User talk:Mar vin kaiser

Spring and Autumn Period，male noble used clan name,female use Ancestral name，so 姬某某 (Ji +given name) is wrong，maybe you shall know this. -星光下的人 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In china,Bo zhong shu ji is used to permutation brothers order,Bo means his the eldest son,zhong means the second ,shu menas the third,ji means the youngest.Taibo's bo is not Count. 班固《白虎通·姓名》：“《故以时长幼号曰伯、仲、叔、季也。伯者，长也。伯者子最长，迫近父也。仲者，中也。叔者，少也。季者，少也。适长称伯，伯禽是也。庶长称孟，以鲁大夫孟氏。“ -星光下的人 (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, it sounds about right. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duke Huan of Zheng, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hua County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibis (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colombian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mar vin kaiser. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Francisco González Ledesma, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Francisco González Ledesma to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Weinfield (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for contacting me! About your previous question, I do not have access to previously deleted articles but I'm sure the administrator, who performed the action, can undo it once you explain your intention to add sources; here's his page User:Xoloz. And, as for the sources, citing foreign sources is perfectly fine.

Hi,

I apologize for the lateness of this reply, but I have been in hospital for a bit dealing with a pesky illness. In answer to your question, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. When writing an article in the English Wikipedia, it is inappropriate to cite the Spanish Wikipedia as the reliable source. Instead, the proper choice is to cite the sources used by the Spanish Wikipedia in composing its article. For instance, today's featured article on Spanish Wikipedia is Leche. If one wanted to translate that article to compose the English article on Milk, one wouldn't simply cite the Spanish Wikipedia article Leche; one would cite any or all of the 91 reliable sources referenced in the reference section of the article Leche. One should follow the same practice in composing an article concerning Francisco González Ledesma. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Liu Yuan (musician) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Liu Yuan''' (({{zh|p=Liú Yuán}}, pronounced {{IPAc-cmn|l|iu|2|-|ü|an|2}}; January 1, 1960 in Beijing, China) is

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

]

Thank you so much for participating in Translating Ibero-America!

	Thank you so much for participating in Translating Ibero-American!
	From Wikimedia Argentina we would like to thank you for participating in the contest Translating Ibero-America ¡We hope to see you soon in our next contest!

--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mar vin kaiser. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mar vin kaiser ,
Hope this message finds you well!
Again this year 2017 the Iberocoop network is launching the editing contest "Translating Ibero-American" aiming to position the Ibero-american culture outside our borders :)
You can find the contest page here
We hope you can join us!
Hugs--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mar vin kaiser. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Janek Rubeš, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

Hello, Mar vin kaiser. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published,

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Janek Rubeš and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mar vin kaiser! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Legacypac (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting the word ‘Roman’ from Roman Catholic Church from a large number of pages? Have you achieved community consensus for this? If not, would you consider reverting all of these edits?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Literaturegeek: Check here, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Catholic Church. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Literaturegeek: As the Wikipedia Manual of Style says, "The terms Catholic Church and Catholic are acceptable names for the worldwide church in full communion with the Pope in Rome. Although branch theory-derived objections tend to be rejected along WP:FRINGE lines, what settles the WP:CONSENSUS is WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Article names, and by consequence its content, should not be changed from this convention without strong reason.". Therefore, the convention is to use the terms "Catholic Church" and "Catholic". I'm just bringing articles to convention. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That manual of style is about the Catholic Church article naming dispute, i.e. whether the Catholic Church article should be a disambiguous page covering Anglican and other Protestant denominations who view themselves as a Protestant Catholic/universal faith. That page you link to has absolutely nothing to do with usage of the term “Roman Catholic Church” in article text. In fact, the Catholic Church page has Roman Catholic Church bolded in the first sentence as a name it is known by. There is no policy or guidelines that says or suggests that ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is an unacceptable name on Wikipedia that should be changed in article body text. Please revert your changes and seek community consensus for your edits. There may well be good reason for the reader to know which form of Catholic Church is being referred to as Anglican and certain other faiths regard themselves as a Catholic/universal Christian faith church.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That manual of style is only a proposal, it is not even accepted, but yet you are making sweeping changes to many articles. Please stop making these changes to articles, which is effectively banning the term ‘Roman Catholic Church’ from the entire Encyclopedia. Your editing is, at this point in time,

disruptive.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Chicbyaccident: Sorry for bringing you into this, but what do you think? Is there an issue with me editing entries like this? Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The thing is is that there is no manual of style about this issue, it is a proposal that went stale. Chic by accident can join the conversation but will run into the problem that the manual of style is a proposal that so far is not accepted by the community. Who knows, may be your changes are positive but I think you need to get that manual of style accepted as a guideline if you feel strongly about this issue and get some text included in the manual of style guidance about changing ‘Roman Catholic Church’ to ‘Catholic Church’ before making any further changes like you have been doing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglican Communion considers itself part of the Catholic church. I think the changes are a bad idea. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That link is a failed proposal. Please revert the rest of your changes. "Roman Catholic" is the common name. If you have not reverted within a day, I will do so for you and may request a topic ban. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is going to be long, but you've stumbled into one of the most complex areas of Wikipedia: I've said this elsewhere, but while I typically fall on the Catholic side in article title discussions (for a variety of reasons, but I'm certainly not a hardliner on it), changes within article prose are a very different matter. The Protestant vs. Orthodox vs. Catholic feud over the title is less important here than the fact that any change is going to make people angry, and quite simply it is not worth the effort or amount of time that would be expended to get a universal guideline on usage here (plus it would fail because of how complex this situation is.)
  We have finally come to a somewhat stable status quo on article titles (which has been trending anti-Roman for the last few years), but there is simply no way that we will be able to parse out how to deal with it in prose in a way that achieves anything remotely resembling a community consensus. Lacking such a consensus, on Wikipedia, the rule for stylistic changes such as this is to stay with the stable usage and use it consistently.If you create a new article, you are generally free to use either usage you want: I almost always only use Catholic in my articles, and you're free to do this too. If someone came along and started adding Roman to articles I'd written such as Pietro Campori, I'd be mad too, because it's pretty disruptive and literally does no good.
  Sorry for the long post, but you've inadvertently reignited something that has been sleeping for a very long time, and that in all honesty, should be left asleep. The status quo of not having a consistent usage for prose in every article might not be satisfying, but it really is the best outcome we're going to get. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Hi, I'd just like to ask your opinion on this. For example, there are some saints that are listed on the sidebar to be venerated by the "Roman Catholic Church" and "Eastern Catholic Churches", and some saints listed as being venerated by the "Roman Catholic Church" without the "Eastern Catholic Churches" listed. The thing is, technically, all saints venerated by the "Roman Catholic Church" (whether you mean the communion of churches in communion with the Pope or those that just use the Roman rite), are also venerated by the "Eastern Catholic Churches" (which are also in communion with the Pope). So, there seems to be an inconsistency here when it comes to what churches are listed to venerate a saint (or how it is listed). The options would be: 1.) to list both every time (Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches), 2. to list only "Roman Catholic Church" (to mean all churches in communion with the Pope even though other Wikipedia articles understand it only the Roman-rite churches), or 3. to list only "Catholic Church" (which would be in line with article names as meaning the churches in communion with the Pope regardless of rite). Leaving the articles as is results in inconsistencies at best, misunderstandings at worst. What do you think? Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change unless there is a strong reason to change. If you think there is such a reason, explain it on the talk page after you make the change. As I said above, a large part of keeping the peace on this dispute is maintaining the stable version of an article when either C or RC is valid and some inconsistencies are fine. Nothing you raised above is factually wrong, so the need to change is not pressing. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. If the term was originally "Roman Catholic", there was likely a good reason. The exception is on specific Catholic theology or Catholic history articles. As for the saints, the question is what the common name is. If they are also recognized by the Anglican communion, I believe that "Roman Catholic" is appropriate. I'll let you decide.

I did suggest that you should revert the changes. In that case, you could have had more latitude in which articles to restore and which not to. I'm applying the rule-of-thumb I described and linking to the discussion where I proposed it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could add that none of the commentators above act in a exclusively representative way for Wikipedia, the Wikipedia community, or the consensus around here. While I agree with parts of it, I'd like to add two comments myself in this area. 1) When an article name states "Catholic" rather than "Roman Catholic", I see little if any reasons to stubbornly mainatin "Roman Catholic" in its text context. Thus far, I think

Re: this edit. Thanks for providing an explanation this time. Edit comments are helpful in explaining the purpose of your edits to other editors.

I'm still curious to what in the Manual of Style you are referring. Looking around I see:

• A failed proposal for a Manual of Style section
• A failed proposal for a naming convention on the Catholic Church, and
• A draft proposal
  for a naming convention on Catholicism, which is mostly not written yet.

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia guidelines that would prevent refering to the Church as the Roman Catholic Church, and the repeated failure of attempts to set up a naming guideline suggests that there is not consensus for such a guideline.--Srleffler (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have appreciated that you make these reverts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in discussions about

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just alerting you of this since the edits in dispute included infobox issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes This editor has been awarded the Christianity Barnstar

I'd like to promote you with a barnstar for commendibly working towards progress in an area of Wikipedia that could use some improvement.

Hello, Mar vin kaiser. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mar vin kaiser,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 — fr ^❄ 06:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mar vin kaiser. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Catholic saints, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dutch and Antonio González (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mar vin kaiser,

Thank you for creating David Galván Bermúdez.

Please add

verifiability

requirements.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Crystallizedcarbon}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,