User talk:Savidan
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "User_talk:Savidan".

content
Archive
Archives


Contents

Tomb of Antipope John XXIII

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

Greetings!

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

Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood

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

Thanks for your edits. The errors you found are to be expected as the article is based on a paper I only had a week to write for an art history class. The other paper I wrote for that class is currently on the main page though... Savidan 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I can never see my own typos. Should all those condottieri have individual articles do you think? I listed some at condottiero once, long ago... Looking about now, I wonder how I have missed your name.--Wetman (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Eventually, I'll probably do some preliminary searches on each of them and eliminate the redlinks for the articles I consider untenable at this time. Savidan 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 9 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

AfD nomination of Boloco

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

Papal names

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Growingup20062008.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK

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

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

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

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


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

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

Clement VIII and Pietro Aldobrandini

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

Pope Clement VIII

Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini

Cardinal Giovanni Aldobrandini

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

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

Ludovico Migliorati and Gaetani Stefaneschi

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that Miranda has served us better in the past than the Catholic Encyclopedia. Thanks for your input and (as always) your dilligent research. Do you think its worth having a section for people inaccurately referred to as cardinal-nephews? I am uncertain. I will look into Benedict XII. I'd like to make this a featured list one day; do you think we'll ever be secure enough in its completeness to do so? Savidan 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
G. Moroni Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da S. Pietro sino ai nostri giorni, vol. V, p. 5 claims that Benedict XII was nephew of John XXII on his mother's side, so it's seems that he may be included in the list. However, I think that we'll never be able to ascertain that the list is complete and without mistakes. Looking deeper in the past, the more uncertain informations and more unsolvable discrapencies in the sources we could find. For example, probably we'll never be sure whether Giovanni Visconti was ever promoted to the cardinalate, and - in consequence, whether he sould be included or not in the list of cardinal-nephews...:/ CarlosPn (talk) April 23, 2008 15:27 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 13:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Acuto

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

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

DYK

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

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

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

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Savidan!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

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

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

4/28 DYK

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

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

Thanks

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


Water resources management in Brazil- THANK YOU

Dear Savidan,

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

Theology of PP XII

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

Speedy deletion of Sanfedismo

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

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

Sanfedismo

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

Do one job well and get two more, eh? :) I'll take a look; I generally tend to stay away from translation, though. Most foreign language wikipedia's, including italian, just aren't adequately sourced (at least for the articles that I've wanted to take). I have no way of knowing that I'm not just translating speculation. Useful for finding search terms though. Savidan 01:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 11 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sanfedismo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

picture of historical 24-hour clock

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

Style questions

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

Papal election, 1292–1294‎

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

Something for you

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

Possibly unfree Image:Contestmap.jpg

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

Image PPXII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gone with the Wind in the Vatican

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

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

quote

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

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

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

Hallo, Why not! Fine, but the story did not end here. AFTER they turned down the red hat, Pius XII gave them new titles as Pro-Secretary of State, and, in addition both were grated the privilege to wear Episcopal Insignia. [2]

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

  • Montini was appointed in 1954, to the senior Italian church post of Archbishop of Milan. Traditionally such an appointment would be followed by being made a cardinal at the next consistory (when vacancies in the College of Cardinals are filled). To the surprise of many, Montini never received the red hat (as the appointment to the cardinalate is often called) before Pope Pius's death in 1958; Pius XII. had only two constitories during his pontificate, in 1946 and 1953. He offered the red hat to Montini and Tardini in 1953, but they turned it down. Montini did not get the red hat after 1954, because the Pope did not have a third consistory before his death in 1958. This meant that all archbishops, appointed after 1953, who could expect the honor because of tradition and importance of their city, did not get the red hat, (Montini Milan, O’Hara Philadelphia, Cushing Boston, König Vienna, Godfrey Westminster, Barbieri Montevideo, Castaldo Naples, Richaud Bordeaux) Pope Pius revealed at the consitory in 1953, that two (Tardini and Montini) were of the very top of his list but turned it down. Montini and Tardini had declined the cardinalate.[3]

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

What puzzled me in this context is Richard Cushing, a Pius fan from Boston, a traditional red hat seat. Appointed in 1944, he was overlooked in both consistories (1946, 1953), but why? A "reliable source" Father Andrew Greeley says that "It is alleged that Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston came out of the conclave with the precise totals of each ballot written on his shirt cuff.[4] This is, however, most unlikely, since Cushing was not a Cardinal at the time of the 1958 conclave. He was elevated to the College of Cardinals by Pope John XXIII on December 15, 1958, that is a few weeks after the conclave. So much for reliable sources. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Vatican Pharmacy DYK

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

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

More pics

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

Thank you for the compliments, I think you are right, placing the template at the end, could you please open it, and, if you can, delete the link to the PPXII page under categories? I tried. On the encyclicals I can see your point but like to disagree. There are 12 more in the making, and I think cutting them up into subjects such as peace, mariology makes more sense and gives them better recognition. But I am thinking with you on that. The template shows an impressive quantitativ array of articles, but I am fully aware, that some of them need more work. You help me a lot, if you tell me, which ones need more work than others. I worked very fast and I know, that not all have the same level of quality but would appreciate your view. In the making are Church policies before the war and Church policies durrin the war, on the latter I will be careful and take much time. Missing are articles on the social teachings, medicine, law, science etc. Thanks and Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think we think along similar lines, but in my view "Mariology of Pope Pius" is partly related and quoted encyclicals, therefore it makes sense to keep them together and avoid duplication (of mariology). On the other hand, I had the persecution encyclicals together with "persecution" articles, and it turned out a too large group, so I subdivided. I am flexible and open to everything and benefit from your input, thanks --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, looking forward--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Image:Assatatrial.jpg listed for deletion

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

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

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

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

Congrats

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

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

DYK

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

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

Imperial Triple Crown Jewels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 principles

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

DYK

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

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

Thanks

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

Caeca et Obdurata

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

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

Ad exstirpanda DYK

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

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

Ad exstirpanda

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

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

re: Papal election, 1227

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

papal election, 1287-1288 DYK

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

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

Papal election, 1241 DYK

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

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

Place of papal conclave, January 1276

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

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

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

Wow!!

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


Pedro Luis de Borja Lanzol de Romaní

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