On 16 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quercus geminata, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in its natural habitat, the Sand Live Oak often grows on white sand? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Yes, I did indeed gather that fact, but not before erroneously directing the comment to you. Please accept the apologies of me, a fledgling Wikipedian,
Please accept my apologies; my "minor edit" was made from an old version. I just undid that edit with the following comment:
Undid my erroneous edit of 19:06, 2 September 2011 which was branched off an much older version, i.e., I erroneously undid many edits in performing my “minor edit”.
And I thank you for letting me know (even if there had been an assumption that I mis-marked the edit as "minor") because otherwise my inexcusable deletion of multiple edits may well have gone unnoticed. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book is based off stuff they got from Wikipedia articles--
Hephaestus Books represents a new publishing paradigm, allowing disparate content sources to be curated into cohesive, relevant, and informative books. To date, this content has been curated from Wikipedia articles and images under Creative Commons licensing, although as Hephaestus Books continues to increase in scope and dimension, more licensed and public domain content is being added. We believe books such as this represent a new and exciting lexicon in the sharing of human knowledge. This particular book is a collaboration focused on Antiochian Orthodox Christians.
We can't use our own articles as a source as that's circular. It becomes Wikipedia saying it's true because Wikipedia says it's true. Even if that were not so it still wouldn't be WP:RS as the author isn't listed and the publisher has no reputation for independent fact checking. Mystylplx (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lipsio. I notice you've been a somewhat active editor of Public holidays in the United States. Per a recurring comment on the talk page, I've been trying to turn the lists of "legal holidays by states" into tables, with the hope of creating a more readable and useful page. Would you be willing to take a look at the work in progress and let me know what you think, both of the idea in general and the way I'm trying to implement it? I would really like to get someone else's feedback on such a large change to the article format. Thanks, FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings FCSundae,
Perhaps states with "other" holidays, i.e., those with entries in the "Holidays observed by only one or two states" table, should have a footnote marking that fact or, since the footnotes may get lost in the extensive existing footnotes and references, there should be an "other" column directing the reader to the other table for details.
The typo is a missing close quote at the end of footnote 12, after Florida has both "legal holidays" and "State employees paid holidays
Vincent, I see what you're saying now. I think that the most complete way to handle it would be to list specifically which Protestant groups accept the creed (there are several that don't, they tend to be the more fundamentalist wings) and list them individually (probably by broad denominational groupings). Otherwise we should reduce the list to the broader terminology of Protestants (I would still keep Anglican's separate from Protestants). I'm interested to hear what else you're editing as well.ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς11:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm diffusing the category, by placing the saints in their proper subcategories. Crystostem's already listed under 'Greek Roman Catholic saints', and 'Syrian Roman Catholic saints', both of which are subcategories to Roman Catholic saints. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you. While visiting sobors recently I remembered my merger proposal. In a few days I'll merge them; today I'm traveling from Moscow to Saint Petersburg) and don't expect to have time to do anything. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the spelling. I'm unsure how accurate all the section names are in All-Night Vigil (Tchaikovsky)#Structure, I'm fairly sure they're post-reform spellings. If you have any knowledge of this topic, would you like to correct the spellings at some point? ~ Riana ⁂22:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but,
1) I missed another incorrect vowel (and this time I looked it up).
2) The standard usage in Wikipedia is spelling Russian words in contemporary orthography, so methinks I should have left the spelling alone and dropped Pre-reform from the designation.
3) While the other spellings are, in fact, in contemporary orthography, the parts of the service are not given in the Russian language but, rather, they are in Church Slavonic which has a much more archaic alphabet that no standard computer has a font installed for; see, for example, the photo I scanned in for the hymn Phos Hilaron, which is one of the pieces in the Vigil, and it looks thus: ) Elsewhere in Wikipedia, Slavonic text is written in new-orthography Russian.
Thanks for giving it the once-over, Vincent. I agree with your assessment of the spelling - I'll revert to the new spelling and remove mention of "pre-reform".
Yes, it would be impossible to write it in Church Slavonic! Beautiful-looking script, which is a shame. I recently participated in a performance of the Rachmaninoff All-Night Vigil where the programme text was in Church Slavonic, it was a very impressive job, took the compiler of the programme about a year to complete - it's very hard to find the complete text online in that language. ~ Riana ⁂04:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The texts are on-line in Church Slavonic script at
Thank you very much for this - my linking was a bit of guess work so I'm glad they point to more definitive places now! I wonder if you know what hour of the service (vespers, matins etc) each movement corresponds to, and if we can get a bit of information about that into the structure section as well. My knowledge of this sort of music is limited to performance and I know very little about the liturgy. ~ Riana ⁂03:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for hosting the wiknic yesterday. I had a good time.
The school I took a photo of yesterday I was mentioning is here:
1108 Northwest 7th Avenue 29°39′28″N82°20′09″W / 29.657784°N 82.335706°W / 29.657784; -82.335706
Do you know what kind of school this is? Its former website is down.
After reading the historical marker (located across the street from the school), it sounds like the school is an elementary school but wanted to be sure that is the current use. Those are regulation-height basketball goals (on NW 10th st) on the campus, not usually seen at an elementary school.
Thanks for any info. --Mjrmtg (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Marker across street
You're most welcome and I'm happy to know you enjoyed it.
The school is A.Q. Jones Exceptional Student Center, part of the Alachua County School District, and its website is:
I'm reasonably certain that it was built as an elementary school.
The historical marker I did not know about and thanks for showing it (or its photo) to me. I can't find it in the county's page "Historical Markers in Alachua County, Florida", http://growth-management.alachua.fl.us/historic/historic_commission/historical_markers/historicalmarkers.htm . BTW, I have put photos of a few local historical markers into Wikipedia, the photos being a way to circumvent copyright problems with quoted text.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Makarios 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.
Hallo Lipsio,
nothing to thank about! :-) You know, Wikipedia is full of people in good faith, who read something and put it in the corresponding article. In this specific case this guy went against 1600 years of tradition, and all past and present specialists (Mango, Janin, Müller-Wiener, etc.). Moreover, he put this info in the lead, giving undue weight to another version of the church dedication...a little too much, I think. Alex2006 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Folks. I am trying to be accurate here. The first two churches were not dedicated to the Hagia Sophia, since that term was not in use at the time. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/haso/hd_haso.htm The Heilburn Timeline of Art History is quite specific about that. Then there is the date. In the balance of the article the date is clearly stated as 27 December 537. No where is there a claim that the dedication occurred on December 25th. If Janin(1953) says this, then either it is the wrong Hagia Sophia, or he is making some extrapolation that is not in the mainstream. This issues about who the Great Chruch was dedicated to, and the iconoclast period we can discuss at a later date. But let's just get the dates right. Neubauer95476 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you edited in your reference before I had a chance to reply. I'm inclined to wordsmith your reply a bit, to put part of it in a footnote, because it seems to verbose in an introductory paragraph for explaining a divergent opinion on a trivial matter; certainly the 26 December date should be cosigned to a footnote because it's nearly certainly based on a misunderstanding.
[2] (and hagiasophia.com is registered in Turkey) does, in fact, claim 27 December 537 as the dedication day.
Actually this is not a trivial matter. It may go to the heart of the Hagia Sophia, since the dedication date is not on the 25th. It is most curious to me that while Janin is considered an important Byzantine Scholar, no one else has picked up on the December 25th date. One does not find this reference anywhere in the english language (googling) other than the Janin citation in wikipedia. With everyone trying to do their best it seems more likely that the Janin date and comments should be a footnote. It may also be that since there are a number of Hagia Sophias, the Janin citation may be regarding some other church, not the Great Church. Unfortunately, I am hopelessly uni-lingual and cannot confirm that and it is incredibly difficult to get a copy of Janin(1953). I appreciate your word smithing. You may also note that User:Alessandro57 undid my additions although both adhere to the footnote policy. Neubauer95476 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crucession, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epitaphios (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.
Thanks. Since this edit is a preparation for a merge (discussed since January 2012) and since the text was copied from a sandbox of mine, I'll fix it in the sandbox before copying that text into the merged article which I intend to do later today. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Procession 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:
Stapleton in [[Exeter Cathedral]] (painting by S. A. Hart), showing a liturgical procession|180px]
Hey there, I really appreciated your role in facilitating the minor alteration to the Nicene Creed article. I myself am an Eastern Orthodox network engineer, but for some time I've wanted to get into embedded systems development, so you to me are like a Wiki-starets. ;) Wgw2024 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you undid all the substantial changes I have entered, I'll try to explain my rationale for them. Generally speaking, the entry needs bibliographical updating.
Just an example: the homily about Herodias is classified as spurious in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum # 4570 (referring to previous literature). I had not the reference at hand. But IF the homily is spurious, the story about Eudoxia's statue conveys some legendary element, notwithstanding the fact that the statue itself was raised.
About Chrysostom's exegesis: I have never come across an example of his leanings towards the Alexandrian system, and no source is indicated for this affirmation. As far as I understand, he is a a purely Antiochene theologian.
This edit is most assuredly not vandalism. It may have been disruptive, and it certainly should have been discussed on the talk page prior to re-inclusion, but it isn't vandalism - see WP:NOT VANDALISM. In future, please be careful about marking edits as such. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat/rephrase my comment I made to EvenSteven...
I find your edit at Nicene_Creed#See_also to be lacking in any sort of logic. Would you care to share how you think my link, to a RELEVANT, EXISTING wikipedia article is in any way inappropriate?
More to the point, it is _YOUR_ action that smacks of "Vandalism", in that it removes a chance for a person to learn more about the Nicene Creed, and how it was developed.
Please explain HOW you think the link is Vandalism and/or how your removal of the link is NOT Vandalism. LP-mn (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please see the previous section in my talk page where it's explained to me that your edit is *not* vandalism. Please accept my apology. From there, I suppose, I'd suggest you open up a discussion on Talk:Nicene Creed to seek consensus by all interested parties. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Accepted.
On a related note, I've participated in talk page discussions over a Keep vrs Delete debate, but I've never been right smack on one side or the other. When and how do we as a group make a final decision? LP-mn (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever there's consensus, which doesn't seem to be happening in our case. Soon I'll post something on the talk page proposing that I put your link back in, perhaps in a new section for literary and cultural references, and if no one types anything back, then let's put it back in.
I am working VERY hard to standardize the citations at First Council of Nicaea. If you are going to add sources, can you please make an attempt to follow the new formatting. It is very frustrating to literally spend hours working on this and then having someone ignore all the hard work completely. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New York]], where his classmates included the future Bishop Peter (Loukianoff)of Cleveland]], Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, Fr. Stefan Pavlenko, Fr. Vitaly Kichakov, Bro. Adam Krotov and others. As
I touched your recent edit on Easter, replacing "church building" with "temple" once again. But I highly respect your editing and knowledge of things Orthodox, and if you consider it appropriate to overturn me, I offer no resistance. Perhaps it's a too-little-known application of the word to be used so directly on WP, though I thought it somewhat ameliorated here by the wikilink. I just wanted you to run the idea through your mind another time. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I had simply thought that "church building" would be more comprehensible to the average reader, but I hesitated changing it, so you did what I nearly did anyway. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I might have guessed. So thank you, and may your final two weeks of fasting also be blessed and joyful! It has been wonderful for us here. Does your church also do the 40 liturgies during this time? It really helps to keep the right focus in the face of holiday-mania. Evensteven (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Within service books and internal church publications many nouns are capitalized that are not capitalized in secular usage. As for canonical hours, vespers, matins, et cetera, are not capitalized and, therefore, my opinion is that midnight office should also not be. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to fix that link on Old Folks at Home (and in fact had actually located the new URL), but I was interrupted by a weapons-grade dose of real life, and discovered that you had fixed the link already. BZ for that. Horologium(talk)03:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!
Hello, Lipsio. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Lipsio. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Lipsio, I just wanted to say I saw your great edits (especially on Saint Paisios) and it's wonderful to see an avid Wiki editor who's also Orthodox - and into programming! Wishing and praying for you a healthy and prosperous life. Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=)03:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hello, Lipsio. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi! I notice that the name Lipsio also appears the US Patent 9,280,389, which you tried to add to two articles. This goes against our conflict of interest guidelines. Also, as long as some content hasn't been covered by reliable sources, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, and even if it is covered, it may be considered WP:FRINGE. In this particular case, as long as major OSes don't use these ideas, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead section. -- intgr[talk]10:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, we encourage people to edit even if they don't understand all the rules (there are a lot!) per WP:BOLD, as long as you're receptive to feedback when people point out the problems. Sorry if my tone was not quite friendly. -- intgr[talk]14:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Everyone may agree that a byzantine icon is more befitting than anything else. But on Commons there are sixteen different icons about the Raising of Lazarus: Commons:Category:Icons of Resurrection of Lazarus.
Both of the two ones now shown in the en.wiki's article are coming from that place.
Common sense and respect (and the number of potential readers) strongly recommend to change the second picture, with any other. Maybe at the free choice of the community. Micheledisaverio (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the article were about the Raising of Lazarus, that would be appropriate, perhaps even as the primary picture. But, since the article is about an Eastern Orthodox holy day, only icons, methinks, are appropriate. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lipsio: I am sorry, but the article we are talking about is just related to the Resurrection of Lazarus, as the article's name is Lazarus Saturday. In the category of Commons I have linked, there are sixteen referenced and holy icons of the Eastern Orthodox church, as we are asking, and like this one: commons:File:III Raising of Lazarus.jpg, coming from an ancient Orthodox cathedral. Anyone of them may be appropriate of such an article, for changing the second picture. Micheledisaverio (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's "Raising" and not "Resurrection"! Lazarus did not raise himself.
"Lazarus Saturday" is a feast day commemorating the raising of Lazarus, and it is an Eastern Orthodox feast day. The article is specifically about that feast day. The raising is mentioned directly only once, in the first paragraph, describing what the feast commemorates; the article is about the feast day. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vincent J. Lipsio: okay, i had understand. In italian we use only one term both for raising and resurrection, bur I remember the history of Lazarus. I was telling that all the picture now present in the article are about the Raising of Lazarus, like the alternative I have proposed: commons:File:III Raising of Lazarus.jpg . Or any other linked to the same category of Commons. Thise are somd Orthodox icons about the theme of the feast, like the article asks.Micheledisaverio (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Micheledisaverio: I apologize for my tone in correcting your English usage; if I had realized that you are not a native speaker of English, I'd not worded it as I did.
I'm taking this matter to the article's talk page, Talk:Lazarus_Saturday, because we disagree and don't have a compromise, and also others' opinions should be sought. Meanwhile, for good will, I have put back your picture in addition to the one you replaced it with. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vincent J. Lipsio: Hi. I am sorry about my answer with some days of delay. No problem about my English, non perfect at all! I want to thank you for having put back the picture to the article, and for having opened the related discussion. In my humbled opinion, it also exceeds the needs of wikipedia, but it is! So let's go on..Micheledisaverio (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lipsio. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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.
Further discussion should take place on a Talk page. Please, see Wikipedia:NPOV for some encyclopedic writing styles. Words like "blessed" are not used in reference to a subject. If it is a quote from Wikipedia:RS then that is fine. However, no quotation was used and therefore it was an editorialization. See Wikipedia:NPOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Thank you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have totally misunderstood my comment! You *removed* jargon, and I'm pleased; however, I don't think you were aware that you had done so.
In Special:Diff/970221648, you added a reference with two different url parameters. Did you mean to just have one of those, to use one of the other URL parameters (like chapter-url, contribution-url, or lay-url), or to add two completely different references? Right now, the rendered article is only showing the second one of your URLs. Jackmcbarn (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for pointing this out. Both url parameters supplied the same text from the same written source and I had both in my notes, so I suppose that I erroneously used both.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
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.
Dear User:Lipsio, I hope you're doing well. I'm grateful for the gratitude that you expressed to me on the talk page on the Easter egg article. With regard to the Easter basket article, I am working on adding references to the lede and would appreciate if you would allow me to do so, rather than reverting. I am thankful that you will soon undertake an expansion on the section about Eastern Orthodoxy and trust that we can collaboratively work together on improving that article. In fact, I look forward to seeing your expansion there. I hope that you are having a blessed Holy Week and in advance wish you a very happy Pascha. With regards, AnupamTalk23:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The material you removed from Hogtown, Florida was about the role of residents of Hogtown in the debate about creating Gainesville. Hogtown continued to exist for a while after Gainesville was established. I think it is useful to have that information in the article, as there is a common belief that "Hogtown" was the original name of Gainesville, which has been spread in a number of publications. Will you consider reverting yourself? - Donald Albury20:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in an edited and shortened form. Actually, that has been on my "to do" list for a few years, and I finally did what I did meaning it as temporary, but failing to note that in my editing comment. The real problem I perceive is that "Hogtown" was NOT the original name of Gainesville; they were two separate settlements several miles apart, unrelated, except for wood harvested in Hogtown being used for construction in Gainesville. I wish to research how long the name "Hogtown" continued to be in use an whether its lifetime overlaps the founding of Gainesville. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Makarios 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.
