User talk:Savidan/Archive 8

Tomb of Antipope John XXIII

A fascinating and really good page. Congratulations. Giano (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings!

phoenixMourning has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! phoenixMourning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood

Your well-written and carefully-researched article on an important fresco was certainly worth any little contributions I could make: you should see my typos! Rather a lot of red-linked names there, but people do have to be fully introduced at first appearance unless they're as familiar as, say, Vasari. In general, though there is a cathedral in Florence, always called the Duomo, in spite of Wikipedia's Florence Cathedral [sic], there is no "Cathedral of Florence". The singular of condottieri is condottiero— as I recently was taught, having written condottiere for years. Kudos to you! I must look through your contributions, since I didn't know your work til now. --Wetman (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. The errors you found are to be expected as the article is based on a paper I only had a week to write for an art history class. The other paper I wrote for that class is currently on the main page though... Savidan 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can never see my own typos. Should all those condottieri have individual articles do you think? I listed some at condottiero once, long ago... Looking about now, I wonder how I have missed your name.--Wetman (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, I'll probably do some preliminary searches on each of them and eliminate the redlinks for the articles I consider untenable at this time. Savidan 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

On 9 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Lead item, with picture! Nice work. Bencherlite^Talk 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Boloco

An article that you have been involved in editing, Boloco, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boloco. Thank you. GlassCobra 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Papal names

Congratulations, nice work. Did you know that Popes until and including Pope Pius IX called themselves POPE AND KING? I have an old etching of Pius IX with that title. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even begun that article...I've been busy. I didn't know that, and am a bit skeptical of whether they all did that and in what contexts they would have used that title, interesting find though. Savidan 19:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the title "King" refers to the position as head of the "Church State" or "Papal State", which ceased to exist in 1870. Pius IX, not recognizing the Italian conquest, kept the title to his death in 1878. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Growingup20062008.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Growingup20062008.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you were going through images a little to quickly or using a some form of semi-automation. There was already a fair use ratinonale on the page when you added the tag. Please be more careful in the future. Savidan 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Billthepony.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Billthepony.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Asfaloth.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Asfaloth.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Snowmane.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Snowmane.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stybba.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stybba.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Morgulblade.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Morgulblade.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

The following appeared on my talk page, but it belongs to you:

On 19 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article papal election, 1292-1294, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Srnec 05:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not giving you the credit; too much text blinded me, I guess. Mea culpa.--Bedford 06:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On April 21, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Children At Risk, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Good to see you alive and well again Savidan. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Clement VIII and Pietro Aldobrandini

Pope Clement VIII and Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini were not brothers. Pietro was nephew of this Pope on his father's side. Clement VIII was son of Silvestro Aldobrandini, governor of Fano, and Lisa Donati, while Cardinal Pietro was son of Pietro Aldobrandini and Flaminia Ferracci. Source that you've cited probably confused Pietro Aldobradini with Cardinal Giovanni Aldobrandini, who actually was older brother of Clement VIII, but was elevated in 1570 by Pope Pius V and died in 1573. Adnote that Clement VIII was born in 1536, while Pietro in 1571. 35 years is quite unusual difference of age for brothers. See:

Pope Clement VIII

Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini

Cardinal Giovanni Aldobrandini

CarlosPn (talk) April 19, 2008 11:30 (CET)

Good research. I admit that I was uneasy about this, and will now regard Trollope with much more skepticism. Savidan 16:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludovico Migliorati and Gaetani Stefaneschi

Ludovico Migliorati and Cardinal Giovanni Migliorati were certainly different persons. The events described by The Catholic Encyclopedia concern Ludovico, but according to Kazimierz Dopierała "Księga papieży" ("The book of the Popes"), Pallotinum, Poznań 1996, p. 262-263, Ludovico Migliorati was a condotierre and layman, and does not mention his promotion to the cardinalate or any other ecclesiestical post. In 1406 Ludovico was named by Innocent VII lord of Ancona, a lay office, while Giovanni Migliorati four years before election of his uncle was elected archbishop of Ravenna. Adnote that papal genealogy, which mentions Ludovico, does not refer him as cardinal. The Catholic Encyclopedia confused these two relatives of Innocent VII in this way that atributed to Ludovico promotion to the cardinalate which actually concerned Giovanni. Konrad Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi. Volumen I, p. 26 list only Giovanni Migliorati among Innocent's VII cardinals.

About Giovanni Caetani Stefaneschi I'd rather trust Salvador Miranda and his website than The Catholic Encyclopedia. Both these sources say that he was son of Pietro Stefaneschi and Perna Orsini, so he certainly wasn't nephew sensu stricte of Boniface VIII. Possibly he was distant relative of this Pope, and as such he may be added to the list with the question mark. Similary, Cardinal Jacques Fournier (Pope Benedict XII) may have been relative of Pope John XXII, who elevated him in 1327, but it is not certain.

CarlosPn (talk) April 21, 2008 15:12 (CET)

BTW, I've removed the note that Francisco Borja was possibly son of Callixtus III, because from his biographical entry (note 2) appears that it is rather unlikely. I think that alleged natural children of Popes is very delicate subject and we should be careful in providing uncertain informations about it. Pope Callixtus III is referred rather as very austere and piety man (see f.e. his characteristics by L. Pastor, "History of the Popes vol. 2" or on The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church), and his alleged illegitimate son does not correlate with these characteristics. Adnote that Aldea, "Borja, Francisco de." Diccionario de historia eclesiástica de España, I, 279, saying that Francisco was son of Alonso de Borja (Callixtus III), adds that he was born before Alonso received the holy orders. But Francisco was born in 1441, while Alonso de Borja was consecrated to the episcopate on August 31, 1429, twelve years before, so this information seems very ureliable.

CarlosPn (talk) April 21, 2008 15:37 (CET)

I agree that Miranda has served us better in the past than the Catholic Encyclopedia. Thanks for your input and (as always) your dilligent research. Do you think its worth having a section for people inaccurately referred to as cardinal-nephews? I am uncertain. I will look into Benedict XII. I'd like to make this a featured list one day; do you think we'll ever be secure enough in its completeness to do so? Savidan 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

G. Moroni Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da S. Pietro sino ai nostri giorni, vol. V, p. 5 claims that Benedict XII was nephew of John XXII on his mother's side, so it's seems that he may be included in the list. However, I think that we'll never be able to ascertain that the list is complete and without mistakes. Looking deeper in the past, the more uncertain informations and more unsolvable discrapencies in the sources we could find. For example, probably we'll never be sure whether Giovanni Visconti was ever promoted to the cardinalate, and - in consequence, whether he sould be included or not in the list of cardinal-nephews...:/ CarlosPn (talk) April 23, 2008 15:27 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 13:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Acuto

Well done! Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I need to have another look. i do think some art historical additions are needed, as I commented. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Water privatization in Brazil, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-Susanlesch (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really glad you're taking in upon yourself to write these articles. Water and ecological management in Brazil is an extremely important topic and ther eis so much to cover. I started Deforestation in Brazil which was missing and there is much we could wrtie about hydroelectric power in Brazil, mining, cattle ranching subjects in particular. Keep up the good work ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Savidan/Archive 8!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

4/28 DYK

On 28 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article pittura infamante, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 05:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Reviewing articles at WP:FAC is too often a tedious and thankless task. Respectful, appreciative responses from nominators - like yours here - are what keeps me going. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Water resources management in Brazil- THANK YOU

Dear Savidan,

Thank you very much for your valuable contribution to the Water resources management in Brazil article. I am specially interested in some of the journals you quoted and was wondering if you have an electronic copy of "Lemos, Maria Carmen, and de Oliveira, João Lúcio Farias. 2005. "Water Reform across the State/Society Divide: The Case of Ceará, Brazil." Water Resources Development, 21(1): 133-147." I would like to inlcude the link to the paper into the citation. Thank you very much!--anunezsanchez (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Theology of PP XII

You worked hard! Good job, reads better, some content got lost, nothing big, I will restore later. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sanfedismo

A tag has been placed on Sanfedismo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mr.whiskers (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanfedismo

Nice work on this one! - I've been meaning to get that Italian article translated, in relation to my work on Veronese Easters. Might you be interested in Viva Maria, or in helping finish off the translation of Veronese Easters? Many thanks! Neddyseagoon - talk 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do one job well and get two more, eh? :) I'll take a look; I generally tend to stay away from translation, though. Most foreign language wikipedia's, including italian, just aren't adequately sourced (at least for the articles that I've wanted to take). I have no way of knowing that I'm not just translating speculation. Useful for finding search terms though. Savidan 01:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On 11 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sanfedismo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

picture of historical 24-hour clock

Thanks for adding the picture of a historical 24-hour clock to the relevant article. It is a brilliant illustration of the idea, showing midnight at the bottom, thus making the hour hand roughly indicate the position of the Sun. −Woodstone (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Style questions

Kindly indicate the Wikipedia regulations - page - which you refer to regsrding style issues. Thank you.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Papal election, 1292–1294‎

... has passed GA review. Congratulations, Majoreditor (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Something for you

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your exemplary "can do" approach in steering articles through the featured article process. It's a breath of fresh air, --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Contestmap.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Contestmap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Image PPXII

Thank's for your intervention. I might need your advice on that. Here is the story. P12 liked the larger picture by Boden(the British artist), because "it actually looked like me". Pascsala; happy, because he finally liked a painting, helped the artist and got a small pic of the head only from him as a present. This is her property. She permitted me to make a copy of that small pic in 1962, I got later a second one, and this 1962 copy is on the page. I might not have used the right copyright category, and you have much experience in this area, so I appreciate your advice. I have other originals from her as well, including additional picture and some hand written notes and letters, so this is a much larger issue. A second issue concering me is size. did I overstep Wikipedia boundaries, and, if yes, how does one downsize a pic? The pic itself is quite nice as you probably agree. Thanks --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank's for your quick reply. Pascalina, the assistant of PPXII, was the legal owner of the pic. Does this not give her copyright? And can she not confer this to me? What about all the other pics and documents I have from her. Im I not the owner of these, especially the hand written documents, which are not copies? I changed the text of the description, after your intervention.

Fair use I found in an Picasso article, where several of his later picures are shown under this policy. Since the PPXII picture is to show the "Pastor Angelicus", (Malachian prophesy of PPXII), I could use the fair use rationale, to be mentiond in the article as well. However, if this cannot be clarified and you still feel more comfortable with keeping the old picture up top, we can just replace the two. No big deal. Thank's for your help. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC) PS I plan to add a small childhood pic (from 1884) which should be unproblematic bcause of age.

Thank you this is very helpful. I will look into this, take me a few days. Of course she is dead by now. But better safe than sorry. If you prefer to switch, go ahead. If not, it can wait. Thank's again for your help in this matter. I keep you posted.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you Savidan, the images support the text in a sense, as they show a human PPXII. I appreaciate your help later on, as I am not familiar with these issues. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Template:Infobox popestyles the infoboxes of the popes was drastically changed, note the new purple color, which is just aweful. Because of increased size, there is now a space problem on top, which we (and other pope pages) did not have before. I moved the signature in the text, that helped a little, but i am not familiar with these things. Kindly take a look at it at your convenience, no hurry.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did we refer to the Israel issue? The Roncalli criticism of the Vatican (indirectly of Pius) shows an aspect which we and much of the literature did not fully appreciate: Pius XII and Vatican policies are not always fully identical. (Which may be one reason, why he did not appoint a successor to Maglione in 1944). Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes we can enlage on this later, now its Croatia against Russia!Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind in the Vatican

On 30 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gone with the Wind in the Vatican, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

quote

Thank's for asking. The quote expressed a common view (with implicit accusation), that PP12 notably did not elevate Tardini and Montini in 1953.

• Msgr. Tardini and Msgr. Montini were notably not elevated&mdash

True enough, but other Monsignore were not elevated either. If this sentence is to make sense in a biography of Pius XII, it must mean something. Did he overlook them ? Did they ask for it? Were they entitled to it by position?

None of the above applied. I replaced the quote with a more accurate quote from the Pope himself, indicating that these two guys refused the red hat in 1953, which of couse is quite a different story. The papal quote is from his allucation to the new cardinals. If you go to the tardinin page, go get additional detail, including how this poor chap, despite of his serious illness, was forced into the promotion by John XXIII which he had rejected five years earlier from Pius XII. He died within three years of a massive heart attack. The same point was raised in PAUL VI. Thank`s again. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, Why not! Fine, but the story did not end here. AFTER they turned down the red hat, Pius XII gave them new titles as Pro-Secretary of State, and, in addition both were grated the privilege to wear Episcopal Insignia.

Well, you are right, but I replaced the quote because, by itself it was wrong and gave a wrong context. The question here is how much do we want to go in detail: ... because the story continued. After they turned down the red hat in 1953, Montini was appointed to Milan a year later in 1954. FYI I wrote in Pope Paul VI on this issue:

• Montini was appointed in 1954, to the senior Italian church post of Archbishop of Milan. Traditionally such an appointment would be followed by being made a cardinal at the next consistory (when vacancies in the College of Cardinals are filled). To the surprise of many, Montini never received the red hat (as the appointment to the cardinalate is often called) before Pope Pius's death in 1958; Pius XII. had only two constitories during his pontificate, in 1946 and 1953. He offered the red hat to Montini and Tardini in 1953, but they turned it down. Montini did not get the red hat after 1954, because the Pope did not have a third consistory before his death in 1958. This meant that all archbishops, appointed after 1953, who could expect the honor because of tradition and importance of their city, did not get the red hat, (Montini Milan, O’Hara Philadelphia, Cushing Boston, König Vienna, Godfrey Westminster, Barbieri Montevideo, Castaldo Naples, Richaud Bordeaux) Pope Pius revealed at the consitory in 1953, that two (Tardini and Montini) were of the very top of his list but turned it down. Montini and Tardini had declined the cardinalate.

What I left out in this saga are the numerous holy and unholy rumors, all of them unsubstantiated. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What puzzled me in this context is Richard Cushing, a Pius fan from Boston, a traditional red hat seat. Appointed in 1944, he was overlooked in both consistories (1946, 1953), but why? A "reliable source" Father Andrew Greeley says that "It is alleged that Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston came out of the conclave with the precise totals of each ballot written on his shirt cuff. This is, however, most unlikely, since Cushing was not a Cardinal at the time of the 1958 conclave. He was elevated to the College of Cardinals by Pope John XXIII on December 15, 1958, that is a few weeks after the conclave. So much for reliable sources. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WEll yes, he could have been there as an ... assistant to a Cardinal, or as an official of the conclave. He was however, Archishop of Boston and arguably not in Rome at this time. Nevethelsess the Cushing conclave voting data continue to be propagated by Father Andrew Greeley.

I changed the sentence as you proposed. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I added some pics in Early life article FYI Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Vatican Pharmacy DYK

On 6 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vatican Pharmacy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--There are humor possibilities with this one. I keep imagining mentholated host for communicants with sore throats ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

More pics

As I returned after a few days, a pleasant surprise of yet another nice pic from another contributor , P12 in white, to which I added toda an original P 12 in red. We have now a choice of thee very nice lead pics,(the painting, P12 in white and P12 in red) I like all three and propose that you make the decicion. The chap who added P12 in white created also a template, which preempts what I am working an, but can easily be harmonized. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments, I think you are right, placing the template at the end, could you please open it, and, if you can, delete the link to the PPXII page under categories? I tried. On the encyclicals I can see your point but like to disagree. There are 12 more in the making, and I think cutting them up into subjects such as peace, mariology makes more sense and gives them better recognition. But I am thinking with you on that. The template shows an impressive quantitativ array of articles, but I am fully aware, that some of them need more work. You help me a lot, if you tell me, which ones need more work than others. I worked very fast and I know, that not all have the same level of quality but would appreciate your view. In the making are Church policies before the war and Church policies durrin the war, on the latter I will be careful and take much time. Missing are articles on the social teachings, medicine, law, science etc. Thanks and Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we think along similar lines, but in my view "Mariology of Pope Pius" is partly related and quoted encyclicals, therefore it makes sense to keep them together and avoid duplication (of mariology). On the other hand, I had the persecution encyclicals together with "persecution" articles, and it turned out a too large group, so I subdivided. I am flexible and open to everything and benefit from your input, thanks --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, did you see the latest Category on the bottom of the page":

• Writings by category Apostolic constitutions and bulls · Encyclicals · Apostolic writings --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Assatatrial.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Assatatrial.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 02:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Assatatrial.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Assatatrial.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations! I saw that Assata Shakur was just promoted to FA. I wanted to apologize, again, for not being able to review the article before you renominated it (but I was glad it was still at FAC by the time I got back to my computer). You did a great job revising the article between the two nominations, and I hope we see it on the main page soon. Karanacs (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. This was the first time I've ever had a nominator describe my FAC reviews as "consistently informed" when I've previously opposed his/her reviews (usually the language is not so pretty)! That says a great deal about how good your attitude is and put you at the top of my "nominators whose articles I will always try to review" list. I really have enjoyed reading your work, and I hope to see more of it at FAC soon. I also promise to do my best to live up to the vote of confidence. Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 27 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guilds of Florence, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown Jewels

I, Casliber, recognize Savidan with the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels for exceptional content improvements to Wikipedia. Thank you for all you do.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Imperial Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial Triple Crown Jewels in recognition of your contributions to Wikipedia, especially on papal realted articles. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Moon moth.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Moon moth.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yourstaffisbroken.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yourstaffisbroken.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

12 principles

Thanks! It wasn't really a subject I cared much about either, until I started writing about it. I just wish people wouldn't remove all my pictures... Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Periculoso, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for the kind words. As for Live at the Fillmore, I already tried to nominate it for FL, but as someone pointed out, it isn't a list in the proper sense. Oh, well. Dylan (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Caeca et Obdurata

On 2 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caeca et Obdurata, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad exstirpanda DYK

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK nomination for Ad exstirpanda and made a couple of comments which you might want to respond to on the submissions page. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your reply on my talk page. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad exstirpanda

On 4 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ad exstirpanda, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Papal election, 1227

I agree that it seems a little bit curious that two out of three commitee members were elected to the papacy and that it is reasonable to be skeptical towards the alleged "reluctancy" of Ugolino but I think that we should not undermine such statements present in the available sources unless we got no evidence to contradict them. Not all popes were described as "reluctant", f.e. Pope Alexander VI or Pope Julius II weren't. For the procedure of compromissum used during this election see an article on The Catholic Encyclopedia. This procedure seems to have been quickly abandoned in practise because I haven't found any evidence of using it after papal election, 1268-1271 when I prepared the articles about papal elections and conclaves on the Polish Wikipedia. CarlosPn July 5, 2008 18:00 (CET)

papal election, 1287-1288 DYK

Hi. Reviewed this and left a couple of comments on the discussion page - nothing too major but you might want to take a look. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have another look. Just about ready, but it's still a bit too short. If you could add another couple of sentences of relevant material please do, and it should be good to go. Lampman (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Papal election, 1241 DYK

On 7 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal election, 1241, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Place of papal conclave, January 1276

I'm not sure whether Basilica di San Francesco di Arezzo could be correctly considered the place of the first papal conclave, since it's reported that the building of this basilica started ca. 1290 and the conclave was held in 1276. I think it's more probable that it was Gothic cathedral of St. Donatus in Arezzo, which is mentioned in the article about Arezzo, and where Pope Greogry X was buried, according to that article. But I think that Category:Sites of papal elections is a good idea. CarlosPn July 8, 2008 19:35 (CET)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow!!

Wow... very nice! I'll try, if having time, to create articles for the guys who are missing articles. Ciao! --Attilios (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Luis de Borja Lanzol de Romaní

Cardinal Pedro Luis de Borja Lanzol de Romaní and Don Pedro Luis de Borja, captain general of the Church in the pontificate of Callistus III weren't the same person and they should not be confused with each other. Cardinal Pedro Luis de Borja Lanzol de Romaní was grand-nephew of Rodrigo Borgia - Alexander VI and was born in 1472 while Pope Callistus III died on August 6, 1458, fourteen years before. He never occupied the post of captain-general, although received several lucrative ecclesiestical appointments, including the post of grand penitentiary. Don Pedro Luis de Borja, captain general of the Church, was younger brother of Rodrigo Borgia and nephew of Callistus III. He was not a cardinal but a layman. He was born in 1432. Pope Callistus III made him captain-general and governor of the Castle of S. Angelo in the spring of 1456, and later in the same year named him governor of the several cities in the Papal States and of the provinces of Patrinomy and Tuscany. His advance met with strong protests of the Roman barons. After the death of his uncle in August 1458 he had to fly away from the Eternal City. He died en route in Civita Castellana on September 26, 1458, at the age of 26. All these informations about Don Pedro Luis are according to Ludwig von Pastor, History of the Popes vol. 2, p. 460-478. CarlosPn July 16, 2008 20:35 (CET)

CfD nomination of Category:National histories

Category:National histories, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Cgingold (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Luis de Borja Lanzol de Romaní

On 19 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pedro Luis de Borja Lanzol de Romaní, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Arnaud de Pellegrue

On 20 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arnaud de Pellegrue, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lodovico Trevisan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Giuseppe Pecci

Found and added some very interesting information in a 1880 book--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not know, how the Cardinals argued in particular. Schmidlin argues, that Pecci, a Thomist was a close advisoer to his brother Leo, who from the beginning of his pontificate wanted to re-establish Thomism, as the Catholic theology. Thomism had degenerated to stelile Catechisms and negative often anti-intellectual manifestations of the faith. Leo appointed a series of noteworthy Thomists to high positions including his brother. They were entrusted with overcoming opposition within the Church, and to foster its development.

I have not found a critical interpretation of this appointment not even in Saints and Sinners by Duffy. Maybe the high age of the brother, the lack of visible advantages, or the overall positive interpretations of Leo XIII have something to do with it. Looking back, one can say, that the Pecci brothers succeeded until Vatican II. I'll add this to the Pecci page for better understanding. Look at the new pics in Leo XIII Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much finished the Pecci page for now. There is one mystery I could not solve: Why did he leave the Jesuit order and when? The overall message seems to be that he was useful to his brother as a Thomist both in Perugia and in Rome. Re P12, ses Francesco Pacelli--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Juan de Borja Lanzol de Romaní, el mayor DYK

On 27 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Juan de Borja Lanzol de Romaní, el mayor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Francisco de Borja (cardinal)

On 28 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francisco de Borja (cardinal), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, Savidan, ...

... stop the inaccurate accusations you have repeatedly made against me on Talk:Pope Pius XII (e.g. ("to remove or whittle down material just because we as writers deem a point of view incorrect.") as they make it hard to assume that you make them in good faith. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take this personally. I have a very simple disagreement with you over whether an author subsequently modifying his or her views makes the original view any less notable. The notability of Hitler's Pope is determined by the amount of times the book has been cited in both positive and negative contexts. To be frank, it is on the short list of works that an author publishing a book about PPXII today would have to deal with in order to give a thorough review of literature. That is the basis of its notability, not whether Cornwell continues to think that his book proves that PPXII was a bad person. Savidan 03:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the issue here. The issue addressed above is that you twice accused me of reducing because of disagreeement. This undermines my good faith in your actions.

I have explained why I think the sections needs to be reduced - your refusal to even acknowledge all the arguments doesn't change that.

Also, please do not simply revert without joining the discussion on the talk page. I acted in conjunction with Ambrosius. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I will keep all further discussion of this matter on the article talk page. I have it watchlisted. Savidan 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

All right. That's the place where it should happen. I just raised here what is a purely personal issue with you. See you over there. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 31 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Felice della Rovere, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

section p12

I came accross the 2000 report from the CJHC which someone before your time crossly misrepresented. I tried to make some adjustments. Probably still too long, given the fact that the commission dealt with much more than Pius XII. The previous statements were simply wrong. Cut as you please. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Veto in the Papal conclave, 1314–1316

Hey, Savidan. According to your article Papal conclave, 1314—1316 Arnaud Fournier was vetoed by the Count of Forez on behalf of Philip, Count of Poitiers. But no such Cardinal appears on the list of participants. There were 4 cardinals named Arnaud at that time. Which one of them is it?? CarlosPn (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2008 (CET)

Re:Conclave 1304-05

It would be correct after adding "or antipope", because in the papal conclave, 1378 none of sixteen electors became pope, but two of them (Robert de Geneve and Pedro de Luna) became Avignon antipopes Clement VII and Benedict XIII. Besides, for papal election, 1061 we've got only a list of cardinal-bishops. None of them became pope, but it's nearly certain that Cardinal Hildebrand (future Gregory VII) also assisted at this election because it is said that the election of Alexander II was largely due to him. CarlosPn (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (CET)

Camerlengo

Teodorico Ranieri was Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church (1300-1306), while Robert Pontigny was Camerlengo of the Sacred College of Cardinals (1298-1305). Two different posts that should not be confused with each other. See Camerlengo of Sacred College of Cardinals by Salvador Miranda. Cordially. CarlosPn (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2008 (CET)

BTW, the original title of the book Historia wyboru papieży by Ambrogio Piazzoni, recently added to the article about conclave 1304-05, is Storia delle elezioni pontificie. I've used the Polish tranlation but I suppose that English also exists. CarlosPn (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2008 (CET)

survey

Thanks! How did you find my survey page? Tony (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1314–1316, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article papal conclave, 1304–1305, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Council of Constance and conclave of 1417

Although the papal conclave, 1417 was celebrated in the Council of Constance, I believe it deserves a separate article, because it was absolutely unique conclave due to admitting non-cardinals into the circle of the electors. What do you think?CarlosPn (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2008 (CET)

Avignon Exchange DYK hook

Hi, I have just AGF ticked the Avignon Exchange hook. I also made a alternative hook suggestion, that I just took from the article. Wanted to let you know so that you could comment either way. Further, my suggested hook may not be covered by the reference. It is a very interesting article, keep up the good work. Mitico (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On 16 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Avignon Exchange, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Papal election, 1119

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Papal election, 1119, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of papal conclaves. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've substantially corrected this article in the scope of the number and list of the electors. Stroll, p. 58-59, lists additional names of the cardinals taken from the charter from Cluny. From Stroll's account appears that participation of at least two cardinal bishops: Kuno von Urach, bishop of Palestrina, and Lamberto, bishop of Ostia, is beyond the dispute. Moreover, I.S.Robinson, (1990), The Papacy 1073-1198: Continuity and Innovation, p. 66-67 indicates that Pandulph's accounts of the papal elections are very inaccurate and unreliable because he wrote them for the polemic purposes. He was a strong adherent of Antipope Anacletus II, who was elected in 1130 by the majority of the cardinal priests and deacons but against the will of the majority of cardinal bishops, who according to In Nomine Domini were the sole electors of the Pope, and in 1130 four out of six of them gave their support to Innocent II. For this reason, Pandulph in his accounts of the papal elections tried to eliminate cardinal bishops from the circle of the electors. CarlosPn (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2008 (CET)

Moreover, it is also disputed whether it was actually the smallest election in 12th century. I.S.Robinson (1990), The Papacy 1073-1198: Continuity and Innovation, p. 87-88 indicates that in the election of December 1187 participated probably only eight cardinals. The lists of participants of the papal elections in 12th century published by Salvador Miranda are taken from the very old work of A. Chacón, Vitae et res gestae Pontificum Romanorum et S. R. E. Cardinalium, edited in 17th century. This opuscle is often inaccurate and contains several mistakes. For example, Chacón lists Cardinal Konrad von Wittelsbach as participant of the election in January 1198, although it is well documentated that he served as papal legate in the Holy Land from 1197 until 1199, so couldn't have participated in this election (Wolff, R. L.; Hazard, H. W. (ed.) / The later Crusades, 1189-1311, 1969, p. 121, 529 and 648).. When I was preparing the articles about the elections of 12th century on the Polish wikipedia I had confrontated Chacón's lists of participants with other sources, particularly with Robinson's book and with the data about the subscriptions of the papal bulls, published by Jaffé Philipp, Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, Berlin 1851. Particularly the latter source helps to establish wich cardinals subscribed the last papal bulls of the deceased pope and the first bulls of the new one; on that ground it's possible to assume which cardinals were actually present at the death of the old pope and at the election of the new one. The inferences often contradict Chacón. CarlosPn (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2008 (CET)

Giovinezza

Can you direct me to a YouTube version of the song which includes those lines? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't help you. YouTube isn't exactly comprehensive when it comes to issues like this one... Savidan 01:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it very comprehensive. None of the versions of Giovinezza I have found there includes those lines. Nor does the text as reproduced in Bosworth's Mussolini's Italy. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you gone to the site I linked? It's also explained in the article that the lyrics were written for the March on Rome. If you can find evidence that these lyrics were not included in some versions (rather than just lack of evidence that they were in a given source), I would suggest putting them in italics and explaining why some sources don't include them. Savidan 01:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Which site did you link to? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference to the article when I readded the lyrics. It contains an external link. Savidan 01:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I see it. It only links to a rather crappy instrumental version. The best-known vocal version seems to be Gigli's, which does not include those lines. Nor were they part of the original chorus. It would seem they were added in by fascist enthusiasts after 1922. I would suggest that the article should note that there were variant versions but that these lines do not seem to be part of the "official" version. Incidentally, the article says "popular among Italian soldiers fighting in Africa during World War I." I don't think the Italians did any fighting in Africa in World War I. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Best known vocal version [not equal to sign] only (or even most) historically relevant version. If you want to note alternate versions that can be done, but I would like to disavow you (at least inasmuch as it affects the article) that there is one "correct" version of a folk hymn. As for the arditi, you have some interesting ideas which I hope don't find their way into the article. Savidan 06:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the official hymn of the Fascist party, and from 1943 the official national anthem of the RSI, so there must have been an official set of lyrics. You will have to explain your sentence about the arditi. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Different lyrics were used on different occasions. "Official"-ness was simply less formal in this context than you seem to presume. I would analogize it to whether the film stock version or the live viewing of the Rocky Horror Picture show is the "official" version. I've provided a good source which includes these lyrics; if you can find a source that comes to terms with the fact that they existed in at least one version, but states or explains that they did not in other versions (including the so-called "official" version) then we can go from there. Simply put, the (other) source says the arditi served in Africa and I am inclined to believe it. The Wikipedia article about the African theater of WWI is quite lacking and I would not go on that if I were you. Savidan 06:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably true that the Italians were less rigorous about officialness than were, say, the Germans, but I would still expect that a national anthem would have an approved set of lyrics. Anyway we are not going to resolve that in the absence of further evidence.
• Where and against whom would they have served in Africa? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am distracted with other more pressing issues both on and off wiki. I would ask that you base any further contributions to this article on reliable sources. While your personal sleuthing is commendable, it would be preferable if you viewed it as a means to reliable sources rather an a substitute for them or (even worse) a means of removing material sourced to reliable sources. I obviously do not have the answer your question; the source does say that they served in Africa and is sufficiency reliable. The fact that it is not as infinitely specific as we desire is a poor reason for removal. However, in the hopes that you will look into this more yourself, I will offer than many of the arditi served within the units of foreign allies. Savidan 22:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

25 and 50

		The 25 DYK Medal
		belated - thought I'd give you this before the next papal election... Victuallers (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

		The 50 DYK Medal
		Well done! Over 50. Let me tell you that the 100 award is really nice shade of yellow! Brilliant. Thanks from us all (particularly vatican scholars) Victuallers (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Pope

Template:Pope has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Papal conclave, 1378

On 20 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1378, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Grishnakh.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Grishnakh.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gran Tavola, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article mazzatello, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

On 24 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article papal election, 1119, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- liked the mazza 1! Victuallers (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 25 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of people executed by the Holy See, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On 28 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal election, 1280–1281, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Papal election, 1241

I see you been inactive for a while. Do you plan to address the GA review concerns? Renata (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note),

- DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :) ).Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lastalliance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lastalliance.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hogwarts

The versions of Battle of Hogwarts that were deleted two times refered to an event in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince that was not canonly named and not even a Battle. However, the Battle of Hogwarts is an actual event in the last book (Deathly Hallows), with content completely different from that of the previous versions. In other words, there are two "battle of Hogwarts" for fans, but only one of them is named directly as such (it is the name of a chapter in the final book, it is identified as such by J.K. Rowling, and it is an actual battle). I think that discussion to delete an article for a completely different event should take place before deleting it. --Lord Opeth (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The content about the DH chapter has also been deleted at AFD. Here, among other places. There were a flurry of such afd's after the seventh book came out. Savidan 17:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In the link you provided there is no single mention of the Battle of Hogwarts. In the deletion log, the [nomination] of the article is still about the event of the sixth book. That very same day, another deletion was performed, and I assume it was because the same article was restored. Since then, the only deletion made was the one we are discussing right now. I can't still see any evidence to prove that the "Battle of Hogwarts" of the final book should be deleted. Confussion exists because the name was previously used for another event. I think that WikiProject HP members should be consulted whether this article should be restored or not. --LøЯd ۞pεth 21:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you blocked the page. At least let us create a sub-section in the HP universe or in the Hogwarts article and redirect the page there. The article was re-created because someone removed the sub-sections from all plot sections of the books' articles and "Battle of Hogwarts" redirected nowhere. If we create a section in some other article, we can redirect the page there instead of recreating the article. --LøЯd ۞pεth 18:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view this does not change the fundamental issue here. The content was deleted by consensus and should not be recreated without a reversal of that consensus in such a substantially similar form. I suggest again that you take the issue up at DRV. Savidan 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My primary objective is not to get the page back as an actual article. As I explained, the Plot sections in all books' articles had sub-sections separating the events according to time period and book chapters, but those sub-sections were removed and all plot is featured as a whole under the main Plot section. I agree with these changes, as the sub-sections had rather subjective and invented names, but the "Battle of Hogwarts" page redirected to one of this sub-sections, and now redirects nowhere. When I retrieved the article, I was planning to submit the matter to discussion to see where it fits better. The page is linked in several articles, and it is an important part of plot sections as it is the only battle in the series and it is the climax of the books. That's why I ask you to unblock the page and let me recreate it with just a redirect to a minor section in the Hogwarts article, and then block it again to prevent more additions of content. --LøЯd ۞pεth 22:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a tad uneasy doing this but I will redirect it to the Hogwarts article. Please do not take this as an imprimatur to recreate the article as a section of the Hogwarts article. If you materially disagree with the past deletion(s), you really should seek out DRV. Savidan 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Papal elections and conclaves 1061-2005

Hi, you did something to the template -- no idea what -- but the size now is over 30,000 bytes. That's how much entire article should take. Is there a reason for this humongous over-complication of a simple navbox? For me the template looks and works exactly the same before & after. Renata (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I subst-ed the template to remove the autocollapse "feature". Don't know why that ballooned the size of the template, nor do I know whether that has actually increased the effective size of the template as experienced in page load time (because before the template simply referred to another template). If you can figure out another way to remove autocollapse, please implement that instead. Savidan 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You should not be subs'ting such templates. If you want to remove "autocollapse" feature, there is |state= uncollapsed parameter that can be used. I therefore reverted your edits. Renata (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wernerfoerster.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Wernerfoerster.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ViperSnake151 13:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

Savidan, I realize you didn't enter an Oppose at the RCC FAC, so you don't need to revisit, but your comments were worthy of consideration. Since the RCC FAC has grown lengthy and difficult to edit, with many signatures separated from the original commentary, I have pulled your original commentary out to the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church#Savidan comments to hopefully make it easier for you to update the status of your concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Secret Board of Shadowy Figures

I have nominated Secret Board of Shadowy Figures, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Board of Shadowy Figures. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cinnamon J. Scudworth

I have nominated Cinnamon J. Scudworth, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinnamon J. Scudworth. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of JFK (Clone High)

I have nominated JFK (Clone High), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JFK (Clone High). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cleopatra (Clone High)

I have nominated Cleopatra (Clone High), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleopatra (Clone High). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

eo:Tombo de la kontraŭpapo Johano la 23-a

Hi Savidan,

Well I simply wanted to let you know that I've completed the Esperanto translation of Tomb of Antipope John XXIII. Thanks for all the hard work and keep'em coming ! Best wishes, Thomas Guibal (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your hard work is appreciated

I did nominate the Pope Pius XII Illness and death article for deletion, on the grounds I've stated in the Afd, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the hard work you're doing otherwise. I've read a number of your contributions and found them fascinating. Jlg4104 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not write the article in question. User:Ambrosius007 did. Savidan 21:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm new (can you tell?). Sorry for the mis-attribution (I saw your objection and wrongly assumed you were responsible for writing the piece). I wouldn't normally jump in as a newbie and recommend deleting things, but this just seemed like a pretty clear-cut case of a sub-article that would best be merged into the whole article, except that the article in question was just such a mess that deletion didn't seem to me to be a bad idea. So as the manual suggests, (a) I am trying to improve the whole, and (b) I am trying not to be a dick.Jlg4104 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I encourage you to continue being bold, although I happen to disagree with you on this particular deletion. Savidan 03:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Is it possible for you to block this person. He/She keeps vandalising the edits that I've made...

Please... 122.2.222.195 (His/Her I.P. address) --79.78.114.161 (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Hello Savidan, I have been working on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and hopefully ‘Featured Article’ status. The article is currently in Peer Review. Your name was recently mentioned by SandyGeorgia, as being possibly interested, so I though I would invite you to take a look. Any help to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Boratmoi.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Boratmoi.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Contestsite.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Contestsite.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. §hep^Talk 06:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Skylineview.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Skylineview.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. §hep^Talk 06:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

List of papal tombs

Hi, could you revist your DKY entry List of papal tombs and fix the problems? Thanks. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not too familiar with the topic, so feel free to revert or revise what I did. :) I just saw a comment at the DYK page which suggested that wording, which may or may not be accurate at this point. Jamie^☆S93 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of papal tombs

On April 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of papal tombs, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of cardinal-nephews

Hi, Savidan! I don’t want to make any “revolution” with this list without consulting you, although it seems to me that some kind of “revolution” is neccessary. According to the modern prosopographies of the medieval cardinals (J. M. Brixius, Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130-1181, Berlin 1912; R. Hüls, Kardinäle, Klerus und Kirchen Roms: 1049-1130, Tübingen 1977; H.W. Klewitz, Reformpapsttum und Kardinalkolleg, Darmstadt 1957; B. Zenker, Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130 bis 1159, Würzburg 1964; K. Ganzer, Die entwicklung des auswärtigen Kardinalats im hohen Mittelater, Tübingen 1963; W. Maleczek, Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216, Vienna 1984), the majority of the alleged cardinal-nephews prior to the end of 12th century should be eliminated from that list because there is no documentary proofs that they were related to popes that had created them; in some cases it has been established that the cardinal certainly wasn’t relative of his elevator; and some of them have been eliminated at all from the list of the cardinals. According to Maleczek, p. 248, many familiar denominations of the cardinals from that period and the statements about their relationships with the popes appear for the first time only in 16th century and have no or little scholar value.

1. Anselm of Lucca, nephew of Alexander II, apparently was not a cardinal at all. Hüls, Ganzer and Klewitz do not mention him among the cardinals of 11th century. Hüls mentions him in his work (p. 127 and 247) but only as bishop of Lucca and not a cardinal. Several electronic biographies of this saint [1] [2] [3] do not mention his cardinalate.
2. Etienne de Bar, bishop of Metz, was actually a nephew of Callixtus II, but almost certainly wasn’t a cardinal. The sources that affirm his cardinalate say that he was cardinal-deacon of S. Maria in Cosmedin, but it has been proven that Etienne de Bar and cardinal Stephanus of S. Maria in Cosmedin were two different persons (Ganzer, p. 79-80; Hüls, p. 232-233; the latter source says that cardinal Stephanus was probably an Italian from Crema and brother of cardinal Giovanni Cremense)
3. Corrado de Suburra, future pope Anastasius IV certainly wasn’t a nephew of Honorius II; the statement about this relationship appears for the first time in 16th century and is without foundation; besides, Corrado was not created by Honorius II but by Paschalis II (Brixius, p. 36 and 78; see also Klewitz, p. 128; Hüls, p. 128 and 201; and Zenker, p. 46-48)
4. Cardinals listed as Gregorio Papareschi and Pietro Papareschi are referred to as relatives of Innocent II only from 16th century; no documentary proof for it has been found; nothing is really known about these cardinals except their first names (Gregorius and Petrus) and cardinalatial titles (Brixius, p. 42, 45, 93; Zenker, p. 35).
5. Ubaldo Caccianemici almost certainly wasn’t relative of Lucius II; the statement about it appears for the first time in 16th century. Brixius, p. 103, says that he did not find any trace of that cardinal in the documents from the archive of the family of Caccianemici in Bologna. Maleczek, p. 248 note 283 also says that there is no evidence that Ubaldo was member of that family and relative of Lucius II. It seems that Ubaldo was identified as relative of Lucius II only because he received the same titular church that Lucius II had occupied before his election to the papacy. It was customary in 15-17th centuries that popes gave their own former titles to their nephews, but not necessarily in 12th century
6. Gregorio della Suburra was created cardinal by Innocent II in 1140, as priest of S. Maria in Trastevere. Anastasius IV, who actually was his relative, only promoted him to the rank of cardinal-bishop of Sabina; the identity of Gregorio of Sabina and Gregorio of S. Maria in Trastevere is attested in the text of the treaty between Pope Adrian IV and Emperor Frederick I signed in 1155 (Zenker, p. 48-51; Maleczek, p. 248-249)
7. Boso Breakspeare wasn’t a nephew of Adrian IV; he wasn’t even an Englishman. He was a Tuscan, born in Loppia near Lucca (Zenker, p. 149-150; I.S. Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, Cambridge1990, p. 254-255, both with the cited literature).
8. The relationship of Gerardo Allucingoli of S. Adriano with Lucius III is not proven. Cardinal Gerardo of S. Adriano (1182-1204) is for the first time mentioned as Allucingoli and nephew of Lucius III in 16th century (Maleczek, p. 78).
9. Uberto Allucingoli, ostensibly created cardinal-priest of S. Lorenzo in Damaso by his uncle Lucius III in 1182, probably did not even exist. The title of S. Lorenzo in Damaso was occupied in 1182 by Pedro de Cardona, who died in summer of that year and was almost immediately succeded by Uberto Crivelli, future pope Urban III (Ganzer, p. 134); the alleged existence of Uberto Allucingoli probably resulted from a confusion. Besides, it is not even clear whether Lucius III himself was a member of the family of Allucingoli (Brixius, p. 43 and 90).
10. The theory that Lotario Conti di Segni (Innocent III) was nephew of Clement III, resulted from an onomastic confusion (Michele Maccarrone, "Innocenzo III prima del pontificato," Archivo della R. Deputatazione romana di Storia patria, 1943, p. 66; cf. Maleczek, p. 101-104)
11. Cardinal Niccolo Boboni of S. Maria in Cosmedin, allegedly nephew of his elevator, Celestine III, is actually identical with his namesake created by Clement III in 1190. This cardinal Niccolo was a nephew a Clement III and therefore, a member of the Scolari family, but there is no evidence that he was related also to Celestine III (Maleczek, p. 97-98).

Slightly more credible, but also uncertain, are the testimonies concerning Odon de Chatillon under Urban II (see Klewitz, p. 115), Guarino Foscari under Lucius II (Brixius, p. 51, but see also Maleczek, p. 248 note 283) and Cinzio Papareschi, nephew of Innocent II created by Adrian IV (Brixius, p. 114, but see also Maleczek, p. 248 note 283).

Similar doubts concern also some nephews of the other popes. There is no evidence that cardinal listed as Pietro de Morra (under Innocent III) was really a member of the family of Gregory VIII (Maleczek, p. 150). Information that Goffredo Castiglione, future Pope Celestine IV, was nehpew of Urban III, is also not attested in the contemporary sources, but of much later origin [4] cf. Paravicini Bagliani, Agostino. Cardinali di curia e "familiae" cardinalizie. Dal 1227 al 1254. Padova 1972., vol. I, 32-40.

Besides, modern scholars put into question several commonly accepted familiar denominations of the medieval popes. For example, it is almost certain that Honorius III was not Savelli (Maleczek, p. 111-112; [5]), and Eugenius III was not Paganelli (Brixius, p. 86; [6]). The alleged surnames of Alexander III (Bandinelli) and Lucius III (Allucingoli) are also dubious (Maleczek, p. 233 note 168; Brixius, p. 90). Several other false surnames were attributed to the cardinals of that period (examples by Hüls, p. 75-76, and Maleczek, p. 248 note 283). The real surnames of the cardinals of 12th century are known only in few cases.

The false testimonies about the families of the popes and the cardinals resulted from the practice of the many historians of 15-18th century, who serving the Italian noble families, tried to establish the links between their protectors and some famous individuals of the past, including cardinals and popes. The good example is Onuphrio Panvinius (1530-1568), who served to the cardinal Giacomo Savelli; this was the first author who attributed Honorius III to the Savelli family [7]. Later, even the honest historians became the victims of these falsehoods.

What do you think, what should we do with all this stuff? CarlosPn (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (CET)

• Thnx for your answer! I've generally followed your suggestions. I've removed only Corrado della Suburra (Anastasius IV) and Niccolo Boboni, but both cases are mentioned in the references. I've retained Cardinal Boso on the list, but only because of the notoriety of the erroneous allegations about his relationship with Adrian IV. Besiedes, I've moved Gregorio della Suburra to the category "nephews of the other popes". The other disputed "nephews" has been denoted with symbols. I will incorporate all these informations and references in the respective biographical entries in the near future. CarlosPn (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2009 (CET)

Papal election, August-September 1276 and "Pope-elect Gregory XI"

See this account on papal election in 1276. It seems that the case of Vicedomino de Vicedominis as "pope-elect Gregory XI" is highly dubious... CarlosPn (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2009 (CET)

File:Filippo Calandrini.jpg

Hello, I wonder why I can't upload on the french wiki the photo of Filippo Calandrini which you uploded on the en wiki and I can't even find it on commons Thanks for your tip Best regard --88.121.35.106 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Inselian.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Inselian.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Saint Peter's tomb

Thanks for the interesting addition. Shouldn't this new section on other papal tombs nearby have some intro that justifies it raison d'etre? "To support the theory that St. Peter's tomb is ..., there are other popes believed buried nearby." That sounds weak, but you get my drift. Also, the way I have worded it is also WP:OR since I don't know if that was a theory that was advanced to support the presence of Peter's tomb or not! Student7 (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose such a reason; it seems justified on face because of the proximity. This section neither supports nor opposes the theory that Peter's tomb is located anywhere. It just says that most early Christian popes are regarded as being buried near Peter, wherever he was. I have sourced my additions; please do the same if you wish to modify or augment this. The article already suffers from the problem of not sticking to the facts alone in places, although I suspect part of this is that it is derivative of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry. Savidan 17:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Catacomb of Callixtus

On May 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catacomb of Callixtus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica

On May 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Trim

Hi, Before using a large butcher knife on Poem of the Man God please discuss to avoid world war 4. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so other readers of my talk page can see what constitutes a "large butcher knife": [8] Savidan 08:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that was not the butcher knife. It was trying to avoid the knife appearing unexpectedly thereafter. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I didn’t even know your talk page was on my watchlist: but it turned out that I was one of your readers and when I checked the diff this morning I was very disappointed to see what tiny trimmings had been wrought on that absurd article. —Ian Spackman (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Papal conclave, 1455

On June 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1455, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 03:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacobus Gayetani

"Jacobus Gayetani" is a cardinal Giacomo Gaetani Stefaneschi (1260/70-1341/43, cardinal-deacon of S. Giorgio from 1295), author of many liturgical works, incl. Ordo Romanus and De centesimo seu iubileo liber. This is his entry by S. Miranda, which provides also some other biographical links. There are some discrepancies concerning the year of his death (1341 or 1343). Depending on which of them is correct, he'd have been a participant in four or five papal conclaves between 1303 and 1334 or 1342 CarlosPn 3 June 2009, 11:00 (CET)

Ten Commandments

Savidan, I just wanted to let you know that I have addressed your comments for Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism. Thank you for taking the time to come and review the article. I have inserted more information into History and Capital punishment sections per your advice. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 03:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Boise homosexuality scandal tagged as NPOV

The above article has been tagged as NPOV. You had temporarily removed the tag while the article was on the main page and it has since been restored. If you have additional feedback it would very helpful in resolving the dispute. Otto4711 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

re:Cardinal-nephews

I think that the list after its transformation into table requires some technical corrections. Some comments that are now included in the footnotes could be moved to the column "notes". The symbols remarking doubts concerning cardinalate and relationship I'd place in the sections "date of elevation" and "relationship" respecively. I think it would be more readable. Concerning the completness of the list I can not say with absolute certainity that it's complete but I'd rather not excepct to find a new names. As I've already noticed you some time ago, the newest research would indicate rather reduction than expansion of the catalogs of papal relatives elevated to the cardinalate.

For the "[[featured list]" it would good to create the entries of at least majority of the cardinal-nephews that do not exist today, and to expand those which are only stubs. Now I'm focus on my article about foreign cardinalate in the Middle Ages, which I'd like to make a "good article", but within few days I can engaged myself in the creation/expansion the entries of the cardinal-nephews. CarlosPn 12 June 2009, 21:45 (CET)

File:Contestsite.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Contestsite.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Hi!, I'd like to ask you for help. English is not my first language and I'm not sure about the title of my article "foreign cardinal". Sources that I've used for creation this article are almost excusively in German. The term originally proposed by Klaus Ganzer, Die Entwicklung... is auswärtiges Kardinalat. Auswärtig is generally translated as "foreign", but I've just noticed that Mary Stroll, Callixtus II (1119-1124). Pope born to rule, p. 325, used the term "external cardinal". What do you think, which translation option is better for describing this phenomenon: "foreign" or "external"? CarosPn 14 Jun 2009, 18:00 (CET)

Santi Vincenzo e Anastasio a Trevi

Thank you :) What attracted my attention to the article was the remarkable generosity of John Paul II to present it to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Not only is it a very beautiful Baroque church located in a very frequented area of Rome, but it's also historically notable. You're doing an awesome job with the excellent list of papal tombs, keep up the good work! Todor→Bozhinov 18:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of tombs of antipopes

On June 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of tombs of antipopes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Papal selection before 1059

On June 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal selection before 1059, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 08:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Papal income tax

FYI, the name of the author cited in the reference doesn't match the name cited in the notes. Is it Lunt or Lund? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cardinal Muench-

Hi! Many thanks for working on the Cardinal Muench article-RFD (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You're to be commended for spending the time in adding the material on Muench to WP. The issue is not so much with the facts, as with the way they are selected and presented. Have selections from Brown-Fleming been made to present a particular point of view? Have they been presented in a way that is objective? Without reading the book myself, I have no way of knowing that. That's why I asked for a someone who is familiar with the topic (and that means more than just having read Brown-Fleming) to take a look at the article.

The concerns I have derive from the way the article is written: in a not very straightforward, insinuating way. Examples are presented in each section, without getting directly to the point of what the section is about. I can’t go through every paragraph, but the section on One World is an example of what I mean. Nowhere is there an explanation of what One World was. In an encyclopedia, one might expect to see "One World was a ..." or "In 1946, Muench published a pastoral letter dealing with..." Instead, what we have are examples of damning phrases lifted from a document whose content, context, and significance are never directly explained. There should also be some explanation of in what role Muench published the letter - as the Bishop of Fargo, not as the pope's representative. A pastoral letter from a bishop isn't an encyclical, but you'd never know that from reading the One World section.

Except for his early life and episcopate, the entire article reads like that - a mass of examples and quotes taken out of context.

You seem really driven to add details daily, presumably as you read the book. (Looks like you're up to about p. 107). Perhaps you should put the book down for a week and then come back to the article and see if you think it presents an objective view of the heart of Brown-Fleming's findings, or if it's more a collection of unconnected details selected by you. --Sift&Winnow 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For your information, I have finished the book but plan on reading through it again. You say that examples are taken "out of context" without having the source material in front of you and without any particular knowledge of the topic--a bold claim. So far you have said very little about the article of substance except that you do not like it.

I have explained very clearly what One World was. It was a pastoral letter, a concept that was linked. I then explain the way that it was published and distributed and the main arguments contained in the letter. The article does absolutely nothing to suggest that One World was an encyclical or written by the pope; it makes very clear that it was written by Muench himself and links to the concept of pastoral letter. Savidan 20:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Aloisius Joseph Muench

On June 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aloisius Joseph Muench, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 20:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vestararius

On June 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vestararius, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 14:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Papal income tax

On June 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal income tax, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gambling on papal elections

On July 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gambling on papal elections, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 08:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Byzantine Papacy

On July 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantine Papacy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 (c|s) 14:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Papal conclave, 1513

On July 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1513, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: cardinal-nephews

I've included the language icons in the bibliographical section.

About the silence of the sources concerning some cardinals I'd nevertheless defend these notes as they stand now. Prosopographies of the cardinals by Brixius, Klewitz, Zenker, Huls or that of Ganzer about the external cardinals were made as complete with the reference of respective periods or categories - as far as it is possible. Therefore, the fact that they omit someone from the list of cardinals, particularly when mention him otherwise, can be treated as evidence that they do not consider him a cardinal. Particularly Brixius, Klewitz and Huls explain in their works their methods of research. Also, they always examine the question of the origins of the cardinals; they make often detailed refutation of the statements of the older historiography, but sometimes only present a general conclusion. The works of Brixius and Zenker I've got in pdf formats - if you wish, I could send you them by e-mail.

I'm going to create an article about "presumed cardinals" in the near future, which, I believe, would better highlight many of these questions. CarlosPn 7 Jul 2009

DYK nomination of Papal conclave, 1362

Hello! Your submission of Papal conclave, 1362 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! candle•wicke 22:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cesare Orsenigo

On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cesare Orsenigo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 14:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Papal conclave, 1362

On July 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1362, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 20:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Robert Leiber

Hello! Your submission of Robert Leiber at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

re:Prospero Colonna

The answer is simple - dean of the College of Cardinals is always in the rank of Cardinal-Bishop. Up to the pontificate of Paul VI dean was always the senior Cardinal-Bishop with seniority dating from the date of his appointment to the suburbicarian see (sometimes non-residents of the Roman Curia were excluded from succession - this was the case of Cardinal Pierre de Foix, bishop of Albano 1431-1464); see for this F. Bourkle-Young The election of Pope Alexander VI (1492) - note 49. In the account of conclave of 1447 Bourkle-Young explicitly calles Colonna archdeacon of the College (i.e. protodeacon). Prospero Colonna remained in the rank of cardinal-deacon until his death; as far as I know, he was never ordained to the priesthood (Prospero Colonna (entry by S. Miranda); K. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica, vol. II, p. 6 no. I, 42). Being only a cardinal-deacon, he couldn't have assumed the post of the dean of the College, which was occupied by Cardinal Giovanni Berardi, bishop of Palestrina, from 1445 until 1449 (Giovanni Berardi (entry by S. Miranda); Lorenzo Cardella, Memorie storiche de' cardinali della Santa Romana Chiesa, Rome 1793, vol. III, pp. 70-71). Besides, according to Ludwig von Pastor, History of the Popes, London 1899, vol. 2, p. 11-12, cardinal Prospero Colonna announced the election of Nicholas V - this was a customary task of cardinal-protodeacon from at least 14th century. Trollope certainly confused these two posts - perhaps a confusion arose from the fact that Colonna was the longest-serving cardinal at that time. CarlosPn (talk) 23:00 (CET) 12 Jul 2009

DYK for Prospero Colonna (cardinal)

On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prospero Colonna (cardinal), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up

I commend your bold, gnome-like work amassing so many in-universe, plot-summary-laden collections of minutiae for AfD -- and then doing it again in smaller clusters :-]. Many of them I imagine could be addressed simply by creating a redirect -- after running many AfD gauntlets in a year or two, I've found a redirect with simple talk-page notice an effective way to get rid of some of this material. AfD then becomes useful for the redirect-reverters, since it offers up a clear timeline to get feedback and, almost always, consensus to redirect (sometimes offer a bit more of a token merge) to clear things out.

Anyhow, we'll see how these AfDs go. I threw in a coooouple of redirects for articles you included in the mass AfD earlier. Where I know the franchise, I'll chime in and, for the most part, suggest (effectively) nuking this material through redirection. --EEMIV (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've switched to {{prod}} for some of the minor series, and only take it to AfD if the prod is contested. Your redirect idea is intriguing, though, and perhaps I will employ it for the lowest echelon of these articles. Savidan 02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not flood Articles for deletion with such disruptive mass nominations. I strongly urge withdrawing all. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made every effort to use prod and redirecting to avoid Afd as much as possible, and have only done so when another editor insists on their "day in court" as it were. You'll notice that most of my nominations either are leaning towards delete or have yet to attract any attention from those who are not the creators of the articles in question. Savidan 18:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What sources have you looked for and attempted to add to all of those per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have in all cases looked for sources that prove of out-of-universe notability before nominating, and have not nominated any articles which already include such sources or for which I found some that looked at all plausible. Savidan 18:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple Google Books searches turn up results for the Animal Farm, Star Wars, and Battlestar ones at least. We even had to study those Orwell ones in school. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand the criteria of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. That the words appear on google books does not an article make. Of course a reasonable plot summary should be included in the article about a fictional work. However, to go farther and create an article for every minor character, event, and item is not useful. Such articles about plot elements should only be created when they are notable outside of the series. Savidan 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

These articles clearly pass all of those. The battles of Animal Farms are studied in schools and are discussed in analytical format in texts used when teaching. Similarly, Star Wars and its components are analyzed in numerous published books and articles. These articles are indeed useful and relevant to the hundreds or thousands of editors who work on them and millions of readers whom come here for them. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and nor is it intended just for articles we as individuals find relevant. So long as the information is verifiable, we do not need much more justification for keeping it as all knowledge is worthwhile. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You have made your views clear. It doesn't seem productive to continue this discussion here as well as at afd. Savidan 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please close the Afds so that we can just focus our discussion here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) are you aware that NOT#PLOT is currently under disucssion, and there is substantial sentiment towards amending it? I don't see you to have contributed to that discussion--I expect it would benefit from your participation. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the discussion, but I don't agree that it is likely to produce any consensus. I believe that WP:WAF is clear enough even without that guideline. Savidan 18:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That just goes to show that "WPNOTPLOT" lacks consensus. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the guideline. That discussion is a mess, nothing more. Savidan 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a real consensus to support it and certainly not now. We should not have guidelines that only a handful of editors out of thousands support. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

More exactly, there has never been a consensus about just which of the various possibilities to change it to--a common situation around here. May I suggest you might have cleaner results if you suggested merges? It would save us all an enormous amount of trouble and conflict, and would serve your purpose of getting rid of these short and unsupportable articles. I agree with Jclemens that doing these by AfD now, in the middle of the general discussion, might not be the best time--depending on how that goes, you;d either have an easier time of it, or know not to attempt it? DGG (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Some merges may be acceptable; but in the cases I have chosen to take up I do not believe a merge would work as I have outlined here. Savidan 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

PROD of GSV Sleeper Service

While I agree it has no place in Wikipedia, this article recently survived an AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GSV Bora Horza Gobuchul), so it is probably ineligible for Proposed Deletion. If you would like to re-list it at AFD with the concerns you noted, I would of course endorse the deletion (especially since I believe it was kept for trivial procedural reasons). -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 04:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Babylon 5 stuff

Hi, I un-re-directed Battle of the Line, as there's probably a middle ground that amounts to a better article with less OR and plot details. The entire Babylon 5 series of articles is split into tiny articles that don't assert their own notability, and should really be incorporated into lists. I haven't the time to do this all by myself, but if you ever feel like taking a more systematic approach to cleaning up B5 stuff, give me a shout. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Please see Talk:Radiance War. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I made a mistake in the edit summary when reverting the redirect. I wasn't aware at the time that you had already withdrawn the AfD nomination. But to the essential point - that we need discussion and consensus - that doesn't matter. Debresser (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pave the Way Foundation

In the deletion discussion for this article, it would help if you refrained from responding to others' comments as soon as they are made. Your point is clearly stated at the top of the page. Would you please let others engage in meaningful discussion so that a proper consensus can be achieved. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this

Please note that I am in the process of sourcing and adding out of universe information cited in published books and therefore hope you might reconsider your stance. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Leiber

On July 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Leiber, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Papal elections

The lenght of the elections would be no problem I think - the discrepancies concern very few cases. Besides, for the majority of the elections we can add simply this site as reference. More problematic would be the numbers of electors. For the elections before 1241 we've got little reliable data about the number and names of the participants. The lists published by Salvador Miranda on the cardinals' site for this period are taken from the very old opuscle of Alphonsus Ciacconius Vitae, et res gestae pontificum romanorum et S.R.E. Cardinalium, with only few corrections from Miranda's himself, and are no longer reliable because they contradict the established itinerars of many cardinals (e.g. Nicholas Breakspear is listed as participant in 1153, although he was legate in Scandinavia from 1152 until 1154; Guillaume of Palestrina is listed as elector in December 1124 though he was in Germany at that time, and such examples can be multiplied) CarlosPn · talk 11:40, 21 July 2009 (CET)

Cardinal protectors of England

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cardinal protectors of England, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Crown-cardinal. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiance War

Why did you say there was not a clear merge target?. The main article would have been the merge target. And perhaps you should have given me time to answer after the first close?, not waited until there was one additional delete and closed DGG (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiance War, I was not the one that closed it. Savidan 13:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Papal conclave, September 1503

On July 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, September 1503, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Template in The Deputy article

Hi Savidan, I'm not certain if the "Pope Pius XII" template is fortunate in the Deputy article. The pope is occuring only once rather briefly in act IV of Hochhuth's play. I read the most recent scholarly / philological analysis of The Deputy in German these days (Heiner Teroerde: Politische Dramaturgien im geteilten Berlin. Soziale Imaginationen bei Erwin Piscator und Heiner Müller um 1960. Göttingen 2009). Teroerde convincingly shows that the role of the pope has strongly been overrated by contemporary audiences of the 1960s (admittedly, for comprehensible reasons). Teroerde claims that the author's concerns were to a large extent other ones than to 'bash' the Holy See (to accuse the continuing influence of fascist patterns of thought in (West-)German society of those days). In my view, the template is gradually misleading. However, if you prefer to keep it, I don't offend. --Diggindeeper (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not an issue of whether the portrayal was accurate or not. The issue is whether The Deputy was notable and influential in Pius XII historiography. I think that even defenders of Pius XII would rate the work as quite influential, perhaps even more so than his contemporary detractors. Savidan 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Papal conclave, October 1503

On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, October 1503, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject:Did you know 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cardinal protector of England

Hello! Your submission of Cardinal protector of England at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SoWhy 09:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Conclavist

On July 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Conclavist, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII and passports

This is covered in the main article. I was under the impression you had just copy-and-pasted from there... Savidan 00:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The article talks about passports for Jews in Hungary, but I was thinking about the case of Père Marie-Benoît, who had been frequently in contact with Pius XII. I'm not sure the passports that Benoît delivered were the same as those Hungarian passports. ADM (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As you can read in the razzia article, Benoît was not the pope. In fact, there is some very strong evidence that Pius XII discouraged his efforts. If you wish to write about this, please focus on the role of Pius XII (as this article will simply become unmanageable if it is about all Catholics during the Holocaust). Savidan 00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he did meet the Pope and clearly informed him about his plan, which is still significant. It's not like he had never heard of or met the sovereign pontiff. Also, I don't intend to confuse the actions of people like Benoît with those of Pius XII, such as what writers like Pinchas Lapide might have done. Even if the records show that Pius didn't support every thing Benoît did, I think it would still be of some notablility because it shows Pius's reactions to the rescue effort movement. ADM (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to you writing about this. I just asked that you focus on the role of Pius XII given the subject of the article. Savidan 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical moralism

I would like to make a comment on the historiographical debate surrounding the Pius XII question. I guess what strikes me the most about Pius XII's critics is that they seem to believe that history bears a definite moral message, and that anyone who dares contradict or oppose that message, at least whatever they deem it to be, can and must be condemned. It is a kind of historical idealism, similar to the writings of Hegel, which tends to oppose the notion of historical realism, where history assumes a passive character instead of an active one.

Regarding the Holocaust, I do not think it can be qualified in primarily religious or moral terms, because of the very nature of history, which is a-religious and non-judgemental in terms of personal moral values. History cannot be personified nor can it be impersonated. On the other hand, powerful men are the real authors of history, and they alone carry the burden of personal responsibility, since they cannot lay their blame to anonymous forces such as Nature or Power.

The Holocaust was certainly a conspiracy, but it was essentially a conspiracy of men, men who were acting out what they considered to be their definite moral ideal, which unfortunately involved killing Jews. Hence, we must not take it for granted that there is nothing intrinsically moral in history, lest we not repeat another drama like the Shoah.

ADM (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm very interested in philosophical debates about the holocaust, but I do try to keep it out of my historical articles. Just the facts. Savidan 06:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)