Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:28, 25 July 2012

Welcome

Talkback

Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits 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". Thank you. Nymf _hideliho! 06:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your help.

Montalban (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Gen. George Thomas

I re-edited the article to put back in

In 1831 Thomas and his family were nearly caught up in the slave revolt of Nat Turner. Whilst some repressive acts were enforced following the crushing of the revolt, Thomas took the lesson another way, seeing that slavery was so vile an institution that it had forced the slaves to act in violence.

Yes, Turner was mentioned in the previous article, but nothing about Thomas' life-changing reaction to slavery following the revolt

Montalban (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you at least for putting the information in the correct location. Please provide a page number citation or remove it. It is unfortunate that Bobrick is now introduced as a reference to the article because his book is really a substandard biography and I have avoided citing him up until now. I have balanced his opinion with that of a more reliable biographer, IMHO. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a number of references given on the General G. Thomas entry that only have an author, such as "Einolf". I think these need to be proper (more academic) references, with book title and publisher details.

Thanks for the page number. These are abbreviated cites that are read in conjunction with the full publication details in the References section, as we do in hundreds of ACW articles. See User:Hlj/CWediting#Citations and Footnotes. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, just so you know, on en.wikipedia, User:Hlj literally wrote the manual of style for military biography. So if Hal makes a suggestion as it regards style, he knows what we've been doing better than anyone. Doesn't necessarily mean he's correct in every circumstance, but he's an extremely respected editor in this interest area. Just FYI. BusterD (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to discuss issues in talkspace as opposed to via personal message. No offense intended. I agree Cimprich was a disappointing read. I was hoping for more than a half page devoted to his upbringing. Sorry I couldn't provide more or better help. BusterD public (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your PM about Lee

Blame this fellow. He started the hero worship. The Lost Causers developed this entire mythology about Lee. Lee was a special soldier and demonstrated his enormous resourcefulness and value as early as 1847. His successful ACW campaigns gave him a legendary status. But if Lee had been born at Arlington instead of Stratford, he might have stayed in the Union Army and the war would have likely lasted a much shorter time. And but for a horseshoe nail (so to speak), it might have been W.W. Loring, not Jackson, who became Stonewall. But as my late father used to say, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bust his ass a'hoppin'. BusterD (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm living the adage of 'learning a new thing every day'. Montalban (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That's my whole life, brother. Thanks for the morsel. BusterD (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

??

Would you like some help? LoveMonkey (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Co-Redemptrix as Church doctrine?

Your comparison of the papal infallibility theory before 1870 with the "co-redemptrix" title of the Mother of God today is a good one. The co-redemptrix theory is not yet (if it ever will be) a Church doctrine now, but only a theory that (some) Catholic theologians hold and that they explain in different ways, and that other Catholic theologians deny on different grounds. If it is ever raised to the status of Church doctrine, the definition of the doctrine will clarify in what sense the Theotokos can be called co-redemptrix, as happened in 1870 when the theory that (some) theologians had been maintaining was clarified, so that the Church doctrine excludes the idea that every doctrinal statement by a pope is infallible.

Would you please explain what is "the English remonstrance to Parliament" that you write about? What were the English remonstrating about? Was it during Pitt's first or his second period as Prime Minister? Since you say Pitt was making suggestions to the remonstrators with a view to granting Catholic emancipation, they surely weren't remonstrating against the Act of Union with Ireland, passed during Pitt's first period as Prime Minister, or were they? Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You know what they're writing about - you even changed the article (improving it) by adding in that it was about Catholic Emancipation. Montalban (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't know what the English (which English?) were remonstrating about. Please let me know. Esoglou (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha!

Montalban (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge papal heresy?

Hey again if you haven't read him already you should read Ross' stuff on the papacy. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Heres another article or two that could us some touching up..Latin Empire and Massacre of the Latins.

Thanx again LoveMonkey (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

HMAS Australia (D84)

-- saberwyn 02:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about User:Esoglou at ANI

Hello Montalban. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request experimental lifting of edit restriction on Esoglou. If you have an opinion on lifting Esoglou's editing restriction from Orthodox articles you can join the discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

East West Schism

Please come to the East West schism article Monti. To reflect some more upon the edit warring of the Esoglou, Richard tag team edit warriors of the Roman Catholic church! LoveMonkey (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Are those papists causing trouble again? ;-) – Lionel 03:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

....What is being said and also ignored by senior people at Misplaced Pages. People post concerns and those concerns get brushed away out of hand, ignored or punished. Please read the article Monti. You know its true and the comments from Ed today validate what the ZDNet article says. Your wasting your personal time and your energy and anyone can go to my talkpage and see the times you have posted your frustration at the double standard and how Esoglou and Pseudo Richard can pick apart (with absolute immunity) what your trying to contribute.. It is clear that Misplaced Pages will not confront others editors and they instead will put their heads in the sand and ignore that they are either directly abusing people or enabling other editors they will not confront to abuse people. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Any friend of LoveMonkey is a friend of mine

– Lionel 03:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Saints Sergius and Bacchus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Cúchullain /c 12:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Bobrick, B, (2009) "Master of War: The Life of General George H Thomas"