User talk:Ian Spackman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Older stuff 2 WikiProject Italy 3 Charles Borromeo 4 Romano Prodi 5 Siracusa Family 6 Saints and Prayers 7 Dominic Savio 8 A small token of appreciation 9 SmackBot

[edit] Older stuff

It’s here

[edit] WikiProject Italy

Thanks. Kingjeff 17:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need a temporary page anymore. I think it looks active enough to move it to a perminant page. Kingjeff 16:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to have a Project Division.Here is an example. Do you want to be leader of the WikiProject? This just started off as a suggestion to User:Attilios. So, I'm not interested enough after getting it off the ground. Kingjeff 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Borromeo

Your constant hacking of Saint-related articles is close to vandalism. --evrik ^(talk) 01:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don’t “hack” Saint-related articles. Sometimes I edit them. Usually in rather minor ways: fixing a place of birth, upgrading an old table-based info-box to the newer template-based one, providing proper captions for images. Please try to learn some manners.

In the case of Charles Borromeo you are referring to two edits which I have made recently:

In the first edit [2] I restored a {{fact}} template which had been placed against the patronage list by Crzrussian asking for a source for the list. (An entirely reasonable request.) At the same time I restored an—I would say—similarly reasonable request for a citation for the prayer which had been there since I made it back in the summer. My edit summary ran “When citations are requested please supply them rather than removing the requests. For help see WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources.” I stand by my edit and its summary and I cannot see how it could remotely be construed as vandalism. Your response to this edit was not to supply the requested sources but simply to revert with the comment “Citations in the info box are not required in the infobox per the discussion on the WikiProject page. Also removing hidden commentary”. But there is nothing of the sort on WP:SAINTS; and nor should there be, as it would be diametrically opposed to the basic Wikipedia principle of verifiability.

My second edit [3] was again to restore the requests for citations. This time the edit summary ran: “Revert: ‘The ability to provide sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy.’ (See WP:CITE)).” Again not a whiff of anything like vandalism. —Ian Spackman 18:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romano Prodi

Why remove my contribution completely? You edited it well at first. Your allegations of The Daily Mail veracity being trivial are unjust and against Wikipedia guidelines. Please revert and if you wish to dispute its inclusion, placement or any other matter, say so on the talk page before acting, that too is an important part of keeping to the guidelines. Chavatshimshon 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I’ll have a look at my edit again, though it’s too late simply to revert it as the article has moved on in the interim. The Daily Mail ref didn’t seem to add anything to the sources we already had—although since I am not a registered user of that site (and honestly don’t want the hassle getting a ‘free trial’), I was able to read only the first part of their article.

On the matter of principle—should one discuss changes (both additions like yours and removals like mine!) on the talk page first, or should one be bold—Well it all depends, doesn’t it? But my edit was in line with the fairly extensive comments I had already made on the talk page. I’ll put further comments there, were they are more visible, rather than here. I think it would be helpful if the ‘insertionists’ were able to make out their case there more clearly.

Thanks for telling me of your concerns. Cheers! —Ian Spackman 11:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siracusa Family

I was looking at the translation for Siracusa Family, is what needs to be translated the quotes in spanish? Now if I do translate them, should the originals be left along with the translation, or remove the originals all together. Because you must remember, when translating from one language to another, alot of information is lost in translation.

Input would be greatly appreciated. Bearingbreaker92 03:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That’s right, there are three indented quotes near the start of the article which need translating: two in Spanish and one in Latin. If you could translate any of them, that would be great.

As I can’t read any of the quotes—I seem to have lost all the Latin that was driven into my reluctant brain at school, and have never studied Spanish—I don’t know how important it would be to keep the originals. I would have guessed that if they are retained, they should be in footnotes, rather than in the main text. Indeed it is quite possible that, rather than full literal translations, all we really need is summaries of the salient points. I am entirely happy to leave those questions to your judgement! If you’re not sure, I would suggest leaving the originals in as footnotes: a later editor can always delete them as unnecessary.

Cheers! —Ian Spackman 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I translated the second Spanish section. Tell me what you think of it. It seems to be fairly cryptic, probably cause it was written so long ago?

Bearingbreaker92 17:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that translation: wow it is pretty cryptic—must have been a pain to do! But it’s tremendously helpful, because we can now see what the person who uploaded the article was doing: providing a source to support his basic statement that

The family Zaragoza during the domination of the kings of Mallorca was in charge of the Castle of the city Perpignan

And it does that very nicely. So I’ll move it, along with the introductory note and your translation into a footnote. [Have done, and also the two other quotes, which now I can see are performing the same function.]

If you could bear to translate the first quote too, that would be brilliant. But no pressure, of course. Thanks again, —Ian Spackman 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Because i dont know how to edit the footnotes, it would be appreciated if you could tell me how, here is the translation for the first part you've been asking for.

En la toma de esta ciudad gratificó el imperador a los ricos hombres y caballeros que le sirvieron en la guerra; y porque entre todos fue muy señalado el esfuerzo y constancia de Gaston Vizconde de Bearne, le hizo mercéd de la parte de la ciudad que era habitada para cristianos, quando los moros la poseían, que eran ciertos barrios de la parroquia de Santa Maria la mayor. Y túvola el Vizconde con la Vizcondesa D. Teresa su mujer y Centullo su hijo en honor, intitulandose Señor de Zaragoza como era costumbre….Una rama de esta familia se apellida Zaragoza

In he takes of this gratified city the emperor(i believe the word imperador is spelled incorrectly, it may be emperador, but im not 100% sure.) to the rich men and gentlement that served him in the war; and because between all of them they showed much indication of effort and consistency of Gaston Vizconde of Bearne, he did mercéd(again, another word that I cannot find a translation to) of the part of the city that was lived in by Christians, when(cuando, not quando) the Moorish possessed it that was the certian neighborhods of the parish of Santa Maria the eldest. And he had (tuvola im gonna take a guess is an ancient form of tuvo.) the Viscount with Vizcondesa D. Teresa his woman and Centullo his son in honor, he entitled Señor de Zaragoza as was custom. A branch of this family is called Zaragoza.

There, a very rough translation. I noticed a few spelling errors too in the paragraph. Please please please also remember, I am by no means a native speaker of spanish, I've been studying the language for 4 years now. Please remember that the grammar in that is most likely horrible, and it is also a very old dialouge. It really needs to be copy edited.

If you ever find anything else that is in Spanish and needs to be translated, feel free to give leave me a message, I'd be more than happy to.

Sorry to get back to you so late: I have been away for a few days. Many thanks for the second translation. I have added it to the Siracusa Family article: it was easier to do it myself than try to explain how to edit in-line footnotes; but if you have a look, you will see how it is done. I have also added a note to the article’s entry on Pages_needing_translation_into_English, mentioning that—as you say above—a second look for copy editing would be welcome.

Thanks again! Cheers Ian Spackman 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bearingbreaker92 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saints and Prayers

Dear Ian Spackman, I have followed with interest your various discussions on Saints. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and wish to understand certain concepts clearly so that I can contribute efficiently. I wonder if you would be so good as to enlighten me?

1. Is it desirable that for the Sample Prayer in the infobox, a prayer by the Saint is desired compared to a prayer for the intercession to the Saint?

2. I noticed that after a series of friction-generating edits at the Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows article, started off by Attilios, you sensibly placed the prayer in the discussion page till the issue is resolved. Out of curiosity, I spent an afternoon searching for references to that prayer on the internet, and have written about it on the talk page of the article. Please look at it if you have the time. Thanks.

3. From your talk page archives, my understanding is that the Prayer Section of the Infoboxes are a cause for some disagreements here. Please help me understand. Is it the consensus that prayers are not to be included? Or are prayers composed by the saint more acceptable? Are prayers to the Saint that have some historical value accptable? (For example, I'm sure you know about the famous Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, composed by the late Pope Leo XIII ) Strangely, there is no Saints Infobox at the St. Michael article. Probably since he is not a human Saint.

To be perfectly fair, I should explain my possible bias. I'm Catholic. However, I agree with your views when you say that the articles on the Saints should be encyclopedic and not look like religious literature. If prayers are conisdered unencyclopedic, then, I would agree that they should be removed from the infoboxes. At present, I remain confused about this matter. Also, as you say, the historic significance of the Saints must not be missed out in their articles.

However, I am unable to understand why the prayer at the St. Gabriel infobox was singled out as improperly POV and deleted by Attilios. (Perhaps my bias is showing, but I'm trying to be objective here) Is not the prayer indicative of the philosophy for life held by the person the article describes? Please clear my doubts on this matter, if you have the time to spare.

I have to tell you, I am in awe of the volume and quality of your contributions here!

Thank you for your time. Yours, Savio mit electronics 16:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominic Savio

Dear Ian Spackman, In response to the 'disputed' and 'expert' tags, I have done some work on the Dominic Savio article. If you have time to spare, please take a look at the article and decide if the tags can be removed. Thank you. Yours, Savio mit electronics 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Savio, sorry not to have replied earlier (or at all to your previous message—though I’ll try to tomorrow), but I have been away for a few days.

‘Some work’ is quite an understatement! I have not yet read every word of the article, but certainly it has been transformed. (Previously it was pretty dim, as I recall.) Nice to see things properly sourced. So good work. Clearly the 'disputed' and 'expert' tags can go. In fact I will remove them now. Cheers! Ian Spackman 20:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ian Spackman,

Thank you for your kind words. I had to be very careful of my writing while I was doing that article, because of two reasons:

1. I happen to be a practising Catholic, and
2. As you have probably guessed by now, I was named after St. Dominic Savio.

(To make a long story short, my older brother died immediately after birth; doctors said my mother would not be able to concieve thereafter; she prayed for Dominic Savio's intercession; soon she had a baby: me)

Therefore, I had to be very careful not to give the article a "Isn't he a cool hero?" tone. (as Jtdirl colourfully puts it) Having gone through your contributions, I value your opinion much, and I'm glad that you think the article is more encyclopaedic now.

P.S: I must visit Italy some day. Many of my favourite Saints are Italians: Dominic Savio, Don Bosco, Padre Pio, Anthony of Padua (who was also my late grandfather's favourite saint), Alphonsus Liguori...............

Thanks for taking the time to read the article.

Yours,

Savio mit electronics 12:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A small token of appreciation

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Ian Spackman for his work on several wine related articles that have helped to substantially improve Wikipedia's coverage of Italian wines. Thanks! Agne 08:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SmackBot

Thanks for the note. Rich Farmbrough 19:13 9 December 2006 (UTC).

P.S. All fixed. Rich Farmbrough 19:30 9 December 2006 (UTC).