User talk:CarlosPn

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear CarlosPn: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk (discussion) page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popes activities

Thank you for your informative notes on the pope. You might consider putting an edited version of what you left me (with paragraphs and maybe even subsections) on the discussion page on the article. There's a lot of information there.

I am unenthused about the article itself. Most popes listed did nothing wrong. Were married before Holy Orders, their spouses died. Were legally married since the early church saw nothing wrong with this for clerics. So the presence of all those names is absurd, in my opinion. The title is English was selected to titillate a readership, in itself a pov violation IMO.

Why is there no "sexual activities of the presidents of the US?" Or "Hollywood actors/actresses who cheated on their spouses?" One reason is that you can't come up with an article that isn't flattering to some other organization in society that Wikipedia admins will allow. Only Catholic targets are allowed. Very biased IMO.

But I will continue to edit and help where I can. Student7 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, CarlosPn, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! --Thw1309 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kolobrzeg

Hi Carlos, according to Kolobrzeg, "The chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg (975-1018) mentions the town as salsa Cholbergiensis as the seat of a bishop, Reinbern from Saxony (Hassegau): With the Congress of Gniezno in 1000, the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III granted the archdiocese of Gniezno the right to form a separate church hierarchy, with Kolberg as one of the dioceses." So I assumed it was still a diocese in 1220. Is this information incorrect? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For Albenga I believe the source was Conrad Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica. I neglected to write down the source for every bishop, but generally, the names that are still in Latin are taken from Eubel. Eubel is a very old source and there may be better, more recent, sources, so if you find any mistakes, you are welcome to change them! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work!

Good work on those papal conclave articles! Its good to see someone else working in this relatively arcane field. Savidan 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Papal conclave, 1667

I've added some in-text citations to my article Papal conclave, 1667. However, I left you to judge whether it's sufficient to remove the box "morefootnotes". The primary source for this article is the book of Valerie Pirie, "The Triple Cropwn: An account of the Papal Conclaves", which is available online. The list of patricipants and the informations about them are according to informations on the website The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church by Salvador Miranda. CarlosPn (talk) February 19, 2008 20:54 (CET)

Hello, CarlosPn. Thank you for your note and your quick referencing. I've removed the {{morefootnotes}} tag from the article. I'd suggest adding an actual reference for footnote #1, as the wikiarticle Papal conclave, 1621 does not exist yet. That article will need its own references, too, when it comes into existence. The same ref can be used in this article, right? Happy editing. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've nominated this article for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on February 18, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave, 1667 DYK

On 23 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1667, 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) 07:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave, 1534 DYK

On 26 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1534, 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) 13:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On February 27, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1572, 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.

Well done again Carlos. Do feel free to self nom in future. This was nommed by PFHLai. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nom

...that Gregory XIII the first pope canonised since the 13th century was elected by the Papal conclave of 1572? by CarlosPn OK? Victuallers (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave, 1758

On 2 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1758, 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) 10:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 8 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1721, 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.

Great job with the papal conclaves. 75 ballots is definitely an "interesting fact"! --Royalbroil 04:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 14 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1621, 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.

--Cirt (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another cardinal-nephew?

What do you make of "Ludovico Migliorati" described as a cardinal-nephew in the article of Pope Innocent VII? Is he the same as the Giovanni Migliorati that we already have? If not, then the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church site doesn't have him. But I have seen him listed in other sources, including The Catholic Encyclopedia and Papal Geneaology. What say you? Savidan 23:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same for "CAETANI STEFANESCHI, Giacomo" described as a nephew by the Catholic Encyclopedia [1] but not by the Cardinals site [2]... Savidan 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camerlengo of the Sacred College of Cardinals

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Camerlengo of the Sacred College of Cardinals, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/camerlengos.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

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) 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papal election, 1185

On 28 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal election, 1185, 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) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that you are back on the papal election project (and correctly calling them elections instead of conclaves)! I may have lost my appetite for writing these for the moment, but I am always interested in reading about them. Savidan 23:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the template too! Almost makes me want to start writing these again to see how far we've come. Savidan 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papal election, 1227

You've got a good start going here. I think its a bit curious that the two known members of the committee were selected for the job (as such I am a little put off by the "reluctantly" language). In general, it seems like every papal election chronicler notes the the pontiff elected was "reluctant" and that the vote was "unanimous" (the later failing to note that this was likely only after the candidate obtained a two-thirds majority, after which a accessus is traditional) as though either of these features were unique to that election or likely to be true. I also wonder whether the committee had the actual power to elect a pope or only (as some later committee's had) the power to present a its decision to the full college for a vote. I'll be interested to see how this article develops. Savidan 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the conclave, January 1276, do I presume too much to say the location may have been the Basilica di San Francesco di Arezzo? I've been trying to populate Category:Sites of papal elections more. Savidan 00:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave, 1592 DYK

On 8 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1592, 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) 09:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for untangling that. I must admit, I was a little confused about the chronology myself. I'll untangle the articles asap. Savidan 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we're racking up a bunch of people on the list of cardinal-nephews whose status as either a cardinal or a relative is dispute/uncertain. How would you feel about having a visual symbol (like the cross sign we currently have for CN) for each of those? Savidan 22:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 28 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Stuart

Thanks for your helpful and constructive comments under this article. I think your conclusions are broadly right and agree that the text as it stands needs to be a bit more nuanced. I'm happy to have a go at doing this. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great find with Pius VII! I guess the Cardinals site is fallible after all... Savidan 01:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possibilities here: either one of the alternate names for the Arnaud's is Fournier or they were proposing the election of a non-cardinal. Having done a bit of research about Arnaud de Pellegrue, I think we can be relatively certain it is not him; the others I know less about. Savidan 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I do really want to commend you about your attempts to look objectively at the Stuart article and contribute some neutral but very helpful observations. I'm sorry that you're leaving the discussion to move onto other areas - it's a shame because sometimes you need a clear head to balance out opposing sides and get an article of quality! Contaldo80 (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave, 1304–1305

Can we say for DYK that this was the only papal election post-1061 where no cardinal-elector present, would ever become pope? We can safely rule out the vast majority of elections where a cardinal was chosen (double checking the one where an absentee cardinal was chosen); and then I think we are clear for the other five non-cardinal elections, with the possible exception of the 11th century. Would you mind checking the Polish Wikipedia? Savidan 16:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I only listed the cardinal bishops because they were the only ones with suffrage, hence the only cardinal-electors. But yeah, it seems like there's too many exceptions to be writing this. Thanks. Savidan 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranieri is listed as the Camerlengo for this time period in the Camerlengo article (and, if I was the one that added this information, on Miranda's page). I'm not saying you are wrong about the other guy, but there can't be two at the same time, can there? Savidan 20:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Should we consider a split of that article. The list doesn't seem to be very discriminatory. Savidan 21:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave, 1774–1775 DYK

On 12 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1774–1775, 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) 02:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. If you write a separate article, I suggest that a brief section be left in the Council of Constance article and be linked with the {main} template. Once such an article is written, the conclaves template can be moved from the CoC article to that one. I merely thought that linking the CoC article would do a much better service to readers than a redlink being as the conclave was (as I ignorantly understand) a subset of the council.

On a related note, I removed the antipapal conclaves from the template, but am now beginning to have second thoughts. If you think that there is a reasonable chance that these will be written, you may add them back, in which case I suggest italicizing them and including a note in the template as to what the italics refer to. I don't plan on writing any of them in the near future, but maybe you think you can do them justice. Savidan 19:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I'll look into this more. Could you maybe add something to the effect of your comments into the article? Doesn't have to be as thorough, just to explain that "Pandolphus" (according to those articles, the Pandolphus authorship of the L.P. is also in doubt) source lists only the six, and that the other source lists these additional ones. Savidan 16:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian IV

I've got a couple of questions about the dating of Breakspeare's appointment to Albano. Bishop of Albano has it as 1146, and the "Tull" reference suggests 1146 (but could be open to alternative interpretation). Could you

add a ref for 1149 if you have one,
move the Tull reference to a point in the text before the 1149 date (because Tull doesn't support 1149) and
correct the date in the succession box further down the page.

Thanks, Bazj (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nicely done. Bazj (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!

On 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article papal conclave, 1769, which you recently 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.

--I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--Victuallers (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 25 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article papal election, 1198, 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) 06:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave, 1458

On 13 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1458, 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.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papal election, 1159

On 27 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal election, 1159, 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) 17:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formating advice

Your articles on papal elections and conclaves are greatly appreciated. Just a note on format: Wikipedia prefers that references come after periods. Thus, ".<ref></ref>" and not "<ref></ref>." Thanks and good work! Srnec (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Papal election, 1159

The article Papal election, 1159 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Papal election, 1159 for things needed to be addressed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I passed the article with a few minor tweaks. Back a month or so ago I GA reviewed Papal conclave, 1314–1316; the article was almost at standard, but there were some sources lacking (think it was who were cardinals or something around that). I had to fail the article since the author seems to have gone on a permanent wikibreak. Anyway, just wondering if you could take a look at it, fix up the reference suggestions in the article and then renominate for GA (if you have the appropriate sources available). Otherwise, congratulations with the good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlos!

I just want to acknowledge your continued effort at sorting out the archpriests at St Peters. Amandajm (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II

Hello Carlos, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. So, I though I would invite you to take a look. Any help would be much appreciated.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 02:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Papal election, 1130

On January 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal election, 1130, 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) 14:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papal election, 1294

Are you sure this was held in Castel Nuovo? According to this site it was one of the 5 held in Palazzo delle Canoniche (and I believe the other 4 to be correct). The other possibility is that I am wrong about the papal election, 1292-1294. Savidan 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! I just went back and re-read the latter article (it's been a while...). Looks like that site was overclaiming the election a bit because it was held in multiple locations. Savidan 00:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal-nephews list

Carlos, many of the points you raise are quite valid. Please feel free to make whatever changes you deem to be necessary to the list; your contributions to date have been excellent. However, I would note that my preference in most of the cases that you highlight would be to note the uncertainty/dispute and add a footnote (perhaps as a standard reference; perhaps in a different format) discussing the historiography/source issues in question. I believe that if a source of decent quality lists a person as a cardinal-nephew, and another source disagrees that is something well-worth noting. Only if the source making the cardinal-nephew claim is of very low quality would I suggest removal as the best option. I would suggest creating two visual identifiers (i.e. a small graphic or symbol to place after the bullet point): one for persons whose cardinalate is disputed/uncertain; one for persons whose relationship is disputed/uncertain. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me; let me know what you think. Savidan 22:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example:

for disputed cardinalate and File:No-Stemma.png for disputed relationship. Savidan 22:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know which account is more or less accurate. It's a pity that the link you sent me doesn't give more warranted explanation to sort out the differing accounts. Feel free to edit the article in question as you see fit; certainly it should not longer be written in its current form if the fact in question is disputed by reliable sources. However, it is my preference to write more, not less, in response to such situations. Stating which sources say one thing and which sources say another is a good start. If you could figure out what objective facts we could use to attempt to distinguish between the accounts, that would be great too. Savidan 18:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobi Gaytani

I ran into a reference to him while writing Ordinarium Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae. I think he was a cardinal, either when he wrote that or afterwards, possibly Caetani/Gaetani. Can't find a positive match on Mirandas' site. Any ideas? Savidan 00:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popes, etc.

You have some great ideas. We need to do something ASAP. There was a 2-week semi-protect which expires shortly. Then we have the unregistered guy to contend with again. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cardinal-nephews

I have recently restructured the list with the hopes of nominating it to be a Featured list in the near future. Could you let me know your thoughts on the new format and whether you think this list is complete? Savidan 15:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I was going to comment on. Since it seems we've already bumped up against the edges of the certain cardinal-nephews, it seem like anyone else that we might find in the future has gone undiscovered so far for a reason, namely that their historical status is quite dubious. I will implement your changes with reference to the symbols. As for the redlinks, I don't think those will be a problem as far as the FLC; I've looked through Miranda's entries on some of the remaining redlinks and its possible some of these may not even merit an article (as opposed to simply adding the content to the article about the pope). I would certainly welcome your input on which of the redlinked entries are article-worthy. Nice work on the foreign cardinals article! Savidan 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, I plan on nominating the list as soon as my current FLC (List of tombs of antipopes) concludes. Savidan 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it has been nominated. Savidan 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind noting the language of any non-English references that you have added to the references section of List of cardinal-nephews? For example, if the source is German, you could add {{de_icon}} immediately between the * and the authors last name (no new spaces). Italian is "it"; French is "fr"; Polish is "pl"; etc., I believe it follows the same convention as the non-english Wikipedias. Thanks in advance. Savidan 17:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, on notes 2, 4, 7, and 20, you have listed a variety of sources that "do not mention" an individual's cardinalate. I am a little bit troubled by this method, as I believe it could be construed as "original research". Obviously, I support the inclusion of the "disputed" symbols in instances where secondary sources actively disagree with the claim made by another secondary source that someone was promoted to the cardinalate. However, when one secondary source says that someone was promoted to the cardinalate, and another says nothing, I think that could just as easily be evidence that the other source is not comprehensive or did not mean to speak to that claim. Constructing the lack of mention as arguing against someone's promotion to the cardinalate, is--in my mind--original research. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, however. Savidan 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for your new article then. Savidan 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign cardinal

I think you are free to use either term as neither is that entrenched as a term of art. It is difficult to do a google test as most of the results are not about Catholicism. "Foreign cardinal" curial gets >50 hits; "External cardinal" curial gets only one (on google scholar). I would keep the title as is. Savidan 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for External cardinal

On June 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article External 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.

Wizardman 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Prospero Colonna

The Trollope source does indicate that Colonna was probably the Dean. Could you please cite the source that states he was the protodeacon instead, or—if possible—explain why Trollope thought that but was mistaken? Savidan 16:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. I will be more skeptical of some of Trollope's exact identifications in the future, as he often does seem to have trouble with associated given names with sees. Savidan 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of papal elections

I have added a references column as a first step toward making this a featured list. If you know of another good general reference that includes descriptions of many or all conclaves (or even the best descriptions for a more limited period) feel free to add those. Conversely, I am worried about cluttering the article with too many references. Also, what are your thoughts on including the number of electors and the length of the election in the list (as a few non-English language wikis do). Do you believe that this will give rise to more footnotes about disputed numbers than undisputed? Savidan 00:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be your preference on including these columns? I am leaning toward not at the moment but could easily be persuaded otherwise. Savidan 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Papal election, 1181

On July 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal election, 1181, 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 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External cardinal, review on hold

The GA review for the article External cardinal is currently on hold, awaiting further improvements before it is passed or failed. You have seven days in which to make any changes, before I have reached a judgement. Please discuss anything on the GA Review page. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal-nephew photo

These photos are getting deleted all the time. Usually for frivolous copyright reasons. The option is to find a new photo or replace the photos (including the non-deleted ones) with a symbol. What do you think? Savidan 15:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papal conclave, 1492

Thanks for your work on this GA reassessment. I added a couple of sections to the lead to help summarize the article better. Could you please look it over and let me know if you think it works? It can be tweaked if necessary, but I'll wrap up the reassessment as soon as you let me know if you're okay with the phrasing of the lead. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of the creations of the cardinals

I thought you might be interested, for the purposes of your list in Cardinals created by Pope Pius XII in 1946 and Cardinals created by Pope Pius XII in 1953. It appears that you have proposed in your list having only one article per pope, rather than one per occasion. I am not particularly attached to these articles (which I did not personally created), so would be happy with whatever you decide on. Savidan 19:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea about a separate article on the "Historiography of cardinals" or some title like that. You probably know better than me, but I imagine there are common issues that could be elucidated once and referred to very briefly thereafter. For example, you could list and discuss the merits of the various methods of finding names of cardinals (looking at notes of consistories, titles used in documents, lists of electors, lists of signatories, etc.) and then it would be a simple matter to note when one method suggests a cardinal which is contradicted by another. The same goes for sources, if you think any of the main sources require some explanation as to their methods and credibility, as well as whether one source is largely derivative from another or from a group of sources. I think such an article could also note the degree of uncertainty associated with each historical period: i.e. periods where most cardinals are uncertain, periods where only a few cardinals are uncertain, and periods where the uncertainty has disappeared for all practical purposes. As for the individual articles, I agree that one article per pope is better than multiple, but there may be cases where even such an article is excessive. If I were you, I would start with articles where there is historical commentary on the cardinal-creating event itself. Savidan 21:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed!

Can you please translate this paragraph into Polish for my organization? We are a university organization in the United States and are trying to have our purpose statement translated into many languages of the world.

The purpose of the Global Student Organization shall be to promote interest in issues of global significance, to create better inter-cultural relations, to foster international friendship and understanding, and to provide a forum for the presentation of innovative ideas for the benefit of the University community.

The name of the organization means the Organization of Global Students.

Thank you, --Getoar TX (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Barberini and Marc'Antonio Pasqualini

Hi, you contributed to Antonio Barberini with particular reference to Marc'Antonio Pasqualini and their relationship. I have finally managed to get around to creating a page for Marc'Antonio Pasqualini and would appreciate any contribution you might have.

Thanks, Stalwart111 (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theodwin

G'day mate. More fun and games with centuries-old references... ha ha. One source has him listed as attending the string of 1140s papal elections though is also confirms a number of returns to Germany in those same years. In 1145 he is supposed to have attended the election but in that same year he was sent to Germany prior to the second Crusade. The same is the case earlier in 1143, as indeed you pointed out. Surely it's possible both are correct. Rome to Germany would have been a fairly lengthy journey but clearly not impossible given records suggest he went back and forth a number of times.

Then there's the 1153 election two years after one source suggests he died. But another source suggests he died in 1153, in Rome (which presumably would have been not long after the election were it true). I've included a note about the date-of-death contention and have better-qualified the suggestion he attended the papal election.

Any ideas for the other issues? Would be nice to resolve them - at least well enough to acknowledge the conflicting sources while giving as much information as possible.

Stalwart111 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That makes sense; those references seem to give a far more comprehensive account of his whereabouts (as much as that's possible given the context). Your edits explain the disparity well; nice work. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I might copy-and-paste a copy of this back-and-forth on the talk page of the article for future reference)

Crown-cardinal

G'day mate. I know you keep an eye on this one. I spent a little while going through the list and checking some of the links, names, dates, etc. Some were fairly easy to match up to articles you and I have created and a few that have been around for a while so I linked them all up. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Cardinals created by Sixtus IV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Cuenca and Tarentaise

Cardinals created by Nicholas V (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Zbigniew Oleśnicki

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Cardinals created by Clement XI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Damian Hugo Philipp von Schönborn, Filippo Antonio Gualterio and Giovanni Battista Bussi

Cardinals created by Alexander VII (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Neri Corsini

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of papal elections

There are still a few unknown locations on the list. I've done my best to find a more specific location, but about a dozen have only been narrowed down to a city. If you know more specific locations for these, please feel free to add. Savidan 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cardinals created by Leo XII, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giovanni Battista Bussi (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) 10:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. When you recently edited Cardinals created by Sixtus V, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Allen (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) 10:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Cardinals created by Clement VI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pierre Bertrand

Cardinals created by Pius VIII (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Weld

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - could you have a look at the sources at the Leo X page?

Thank you for checking the sources in your recent edit. Could you have a look at the same sources for Pope Leo X#Personal life, and the section in general? I'm somewhat tempted to put a synthesis tag on the whole section, because it seems to move from (intentionally) vague and euphemistic comments to definite and serious accusations. For example, the section attributes something far more serious to what might only have been improper favoritism. And we apparently do not have contemporary historians saying "yes, that is actually what the old historians meant". Openverse (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Barberini

Hey mate! Thanks for this one - good edit. I was trying to find a good way to paraphrase that source. "Alegedly..." being a direct quote, I went with "scandalous" from the line prior given I was already directly quoting. But I'd rather use our own words (without the quote) if possible. Any suggestions? Stalwart111 11:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, entirely fair enough. Anyway, feel free to amend as you see fit! Stalwart111 13:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decided just to start a discussion thread here. Would appreciate your input. Cheers! Stalwart111 10:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some simple help maybe needed - the new papabili list

If you have the time and the possibility the new List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave WP article could need some help. You could start by taking a look at the talk page. Thanks Pgarret (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

References for protodeacons

Hi CarlosPn. I notice that you gave a very helpful response here to a question about references regarding the role of the protodeacon. I also notice that there is a {{unreferenced section}} tag over at Cardinal (Catholicism)#Cardinal Protodeacons since 1911. Perhaps you could help by adding some references to the latter? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scipione Borghese

Really helpful find on the information relating to Giovanni Antonio Marte! Contaldo80 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás de Torquemada

Hi Carlos. Just so you know it is not very helpful to indiscriminately move references from one place to another within an article without having any basis for that relocation. It is also not very historical in its procedure and probably runs counter to historical work. Regards, Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrea Corsini (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) 09:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic-Hierarchy.org

Hello. I noticed that you have edited a number of articles on Catholicism. A discussion is taking place as to whether the website Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a reliable source that can be utilized on Wikipedia or whether all references and information derived from it should be deleted. This topic is currently being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [3]. As the website's removal as a reference will affect several thousand Wikipedia articles, I believe that the broadest range of opinions should be obtained before action is taken. Please contribute if interested.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bentivenga de Bentivengis

Langlois is, of course, decisive in terms of abandoning a June date. He is so annoying, in that his lemma fails to note that it is Cardinal Bentivenga and that he has died; you have to go to Ughelli to find that out. The date of the Testament is not, of course, decisive as to the day of death. I suspect that Ughelli's date is an inference from the date of the Testament.

I must, I fear, take issue in terms of methodology with your remark, "the author not particularly reliable and - in any case - not a contemporary one". If only contemporary authors were reliable, we would be in sad shape; but as we both know, 'contemporaneous' does not guarantee truth. Also, testing individual facts cannot depend on 'reliable' authors. No author is reliable, actually; one has to test every author's statements as to fact. BTW, I just caught Eubel Vol. 1 2nd ed. in an error as to the burial place of Cardinal Simon de Beaulieu. The Elder Pliny once remarked that there is no such thing as a totally useless bool.

But thanks very much for catching a serious misstep on my part! Vicedomino (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CarlosPn. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

Revert of d'Estouteville's date

With regard to the date of d'Estouteville becoming Bishop of Porto-Santa Rufina, I was following Eubel, II, p. 60. I was aware that Santa Rufina was separated off for Kemp on 21 July 1452. But Miranda states (under Kemp's biography) that the sees were reunited on the death of Francesco Condulmer on 30 October 1453. Therefore and thereafter, Kemp became Bishop of Porto-Santa Rufina, and there was a fully vacant see of Porto-Santa Rufina from the death of Kemp on 22 March 1454. What was going on, in your view, between 22 March 1454 and 1459 in the diocese of Port-Santa Rufina? Is Miranda wrong about the reunion? Do you have some evidence? BTW, Miranda says that d'Estouteville opted for Porto in 1455. I find it impossible to believe that Porto was empty for five years! --Vicedomino (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. The H. Denifle-E. Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, IV, Paris 1898, pp. 713-734 gave me some trouble; the ref. is actually in the Intro. on p. xxiv. The Ammannati-Piccolomini ref. and the Pastor II, p. 544, are conclusive. I can't check the ref. in the Vatican Archives for the date of creation. So Eubel is wrong again, and so is Miranda. I still wonder about the long delay in the Sede Vacante at Porto! Just the materials collected by Eubel II, Appendix I, pp. 26 ff. suggest that options were exercised quite quickly after a vacancy occurs—from 10 days to 6 months. Any thoughts? Again, I appreciate the courtesy of a quick reply and the information. --Vicedomino (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estouteville's Birth date

The original statement "Guillaume d'Estouteville, (1403/1412–1483) was a ..." was not mine, and so I have nothing invested in protecting it. I note that you recently changed the text by deleting the 1403 option by citing Esposito. I surmise, since she says "verso il 1412" that she does not have his birth certificate from the Vatican Archives, though she has a very long list of other documents from that source. The date of 1403 has the authority of the 1637 commemorative inscription in S. Agostino behind it, where it states that he was eighty years old at his death (in 1483). I personally have no trust in that inscription, which lauds d'Estouteville's alleged Benedictine connection, but it is some support for 1403. What is behind Esposito's remark? Do you have any insight? --Vicedomino (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. If he were only 21 when he obtained his university Master's degrees (a point that worries Denifle & Chatelain, xxiii), then there might be some point in Pope Eugenius' remark that he had actually earned them and passed the exams. I think D&C ought to be sourced for the date of 1412 rather than, or in addition to, Esposito. --Vicedomino (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estouteville and Black Death

Lest you think that I am responsible for the nonsense of the Black Death which you deleted, I draw your attention (if you haven't already seen it) to the Talk section, where I marked it out for deletion and gave a reason or three for doing so. Thanks for doing the deletion for me. --Vicedomino (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CarlosPn. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

GAR

Papal conclave, 1769, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CarlosPn. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cardinals created by Eugene IV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis de Luxembourg. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]