User talk:Bistropha

Thanks for the translation

I have announced Regensburg Cathedral at Portal:Germany/New article announcements. You can add any other articles you translate or finish there yourself. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 17:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am from Germany, i am very sorry for my bad english. I need an extraordinary translation for my wiki artikel, please contact me asap- Sandaa--Veden11 (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Scharoun

Many thanks for the translation. --Mcginnly 11:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Border Crossings

Thanks for completing the article; I took a look and made some minor copyedits, great work! (Patrick 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Re: New Madrid Earthquake

Thank you very much!! (I know this it late, but I do really appreciate your work). -RobbyPrather (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic College and Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology

There are proposed merger tags on both article pages now, with the discussion taking place at Talk:Hellenic College#Merger proposal, per our discussion at Talk:List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts#Holy Cross?. It's also been listed at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to see if anyone else will weigh in, preferably with some research/background on the topic. --Aepoutre (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are really rocking it with the HCHC research. I like. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to go by there for some photos this week. Bistropha (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! --Aepoutre (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral

On February 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral, 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) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annunciation-Cathedral-exterior.png

Excellent photo! --Boston (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

Hi, Well it may be in AAS, but as is, Wikipedia seems to be the only source on the web and a whole pile of other sites have picked up that fact. I wonder what will happen if someone invents an encyclical for a pope with a title that sounds real and adds it to Wikipedia. In time, it will be "truth"... I think Wikipedia needs professional fact checkers. I am no theologian, so I can not check all of Leo XIIIs items, but on computer science items, I also see serious quality problems.... I have started adding a few page for encyclicals on the Vatican site - not that I have time to add them all, but at least we need to hope for a job category called fact checker I think. Cheers History2007 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love that job. If it's any mitigation: from what I can tell, the only sites picking up the reference to "Parte humanae generi" are sites that automatically copy everything in Wikipedia, so it's probably not really propagating into derived works written by human beings. Exception: the WP article "Mariology of the Popes" mentions the document too, so it's possible that the unsourced assertion in Pope Leo XIII influenced that article. Bistropha (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think over time, it may get into other documents. The strange thing is that if that is a real document, no one else mentions it. Usually EWTN, some other Church site, some GoogleBooks item etc. will find it. If GoogleBooks can not find it, it is misspelt, or wrong, wit 70% confidence on my part. And, it would not be hard to write a simple program/bot to check that type of thing. I think Wikipedia is short on technology and heavy on knowledge... But that is another story. History2007 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petty vandalism on Reformed Episcopal Church

{{adminhelp}} Hi! I need advice from an admin.

User 68.80.184.155 apparently has some unexplained beef about the External Links on the article Reformed Episcopal Church, and has been deleting and/or vandalizing one of the links, three times so far in March, including today. I have left messages on the article's talk page to invite the user to discussion, but there was no response, only another bad edit. How can/should I proceed from here? I will leave a message on the talk page for that IP address to see if there's a response. Thanks. Bistropha (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal needs to vandal multiple articles before you can report it to AIV. I'd suggest you to continue to revert the changes, making note on the edit summary that it you are reverting vandalism to prevent misunderstanding on potential 3RR issues. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bistropha (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, further to the above - I can't see the bit in talk where you've discussed it; which section is it in? -- Chzz ► 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Reformed Episcopal Church#Doctrinal controversies for my comment (19:34, 9 March). Since I posted the adminhelp request, the anonymous user has revised his latest edit and made it acceptable, so I'm satisfied now. I left a note at User_talk:68.80.184.155 to thank the user for repairing the sarcastic edit. Bistropha (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, cool. I was going to suggest you try speaking to the user, if you hadn't - it was a very long talk page, so the user might not have seen it. Glad it's all ok. Happy editing, -- Chzz ► 20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholicism in Israel

Going to redirect this article to Catholicism in Israel. --Opus88888 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia

Hi. I was glad to see you looking at enhancing the article. Let me know if you would like to split the work; my sister just entered, so I'm interested in helping improve the information about them available online. Thanks! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul. It would be good to see more improvements to the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia article (NPOV material, references, etc.) I'm in school now and a bit too busy to try to coordinate the task, so feel free to do as much as is convenient for you. Seeing your mini-bio, I'm sure we'll meet in person sometime (I know the music director at St. Clement's and sing there occasionally for events.) God bless-- --Bistropha (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yousif Benham Habash

Last August you created an article about Yousif Benham Habash. There already was an article about this person at Yousif Habash. As you know more about the subject than I, could you merge the two articles together?
It's upto you on what info should be merged into what article. When you add content from the source article to the destination article, the edit summary should contain, "Merged content from [[<source article>]] to here". (this is required by the license Wikipedia uses)
When finished, a redirect needs to be done. Leave me a message if you want me to do the redirect or for any questions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll put them together. --Bistropha (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLove

SwisterTwister has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. ^†

SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work!

Thanks for your work on Normae Congregationis.

Oct13 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Bistropha. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help verify translations of articles from German

Hello Bistropha,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

Elfriede Grünberg Award ✓ Pass (I translated one line that had not been translated yet)
~~Embassy of China, Berlin~~

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that one. I've ~~struck~~ the other one since someone else is looking at that one, now. We still have plenty more articles to be assessed, though; can I send you a couple more? If so, please let me know, and add {{ping|Mathglot}} to your reply. And thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Calvert Lebourgeoise

That's an excellent point. I'll correct the Anita Calvert Lebourgeoise article. Unless time machine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbaJoe123456 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my notes on the article's talk page also. Bistropha (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Paschal greeting into List of translations of the Paschal greeting. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll follow up. Bistropha (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German Translation

Hello Bistropha,

Would you be bale to translate the below article for the German wikipedia? I have been making requests to translators on the List of German translators. Have not yet had any replies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_graffiti_and_street_art_injuries_and_deaths (replies on my talk page welcome) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyxyzyz (talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, but I translate mostly from German to English, and not vice versa. --Bistropha (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2020 (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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps create Drafts, try to recruit draft expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.

Requesting your visit to following drafts and help expand the same if any of these interests you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]