, and remove the IP notice on Xnacional's talk page. He's an obnoxious editor whom I'm glad is blocked, but he's well within his right to remove any such notice -- esp. since our (yes, I agree with you) supposition about him being the same IP editor hasn't been confirmed by a WP:RFCU. --EEMIV (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As for his habits: he has all the tendencies of Wikipedia's version of someone who wants to commit suicide by cop: doing everything he can do to garner a block. --EEMIV (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Re this edit: users are allowed to remove warnings and even block notices from their own talk pages, and reverting them tends to lead to unnecessary edit wars. There are only a few exceptions - see WP:BLANKING. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm trying to shorten the article on evening gowns, but someone doesn't see that the history of the gown is already linked in the article. And different styles don't need to be explained. How can I change that? --142.177.31.186 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How come the article has to be shortened? I must say that both the history section and the different styles section are adequate and belong in the article. Maybe you should try to edit other articles than dresses and imaginary figures. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line01:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I sound like I don't have a life, but I just don't think that list of different cuts is the best. The style should be explained in paragraph format. :( --142.177.31.186 (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the anonymous editor you've been dealing with there hasn't exactly been helpful, but I'd ask you to be careful. Edits like this, while obviously disruptive when they're made repeatedly and without consensus, really aren't vandalism as defined by Wikipedia. You've made five reverts in the last 24 hours (breaching the three revert rule) and you also used rollback to do it without edit summaries. From what I've seen that editor means well but is young and doesn't really get it - it may be overall friendlier if you request the article be semi-protected in future rather than edit warring over it. Thanks in advance, I hope you understand. ~ mazcatalk18:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but let me inform you that several users, including myself, have tried to reason with this Nova Scotia user. It's no doubt that the user in question is young, but he/she makes disruptive edits and edits that are totally incorrect. This particular user has been editing for a couple of years from Nova Scotia IP addresses, ranges 99.192.xxx.xxx, 216.118.xxx.xxx, 142.68.xxx.xxx, and most of them have been blocked. The editor is young, but we cannot have special rules for young editors. If you take a look at the revision history for the dress article, keeping these IP ranges in mind, you will see this case in a different light. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line20:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put some things in the article explaining where evening gowns are worn and two more different silhouettes. I personally think the ballroom dancing silhouette is the most beautiful. Hope you approve! --216.118.148.124 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus edit
Hi,
Regarding my edit to the Jesus article, I reverted the edit because there were several unexplained changes which completely changed the meaning of the sentences, and re-arranged the entire lead section, as well as adding a paragraph that is both inaccurate and unencyclopedic.
Why did you revert all my changes to Immanuel Kant with the comment "please do not alter what the sources say". Came across very high handed and arrogant. My edit makes much more sense. I can't see where I've altered what the sources say. Even if your case has value that doesn't justify reverting all the edits. Please provide further justification or I'll revert to my last edit. Leonig Mig (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the coronation gown article is not its own. Instead of making a new article, they claim it falls under "evening gown" what in fact it doesn't. Coronation gowns are worn in a coronation ceremony by a soon-to-be queen. Can you see that it gets its own article? --216.118.143.198 (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you again, but I just want to let you know that I believe that balls in honor of a princess, called "princess balls" exist in fairy tales. I also believe that princesses wear princess ball gowns to them. That's not too far-fetched, is it?
I just recently realized that ball gowns are for princesses in fairy tales. When I think of a ball, I think of a fairy tale. And real-life formal events, elegant as they may be, will never have the magic that balls do. It just came to me that princesses in fairy tales were ball gowns to their balls. It was the right one - all along and I didn't even know it! How could I not know all this time? :-D --142.68.138.136 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving Wikiepedia. All of you are so mean! You act as if you know everything! Well, guess what? YOU DON'T! I'm leaving! And 1 more thing, Aurora's eyes ARE violet! And if you are too arrogant to think that I just might be right about something simply because of one problem at one time, then that's your fault! I'm leaving so you can't bully me anymore! >:-0
You have left Wikipedia a number of times, and you have always returned. I'm sorry, but if you can't abide with the encyclopedical rules of Wikipedia, maybe Wikipedia isn't for you. And by the way, your editing antics and regular outbursts may be interpreted as troll behaviour. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line09:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've calmed down. Here's another way. Here is the link. Step by step.
1. Go to Google.ca
2. Type in "Disney Princess Beauty Parlour"
3. Click on the top link.
4. The page comes up. You will see the princess's names lined up on the side of the page. Click on Aurora.
5. Look at "Eye Color" and at the pictures and there you go.
I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!
It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!
Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate.
I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why I have been visited upon with this template. The main reason for my reverting the article Tamara Toumanova was the disruptive and vandalising edits of a IP hopping POV pushing user. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line19:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand. Am I recommended not to act, if any IP or user account sock continues to remove cited references? On the AN3 page you described these edits as wandering into vandal territory. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line15:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there seems to be no consensus whether the removal was vandalism or not. 176.14.208.162 and its sock 85.141.14.195 removed seven sources, and Jim1138 and Denisarona reverted the removals to begin with. Apparently I'm not the only one judging the removals as vandalism. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line18:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one can, but I don't. The first sentence of WP:VAN states: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The blocked user, now using a different IP address, repeatedly removed several reliable sources. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
November 2011
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Saint Peter, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Changing the scope of a claim from Catholic tradition to accepted with sufficient universality not to qualify it exceeds the range of the minor edit tag. If you are from appropriate environs (or even if you aren't), Happy Thanksgiving. Novangelis (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bust of Giovanni Vigevano 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 good 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.
Whenaxis (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
