User talk:Carolus

There is no wikipedia standard to justify the inclusion of a paragraph of untranslated Latin in a wikipedia article. You seem to insist on doing this. I've noticed it in a number of articles, always with a motu proprio as the subject. And not only is the block of Latin text unjustifiable, the first paragraph is often of little interest, even in English. It's often possible to write a quality article about a motu proprio without mentioning the first paragraph except to point out that the Latin title comes from the opening phrase.

Please think about this and where you got the idea that this is a "standard". I haven't seen anyone else do it and can't imagine a reason for it. Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it njustifies the name of the title, and otherwise nobody understands the meaning of the name.--Carolus (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not do that at all! And it doesn't take 75 words of Latin. What the user needs is an explanation that the title comes from the opening words. Providing the sentence without the explanation means the user has to catch the fact that the first two words match the title. Why not just say it? If you read the third sentence of the entry for Ingravescentem aetatem you will see I've provided that. It says:

The Latin title is taken from the opening words of the document, which mean "increasing age".

That's something a reader can understand and it's all the reader needs. Why doesn't that suffice? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really are insulting some other people who are not familiar with roman Catholic teaching, Doctrine and traditions. The really difficult matter of motibus propriis needs al the context in the article possible. Other people, who can understand latin, do take benefit as well.--Carolus (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was an article that I helped clean up when you first created it (grammar and spelling mostly) so it's on my watchlist. I would agree with Bmclaughlin the Latin text does nothing to help the reader understand the article. This can only interest those that read Latin. It was published in Italian why chose the Latin text and not the Italian one? I am sure there are many more readers that understand Italian than Latin. Domdeparis (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wel you can put the latin text in a foot note, not in main text?--Carolus (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to the Latin text in the EL, with the exception of your own edits none of the other pages in this category have any of the latin text in it (with the exception of the title). What is important is the description I believe. Maybe if you want more advice then the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism is a good place to go.Domdeparis (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I removed the text because when I was looking at the link I realised that at the bottom of the page it states it is copyrighted "© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana" and copying a large chunk is WP: COPYVIO. If you have done the same in other articles you should remove the text yourself please. Domdeparis (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carolus, I see that on a very large number of articles with French-language titles, you have added the category Category:French words and phrases. That isn't actually the correct use of that category, which is intended for articles about the word or phrase. For example, "Honi soit qui mal y pense", but not hors d'oeuvre, mousse, etc., which are articles about things which happen to have French or French-derived names. I have started reverting your additions, but I'd appreciate it if you'd also check them yourself. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Al-Waleed bin Talal, I have now twice needed to revert your changes. Yesterday[1], you produced the sentence (as the start of a section) "in 2002 and is a recipient of the Lebanese On 2 December 2009, that year he [...]" That's not simply a missing word, that is repeated cut-and-paste and simply leaving the remainder to rot.

Today[2] you removed <ref name=alwaleed>{{cite web|title=Medals Received by Al waleed bin Talal|url=http://www.alwaleed.com.sa/awards/medals/|work=Al Waleed official website|accessdate=10 August 2013|year=2002}}</ref> and changed <ref name=abankers>{{cite web|title=Prince Alwaleed bin Talal |url=http://www.arabbankers.org/my/shared/custompage/custompage.jsp?_event=view&_id=445505_c_sU127360_s_i133603 |work=Arab Bankers Association of North America |accessdate=18 July 2013 |date=2 December 2002 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050511183620/http://www.arabbankers.org/my/shared/custompage/custompage.jsp?_event=view&_id=445505_c_sU127360_s_i133603 |archivedate=11 May 2005 }}</ref> to <ref>http://www.arabbankers.org/my/shared/custompage/custompage.jsp?_event=view&_id=445505_c_sU127360_s_i133603</ref>.

The result was that other calls of ref name alwaleed generated a bright red "cite error" in the references", and that you removed the working sources and kept a "404 page not found" source which of course can't verify anything.

Considering that this is twice in a row that your edits made the article worse instead of better, it would be best if you just left it well alone. Fram (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wel then, you fix this mess, Honours and awards are not the same, the things written now are wrong.--Carolus (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I don't think you understand what Fram is saying. the idea of creating a section for awards and honours is not in itself a bad thing, the problem is that you are copying and pasting sections that have reference names in them and when you did that the reference disappeared and a red cite error message. He reverted the edits to clean that up because you made a series of edits and it was too much of a mess to correct manually. If you use the visual editor then there is less likelihood of committing the same errors. Domdeparis (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand very wel what he says, but if he can fix it for me? then everyone is happy?--Carolus (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...or you can do it yourself without creating the red cite error...but that's just a suggestion of course. Domdeparis (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...or someone can teach me? --Carolus (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been prompted to action on this article. It would be useful if you could expand the cryptic reference "RD1932". Eustachiusz (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Decree of 1932.--Carolus (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good - where are those to be found? Eustachiusz (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Moniteur Belge of that year. Do not ask disruptive questions. This is legal matter of tghe Belgian state, do not ask me to explain a belgian law, i am not a jurist.--Carolus (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Prince Axel of Denmark. You've been asked several times not to use cryptic references, as you did here. It is disruptive to continue to make the same edits after being asked to stop. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not stupid, so don't pretend that you are. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have once again done explicitly what you were told not to do[3]. You are therefore blocked. You may be unblocked once you agree to stop editing disruptively. DrKay (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they 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. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1790 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to include your factoid in article on Eugene Broerman you must properly source it, i.e., provide some link to a proper source for authenticating what you claim to be a royal decree. You have no justification for undoing the remainder of the article, which IS properly sourced. If you do it again I will report it as vandalism. Eustachiusz (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

royal decrees are published in the Moniteur of that day, simple.--Carolus (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. It was obstructive of you not to say that when I asked you previously - see above. Please now provide some sort of link to the Moniteurs, so that they are checkable. There is no reason for anyone to trust these dates unsupported.
2. For the second time you have undone all the rest of my correctly-sourced edits in order to replace yours, and this is still vandalism (and very lazy bad-mannered editing). Eustachiusz (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, and please do not ask stupid questions, if you do not know what a royal decree is.--Carolus (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people do outside Belgium. The rules of sourcing still apply, even to you, as do all the other Wikipedia conventions that you don't observe (date-formatting, for one among many). I can tell quite clearly from this and from the other complaints above what sort of editor you are and that you will never take the trouble to fix your screw-up on the article but at least leave it alone when I clear up your mess - unless even that is beyond you. Eustachiusz (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Carolus, thanks for creating Jean de Brouchoven, 2nd Count of Bergeyck!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've worked on your article Jean de Brouchoven adding categories and birthdate. Please check the categories. I also suggest you to add more information to you article using other language versions. Good luck with your edits! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Charles IV Maximilien de Lalaing. Since you had some involvement with the Charles IV Maximilien de Lalaing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maubeuge Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rockox family has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One notable member (who has a well-deserved article), and they married a few somewhat notable persons. But no evidence that that the family as a whole was notable. "The family is still famous for being the protector of Rubens and other artists." No, Nicolaas Rockox is famous for this. The family wasn't noble (Rockox was the first and last who was knighted), they weren't important politicians (only Nicolaas) or art partons (only Nicolaas)... There seems to be some pattern here ;-)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean Pateau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Pateau until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Zawl 15:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add categories to biographies for things the persons aren't really noted for or which aren't defining characteristics. You have added Category:Hunters to some high nobility articles like here and here when the hunting isn' even mentioned in the article and is not an important fact anyway. See WP:NONDEF. Fram (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your issue, Fram, but "high nobility" is not a correct term for the 2 examples you gave. The one is a member of a deposed royal house for whom anacronistic royal titles can be used as a courtesy, the other is a current king. Thus they are not nobility which is ranked lower. The terms "nobility" and "royalty" are often confused, but they are not interchangeable. I try as well as I can to spread the word on that. Best wishes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please indicate the pages you used when you add book sources? I have checked the source you added here and can't find any information about Wesemael (or the marshalls in general) in it. The thids source you add, this one, ha information on the Wezemaels, but not on the office of Marshall or the year 1160, so I'm not sure what it is supposed to source in the article. Fram (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arnout IV; see=> Jaerboek der stad en oude Casselry van Kortryk, verzameld uyt menigvuldige auteurs en hand-schriften...p.289 Now happy?--Carolus (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you added "references" which don't reference the entries or paragraphs they are supposed to reference, just to get rid of a "more sources" tag? Is that what you are saying? Your reply adresses neither of the two cases I asked about. Please explain yourself more clearly, as I'm very close to taking this kind of editing to WP:ANI to get you blocked. If this really is what you did, then you are again actively disruptive, and enough is enough. Fram (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no use to argue with someone like you. So i do not see to use stupid templates that give More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help). End of Discussion.--Carolus (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Moretus, Carolus!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Do you have any sources for it being a Flemish name?

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hendrik de Moy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendrik de Moy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why user:Carolus was blocked is explained with the Revision as of 08:42, 3 March 2018 to this talk page. See the section above #Eugene Broerman.

User:Carolus if ever you wish to be unblocked then you should read the guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case, and then you must make a request on this page using the template {{Unblock}}. Guidance on how to use the template can be found in the template's documentation. -- PBS (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Presidents of the Brussels Privy Council indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lord Mayor of the Brugse Vrije has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Catholic abbot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]