User talk:Alexander Domanda

Welcome!

Hello, Alexander Domanda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --StuffOfInterest 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On President of the United States if you have a problem with wording, please write about it on the talk page first. If you need to learn about referencing, check out Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. If I can be of assistance, let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't add your own comments or analysis to articles, as you did with President of the United States. If you have a concern about an article's accuracy, please take it up on the article's talk page, which in this case is Talk: President of the United States. Thanks, and happy editing. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Roman Empire. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please read WP:VERIFY Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Sally Hemings. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sicily. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Saint, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WP:EUPHEMISM Aaron Booth (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Saint appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Aaron Booth (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Saint. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Aaron Booth (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greystones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (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) 10:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Iraq, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. You did the same to the Lebanon article and Christianity in Iraq before, and this is wholly inappropriate. If you want to change something, find sources that can back your claims first. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your interest in Thessaloniki. However I would like to point out that the content you are adding is (a) unsourced and (b) in conflict with the source that actually exists on that particular topic. If you have something to add please use sources. I will continue to revert your unsourced edits and if you revert them still I will have no option than to request that you be banned on the grounds of the 3 revert rule. I would not want to do that, so please either use the article's talk page to discuss the issue or use sources. Regards, --Philly boy92 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a second warning - you reverted to your edit again and someone else removed it again. Please do not do this again or I will have to ask that you be banned for 24 hours fro editing wikipedia. I have left you a very polite note above and you have failed to respond to it. --Philly boy92 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

...in the section on Slaves. Thanks very much for providing a source, including page numbers, for your addition. I thought it might help you to read Wikipedia policies on WP:Citation style, and in-line citations. You've embedded yours in the main text, and we don't need to know the authors name or work in the readable text of the section. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates and Help:Referencing for beginners without using templates. Ah, OK, I see that the same problem holds for you addition to Slavery in ancient Rome.

Also please note that "etc." and "et cetera" ("and the rest") are best avoided in article text (unless as part of a quotation) because when it comes down to it, "and the rest" says nothing particular about anything, except perhaps to readers who already know what "and the rest" actually refers to - and if they already knew, why would they need to read the article? Better to be terse and precise. If I can help, please ask. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jackson Peebles. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Hyacinth Bucket because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Roman Empire]]. During his reign, [[Rhodes]] was occupied briefly and raids were made on[Crete]], and [[Siege of Constantinople (674–678)|several assaults were launched]] against [[Constantinople]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Homophobia. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Homophobia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you don't discuss your changes on the talk page, provide sources, and get consensus, you'll likely end up blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you get your people together to offer the readers of the article Homophobia a complete definition of the word which does not appear in the article. Homophobe means someone who has a fear of a homosexual person. It is not in the definition. Only phobos is described, not mention is made of the meaning of homos. Why can't you and other understand this. It's clear from the article on heterosexual that the writer did. As for consensus I don't need anyone's approval when I am right. It's called 3 university degrees in Greek, Latin and Ancient History. Those who challenge me on this point should do their homework.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alexander_Domanda reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at this edit you made in the Ephesus article. First, you added the words "and the population at 51,060 which Hanlon regards as far too low" at the end of the paragraph's second sentence. Did you mean Hanson, the source I cited? In any case, you suggest that Hanson gave an estimate of 51,060 inhabitants which he regards as low. This is simply not in the source, Hanson gives an estimate of 33,600 to 56,000 inhabitants further down the paragraph. Also, I don't understand your omission of the word "realistic", referring to population densities. Based on recent scholarship those population densities are realistic and that is exactly what the source argues for. I fail to see why you made this edit, it introduced errors in the article. So, I decided to revert your edit. And could you please give edit summaries when you make edits? Thanks. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alexander, thank you for your most recent edit to Ephesus. I feel that I assumed bad intentions on your part in my last comment, which did not turn out to be true. I apologize for that. After your last edit the paragraph's content is better, but I think the message could be convened with a little bit more clarity. I will edit it accordingly and keep your contribution intact. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC). Thank you for your consideration. FYI I have two degrees in Greek and Latin; an MA Litt. in Classics from Cambridge University in Later Roman History and some interest in demographics of Greek and Roman civilization which is a very tricky subject, indeed.

Hi! I appreciate what you're attempting to do, but it really shouldn't go in the article. It makes absolutely no difference to the plot of the film (obviously, or else it would be mentioned), and even if Rotten Tomatoes speculates on it, it is still that, speculation. I won't revert again, in respect to the 3RR rule, but would ask you to self-revert. WP attempts to be as factual as possible, and speculation isn't really relevant. Regardless, have a great day, and happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Alexander Domanda, sorry for the revert. I did it because this is what it said:

After returning home, Muhammad was consoled and reassured by Khadijah an Ebionite Christian priest (this sect believed Jesus was a human Messiah and rejected the doctrine of the Trinity) and her cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal.

The sentence gave the impression that Khadijah was an Ebionite priest. But your new edit makes it clear that it is refering to Waraqah ibn Nawfal so I am pleased. Keep up the good work. Mbcap (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Telfordbuck. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Miracle of Lanciano because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Telfordbuck (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be having a problem with referencing your changes. This is vital in Wikipedia and a skill you must acquire if you want to avoid continual battles with people over what you edit. Let me ask you to clarify what you have written and let me try and fix the references so that they are valid.

1. Which book by MacCulloch were you looking at when you made the quote in this sentence. There are three books to choose from. "At Holy Communion, the words from the 1549 book, "the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ" etc. were combined with the words of Edward's second book, "Take eat in remembrance" "suggesting on the one hand a real presence to those who wished to find it and on the other, the communion as memorial only," MacCulloch p. 27, i.e. an objective presence and subjective reception." Secondly in that sentence does the quote apply tyo all the quotes or just the one immediately before the reference you gave? Finally references stylistically go after the punctuation not before.

2. The instruction to the congregation to kneel when receiving communion was retained; but the accompanying Black Rubric which denied any "real and essential presence" of Christ's flesh and blood, was removed to "conciliate traditionalists" and aligned with Queen's belief(MacCulloch & 1996 p.527). Again the words you quote do not come from the 1996 MacCulloch book, so where did you get them from? This is important, if you quote then you must give a reference.

3. "The removal of the Black Rubric compliments the dual words of administration of communion and permits an action, kneeling to receive, which people were used to doing. "It was a masterpiece of theological engineering," ibid. p 27 that would set the tone for Anglicanism later." Again Wikipedia does not use terms like "ibid" as these can get confused if another editor adds a different reference into the passage and then no one knows whether ibid refers to that reference or another. Secondly again reference should be after the punctuation.

Please address these issues by responding here and I will help you fix up the section and you can review the wikitext to see how it is done. Dabbler (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Rwanda, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you referred to a citation at Church of the Province of Rwanda. However, that citation does not support the 1 million figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary, I have checked the source and the 1 million figure is not present. It is not enough to refer readers to another Wikipedia article. If you have a reliable source for the claim, please add it to the Rwanda article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The thread is at WP:AN3#User:Alexander Domanda reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: ). You may respond to the complaint if you wish. Adding unsourced information is viewed with alarm here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the UK, who is a hereditary knight, but is not a peer and therefore not ranked with the nobility [[Peerages in the United Kingdom|]; whereas ''Ritter'' a knight with a hereditary title and is also

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 4,860). The Druze do not consider themselves to be Muslim and are not regarded as such by Muslims. (t is generally accepted that 10% of Syrians, 23 million before the Civil War, were Christians. The

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

the discussion Talk:India#Comments_invited_on_additions_to_Modern_History_section_made_on_26_January_2015 about an edit you made over a year ago. It would be great if you could comment there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to revert your change. The sentence is awkward and the year Mexico gained independence is not really relevant. I am thinking

In 1834, the Spanish missions were taken under Mexican control and secularized. The new government did not return their lands to tribes but made land grants to settlers of at least partial European ancestry.

What do you think? Robert.Harker (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice update, thanks! Robert.Harker (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alexander. Please provide sources when adding data. You entered data in the wrong places of the information chart, and didn't provide citation for any of it (for example, see the Greek peninsula stats, which don't include what you claim they do). Thanks, Haploidavey (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)