text:
Talk:Ambrose

Comments on recent expansion
as asked, I'll give an input. First, do you think dedicating 4 paragraphs to context alone is a sound idea? Much of it you already wrote for other articles, and have now simply copied it over here. I'm hesitant to make a drastic cleanup on my own after you worked so hard. Second, some citations need to be corrected, for example number 71 (Salzman), which doesn't have a page 861 (neither a 361). Avilich (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The four paragraphs (I assume) you are referring to are under Attitudes toward paganism, right? They are not simply copied and are not simply context; they actually are about attitudes toward pagans. The first paragraph seems necessary since this is a changed perspective and if someone is not familiar, as you are, they will be shocked by what this section doesn't say. The second paragraph makes what seems like a necessary point - that paganism was not the priority for Christians - which is not what modern people expect. It can be pared down to that one sentence if you think that's appropriate, but that sentence matters. The third paragraph reflects the negative attitudes in writing and that's important. The fourth paragraph makes the point that this has colored interpretation of the period. That too can be pared down to that sentence if you like. Each paragraph has a point that seems important and necessary, but it can be pared down and it doesn't even have to go in this section if you think it should go elsewhere. It seems repetitive to you because you have read it in other articles, but others won't find it so. This information belongs here as well. I'll check the ref and see if I can figure out what the problem is. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Avilich I shortened it, is that better? Fixed the ref. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You put a tag on but it reflects - almost too closely - what the source says on the pages referenced. If there is another source that says differently, that should be dealt with accordingly, otherwise this tag should be removed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those two generals were in the party of SYmmachus, not Ambrose (I'd jut remove mention of them altogether), and I'm not sure what 'normal matter-of-fact terms supported by facts' is supposed to mean in the wider context. Avilich (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Avilich I like the revision overall, it is an improvement. You're like my husband in being a better editor than creator, while I am a better creator than editor, which is probably why we work so well together. I really do need you to review everything I have ever written!!! You are really really good at it. Anyone that can make me more concise yet still make my main points is brilliant!  I've been through many reviews with multiple reviewers and haven't run into anyone else with your skill.
 * But why in heaven's name did you leave the dubious tag in? I understand that they were part of Symacchus' party, and that must be why it is so significant that Ambrose got their support, but all the source says is that he did so. I will go look and see if I can find an additional source on that since you question the one I have. If I can't, we can reasonably remove it as one sourced material is sometimes wrong.
 * Normal matter of fact is a description of Ambrose' style of writing as compared to the brilliance of Symmachus I think - though the source doesn't specifically make that direct comparison, it is implied. It's an indirect reference to Ambrose' character as being straightforward and practical, but the source says matter of fact, so that's what I used. Reusing the other terms (from character) would be perfectly okay, and would convey pretty much the same idea, we'd just have to switch the reference out if that's what you want to do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your comments. I don't actually have access to the source there referenced, I just found the sentence kind of awkward and so decided to be bold and highlight it with tag. The second part seemed to me either biased or poorly worded when compared to the wider paragraph. If you think I'm wrong, don't hesitate to remove the tag I placed there, since I went basically on intuition. Though I still feel that part could be worded better. What caught my eye on that sentence in the first place was that about Bauto and Rumoridus. Cameron 2010 (p. 375) explicitly says, "Although himself a Christian, Bauto had sided with Symmachus in the affair of the altar of Victory". Avilich (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Avilich AH hah! Then one source contradicted the other, and you were probably right. I found a Salzman article (and know she is really good) that said Symmachus wasn't really friends with the pagans, that he disliked pagans, he was just polite to them. But she doesn't say if they sided against him for the AoV. So it's gone now. Everyone agrees Ambrose' intervention did the trick, so that's what's there, and the tag is gone. (I hate tags. :-) I'd much rather have it out here.)
 * I made some other changes including removing the last stuff about the laws because it wasn't really about Ambrose. I saved it to my sandbox in case you feel it needs to be put back, but I am guessing you will like it better as is. I am trying to learn from you to be nore concise and on point. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just checked. I think the current version it's very good, you did great work here. Avilich (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool. Saw last changes saying source says opposite??? I don't see that, but I like the adjustments you made so it doesn't matter. :-) All good now I think... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The text said "scholars agree" that Thedosius' legislation "reflected his own views and Spanish theology", but the McLynn ref explicitly casted doubt on that. Avilich (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Btw, could you check if this that I removed is supported by the citations? "Theodosius began promulgating ant-pagan legislation... 380/381 almost immediately after his accession, long before Ambrose had any kind of influence with him. He continued to do so throughout his reign with no indication of Ambrose involvement." McLynn and MacMullen make no argument of the sort, but I don't have access to King or Hebblewhite. Avilich (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Avilich I appreciate your diligence. As to the first "reflected his views", I apologize that it has taken me awhile to get back to you, but I had to go to the resource exchange and get them to send it to me again, since, when I thought I was done here, I closed out all my sources and deleted everything on Ambrose from my sandbox. I was going to send you an email with a copy of the relevant pages, but I don't see that you have enabled email. So. Page 106 is the correct page. It says: "While Ambrose was finishing De Fide, Gratian's colleague Theodosius proclaimed his own faith in an edict... blah blah... subjects ordered... more blah blah... remnant were branded as heretics ... blah ... divine vengence ... imperial intervention. This dramatic declaration has been much discussed, and its exact purport is still debated. But there is unanimity that it expresses the emperor's own long-held beliefs and reflects the characteristic doctrinal views of his native Spain". The Edict of Thessalonica was issued in 380, and here McLynn's statement also supports what is paraphrased in the next comment. But it is primarily from Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches by Liebeschuetz and Hill, that the next part comes. Go to page 11: "The year 378 was a turning point... in the episcopate of Ambrose. In this year ... he was delegated to carry the synod's petition to the emperor Gratian at Sirmium. There he made the acquaintance of Gratian." In footnote 4 on that same page it discusses McLynn's view that they did not make friends at this point, and didn't do so until Gratian moved to Milan. Theodosius was in the East after defeating the Goths until 388 while Ambrose was dealing with Valentinian and Justina, so, on page 17, it says that after defeating Maximus, "Theodosius and his court spent the next three years in Milan. This was the beginning of a fascinating relationship." referring to Ambrose and Theodosius. That is when they met for the first time, so Ambrose couldn't very well have influenced him before then. I paraphrased, but if you think it needs to be represented in more detail, I have no problem with that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can just download a copy of McLynn for free in Library Genesis, as I have already done, so sending me anything by email is unnecessary. A closer look at the sentence you left in bold seems to demonstrate I'm correct. By 'there is unanimity', McLynn only means scholarship until that point. N.b. the very next sentence and the three following pages – which were in the original citation – which McLynn spends attacking this notion of a distinctly Spanish upbringing. There's nothing specific I feel needs to be added atm, I just wanted your opinion on that passage in particular. Avilich (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No Avilich I don't agree. You are not correct on this one. In the three following pages McLynn talks about being "cautious" in interpreting Theodosius as being influenced by Spanish theology, but nowhere do we claim or write that he was. The statement I highlighted does not make that claim.
 * You know that if McLynn thinks scholars are wrong he always says exactly that. He does not say that here.
 * McLynn's discussion does not in any way contradict the unanimity statement even if Theodosius himself wasn't himself that familiar with Spanish theology. The statement as it stands leaves that open. Hence the subsequent discussion. Mclynn makes the two statements he can before discussing the one he can't. It doesn't really even matter for our use if Theodosius was familiar with Spanish theology or not, as it is historians who are agreeing that it reflects Spanish theology of the time and no one has claimed Theodosius himself made that claim.
 * No, Avilich, you are mistaken this time. I don't think your claim of "what McLynn meant" is accurate. I think he meant what he said, and that we should take it that way. I think the subsequent discussion only indicates that he was careful not to say too much. He didn't make claims about how much Spanish theology influenced Theodosius, he only says the edict is consistent with what it said at the time. The statement is a good one - as far as it goes - and should be in the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, "it doesn't matter", whence I removed the sentence about it in the first place. The subject of that paragraph is the extent of Ambrose over Theodosius' religious policy, and Theodosius' upbringing specifically runs very tangential to that. However you choose to frame this, McLynn spends three pages casting doubt on the idea that Theodosius had a distinctly Spanish upbringing which shaped his view on religion. Incidentally, he wrote [ a whole article] dissecting that idea. So, here we have a dubious assertion that has not much to do with the subject matter (Ambrose); I rest my case. Avilich (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Avilich Please, show me, where in my sentence is there anything about Theodosius' upbringing?
 * Your reasoning for removal does not include an actual contradictory statement of that sentence. Your reason for reversion is based on what you have implied - it's personal opinion, interpretation, synth and I don't agree it is a completely correct interpretation. McLynn's original statement doesn't include claims about Theodosius' upbringing.
 * The discussion that follows is tangential to his original statement. It's a subset of the issue, and as such, it does not contradict the bigger claims, because they are free-standing on their own merit.
 * Did Theodosius legislation reflect his own views? Scholars agree, yes, that's what the source says. Please acknowledge. Did his legislation reflect the state of Spanish theology at the time? Yes, that's what scholars and the source says. Please acknowledge. Are your concerns about his upbringing implications you have made? Yes, please acknowledge. You have no contradictory sentence, nothing where McLynn says, 'but this is wrong.'
 * Look, I'll meet you halfway. If you want to remove the part about Spanish theology because you have interpreted his later qualifiers as contradicting his plain statement, fine, that's on you, but you have no cause to remove the claim that there is agreement that Theodosius' legislation reflected his own views. Nowhere does McLynn or anyone else cast doubt on that.
 * So put it back. And put back the other one as well. Please. Be fair and reasonable and demonstrate good faith here. Your reasoning for reversion doesn't hold up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually (should've noticed this earlier), McLynn is talking about the Edict of Thessalonica, not anti-pagan legislation. Theodosius' "own views and Spanish theology" refer to the complicated debate of what distinguished heresy from orthodoxy; Christian opinions of paganism were straightforward and predictable, to the extent that speaking of a specific emperor's views on it, rather than those of Christian emperors in general, is redundant. That Theodosius enacted anti-pagan laws based on his own views is of course true, so obviously that it doesn't need to be stated explicitly. Using McLynn p. 106 as a source for this, however, constitutes SYNTH, since he's talking about heretics, not pagans. The reason McLynn (pp. 330–333) gives for Ambrose's non-influence on Theodosius is what I replaced the old text with, and I stand by it. I also stand by everything I said so far, though I do not now think it's relevant to the issue at hand. If you wish to argue further, please bring it to your or my talk page. This discussion and its size are of no interest to the average editor. Avilich (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

24.154.55.106 I have moved and removed some of what you recently added. It repeated things already in the article in the section on Arianism, directly contradicts the majority view on the Massacre of Thessalonica, and was otherwise out of place in the section on Theodosius. It's now in the character section. If there's a problem please discuss it here. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit war 24.154.55.106 recent edits; please respond

 * I have moved the warning to your talk page. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 * is entirely pov and has no place in a WP article. This should be removed entirely.
 * is a claim without evidence or citations to support it. It is not the majority view, and is disputed by current scholarship. You can include a minority view but you have to say that's what it is, and you need something newer than 1980. Some of that discussion is already in the article in the section directly above the one you added as well, so please avoid duplication. This should be removed until properly cited and stated.
 * is a duplication of what is already in the section on Arianism and should be removed accordingly. It's generally a good idea to actually read an article and know what it says before editing.
 * Theodosius' actions are disputed. Please see the article Massacre of Thessalonica for a more complete explanation. At best, this is a minority view, and that is how it must be presented. I can support adding a little more on Theodosius here, but this is not an article on him or the massacre, this is about Ambrose, and none of these references say Ambrose "ordered" anything, indeed the sources do not say that, and again this reflects pov. Brown does say Theodosius did penance, that's the only thing correct here. This should be removed because it makes assertions not supported by its references.
 * Edit warring as you have has now created an additional duplication, since I moved what you wrote down to the character section where it still is. So now this material is in two and three places in this article. That is screwed up and needs fixing.

Please respond. I already posted this once. This is my second request. If I don't hear back from you, I will remove this again for the reasons above and notify an administrator. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Your last edits indicate you have read this and are continuing to edit without engaging here. That is cause for contacting an administrator about this. Please demonstrate good faith and engage here instead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 * IMHO I suggest to remove the new para by 24.154.55.106, but to make more clear the texts above on regards the two churches given to Arians by Valentinian II and about the massacre of Thessalonica. If for sure we cannot say that Ambrose "ordered" something to the Emperator, Ambrose led a "public consensus" in the capital of the Empire that the Emperor had to consider, and this marked him as extremly important in the history of the Western Church. A ntv (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A ntv I appreciate this. I will give them some time to demonstrate good faith and respond. There is no reason to rush. Content can be removed any time. But this will add to consensus if I am forced to go to an admin.

 * For sure there is no source that says Ambrose could or did "order" anything to any emperor. Emperors were autocrats with all the actual power in the fourth century. The church was not yet the power it became by the sixth century. Its wealth did not begin to accrue until the end of this century. A bishop had his reputation to stand on, and that was pretty much it. Theodosius had the army, the Senate and the entire government. Ambrose advised Theodosius; Theodosius "ordered" Ambrose, and that is the right word for an emperor, not the other way around. Theodosius ordered Ambrose away from his presence more than once, whenever he got annoyed with his advice, and Ambrose could do nothing but obey. Ambrose was one among many of Theodosius' advisors and was not even in his inner circle. When Ambrose defied Valentinian he knew he was risking his life. That's why his response is recorded as "If you demand my person, I am ready to submit: carry me to prison or to death, I will not resist." He knew it was a possibility. Valentinian only refrained from acting accordingly because he was afraid of rioting due to Ambrose' popularity - not because Ambrose had some so-called authority that made him in any way equal to an emperor, much less able to order an emperor about. This is already in the section on Arianism. How do you suggest making it clearer?

 * As to the massacre of Thessalonica, the whole story of Ambrose standing in the door of the church demanding penance from Theodosius was made-up in the fifth century. There is no current scholar who does not declare it fiction. Theodosius may have been responsible for the order to kill some Thessalonicans in reprisal, but he also might not have been. There is no consensus on it. That can be said in the article, though what of substance it would actually add concerning Ambrose is questionable.

 * Ambrose was important for multiple reasons - none of which have anything to do with Thessalonica. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 * 24.154.55.106 Your additions have been removed. If they are replaced again, I will notify an admin that you have done so and have been unresponsive here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 * And there you are back again still with no response here. Going to the admin now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 * The wording on that first paragraph seems to be pretty POV, the second might be useful, though I don't know much about Ambrose to put things into context or find another suitable place for it. I have tentatively removed the first for now. And what's up with that 120 page range (McLynn 170–290) anyway? Avilich (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Avilich Great minds think alike! I didn't revert the entire thing. I moved part of it into character where it still is. The sentence about Valentinian is duplicated in the Arian section, and the rest is pov OR w/o proper sourcing - because it's wrong. Hard to find quality sources to support error. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Avilich OOps! The sentence you left duplicates the one I moved to the character section. Please go see if you might prefer it there or if want it in Theodosius instead and remove one if you will please sir. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I see, I removed that too. I left as you put it, it's probably too broad to be categorized under Theodosius anyway. Avilich (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I didn’t realize who deleted my addition and I didn’t check the talk tab. Apologies to all.
 * My main concern is that, in an article on Ambrose, merely to clear away pious exaggerations about him and Theodosius and say nothing more is itself asserting a pov and inadequate as history. If we really intend to avoid imposing a pov, this section of the article needs (a) some straightforward, justifiable statement about what did happen, and preferably (b) some acknowledgement of the issues at stake for this Bishop as a man of his times and faith from his pov, not ours.
 * I propose submitting the following proposition in the Theodosius section for (a). It could be adjusted to occur either before clearing away the myths surrounding the event or after.
 * The majority opinion among historians is that Theodosius did make an act of public penance in Milan at the behest of Ambrose for the massacre in Thessalonica. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 * LucasR52 I am out of town and away from my computer right now but I agree with your reasoning and this statement and support its insertion. I recommend adding an "Even so..." in front of it to connect it to the final paragraph. It was the "demands" part that made the previous version unacceptable, but this is accurate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am taking your sentence and using the Herrin reference which supports it and inserting it in the Theodosius section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 * McLynn (227-8), Herrin, Brown (2003, 80; and Power and Persuasion, 112), and Alan Cameron (80-1) together affirm this proposition. So too the entries by separate authors for Ambrose and Theodosius in The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd Ed., Rutledge, 1997 (43, 1120). It is hardly a minority opinion or just my pov.
 * Further, Herrin wrote “the emperor was forced by Ambrose to perform public penance . . .” (p. 64) The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity under Ambrose uses “forced” and under Theodosius “compelled.” (pp. 43, 1120) McLynn (pp. 325-7) shows how Theodosius was pressured by Ambrose to perform the act of penance in Milan, though it was presented also as a politically-expedient move.  The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, under Ambrose, (p. 59) speaks of his “demands that Theodosius model himself after the penitent King David” in his letter re the massacre in Thessalonica. Neither Herrin, McLynn, Brown, nor these encyclopedias are given to presenting minority opinions without qualification. But “behest” seems fair enough to cover the range of opinion.
 * LucasR52 Herrin's is interpretation that is not upheld by other scholars studying the same letter. Others evaluate Ambrose as "unusually tactful" and I would support including both points of view or just going with the 'behest' as you have above.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 * True about bringing up too much of the Arian matter under Theodosius. I propose that in the Arian section Ambrose’s own thoughts (Epistle, 21.4 and Sermon Against Auxentius, 36) regarding the matter be included in the interest of (b).
 * Ambrose wrote to Valentinian II: “In matters of faith bishops are the judges of Christian emperors, not emperors of bishops.” (Epistle, 21.4). He then famously told to the Arian bishop chosen by the emperor, “The emperor is in the church, not over the church.” (Sermon Against Auxentius, 36).
 * LucasR52 This is in the character section now, but if you want to move it that's also okay with me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Again, it is hardy a minority opinion or just my pov that Ambrose took emperors to task, was involved in their changing course, and showed concern that the internal affairs of the church be free from imperial control thus representing the emerging Western (versus Eastern) view of Church-State relations. The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, under “Ambrose”, (p. 59) speaks of his “shaping imperial behavior and policy” (58). Brown (‘’The Rise of Western Christendom’’, 80) uses expressions like “He stood up to emperors” and “rebuked” them. He calls this a “classical example of the beginning of the problem of the conflict of Church and State” in the West. The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity under Ambrose notes that his “championing of the church’s interests . . . had a profound impact on the relations between church and state during the Middle Ages and subsequent centuries.” (43)  And John Moorhead, 3: “Such activities [“two public clashes” with Theodosius], and the powerful expression which Ambrose gave to his convictions concerning them, guarantee him an important place in the long story of relations between church and state which has been so much a part of western history.” Averil Cameron in The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, Routledge, 1993 writes that Ambrose “was able at times to exercise great influence over Theodosius I.” (p. 62) However, if these authors’ observations move too much in an interpretative direction or are too far into the weeds for the other editors, I argue for at least including what I propose for (b).  --LucasR52 (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * LucasR52 All of this last section is excellent. It's alluded to in the character section, but I would support adding more on it if you think more is needed. He was a fighter and that does need to be conveyed. Thank you so much for these wonderful additions and the careful documentation. That is an aid and a blessing! Happy holidays! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 Thanks for the affirmative response and the kind words. After the Holidays I'll craft the content you support. In the meantime, joys of the Season to you too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasR52 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Referencing
Hello everybody. has asked to to look at how the referencing in the article is setup, and standardising it. So I'll be making a lot of edits similar to this one. I'll also post here when I come across issue, speaking of which... (I've signed each one so that they can be replied to separately). ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The article has references without targets. The first is Cameron 2010, which is referred to twice in the Theodosius section and twice in Attitude towards pagans. Could this be ''Cameron, Alan (2010). The Last Pagans of Rome.''? This is referenced but as 2011, is there a difference between versions? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The second is a reference which is simply Cameron, again it's found in the Theodosius and Attitude towards pagans sections. Could someone clarify which work this is referring to? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The next one is Errington 2006, used in Theodosius again. There is Errington 1997 that refers to ''Errington, R. Malcolm (1997). "Christian Accounts of the Religious Legislation of Theodosius I".'', but no work of Errington in 2006 is mentioned in the article. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And the next is Hebblewhite also in Theodosius, no mention of the year of the work and again no mention of which work this refers to. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The last three are all in the Character section, where Brown 2013, Herrin (no year), and Jedin (no year) are referred to. None of these are defined. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Could Herrin refer to Herrin, Judith (1987). The Formation of Western Christendom. Princeton University Press? I missed that it was in the cited works section, without the year there's no formal link. In a similar vein there's Jedin, Hubert, ed. (1980). History of the Church. is this what Jedin is referring to? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot access that particular Jedin.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But I found the quote and it isn't in that book!! I am fixing it now! Jenhawk777 (talk)
 * Jedin is now Kempf. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Judith Herrin. I will come back in a bit with these 3. I will have to run down Brown as there is no 2013 work. I haven't a clue what that's about, but there is a 2012 and a 2014, so I will have to look based on content and page numbers. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested I have moved Herrin as her statement only covers Theodosius. Fixed the refs to Liebeschutz. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * YAY!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Has this article had text merged into it? These errors would suggest so, but I could see if this was the case from the article history. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is material I wrote, but since it was not actually copied, just paraphrased, I probably didn't bother to say so and just used the reference. They are from Theodosius I if you want to have a look. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks it's just helpful to know if I come across something odd. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested That something odd would no doubt be me. :-) I have now maxed out my thank yous to you once again.  I think they put a limit at 412. I'm sorry I haven't gotten to those others yet. RL is interfering right now and will for the next week. I am making Christmas cookies tomorrow. I have very important things to do you see. Merry Christmas my friend! Happy Holidays! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas Jenhawk777. I hope you have a lovely time. I'll have lots of questions for you to answer when you're back. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Referencing questions 17 Dec
The first is found in the Early life, following "but some scholars identify his father as an official named Uranius who received an imperial constitution dated 3 February 339". Both Mazzarino, S. "Il padre di Ambrogio", Helikon 13–14, 1973–1974, 111–117. and Mazzarino, S., "Storia sociale del vescovo Ambrogio", Problemi e ricerche di storia antica 4, Rome 1989, 79–81. are referenced, but I can only find reference of Il padre di Ambrogio as a section of Storia sociale del vescovo Ambrogio. I'm guessing 111-117 are page numbers, but my only understanding of Helikon is Greek mythology. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The section is in the Arianism section, following Ambrose and his congregation barricaded themselves inside the church, and the imperial order was rescinded. a reference to The Cambridge Ancient History, p. 106 is used. But The Cambridge Ancient History is a multivolume work, with several different versions. So there's no way of knowing for sure what this refers to. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Checked that reference to be sure, but the volume # is actually there, it's just in Roman numerals: XIII, so it's volume 13. Checking the isbn indicates it's the 1970 version. I can't currently access it so I will have to go to resource exchange and come back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This one is actually correct. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The last two are in the Attitude towards pagans section, following for everything that could be regarded by Christian standards as repulsive and irreligious.". The reference is for North, John (2017). "The Religious History of the Roman Empire", but no page number is given. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not actually a citation to the book which I could not access. It is a citation to the web where a section is posted and there are no page numbers, but the reference is there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The last one is in Attitude towards pagans again, following Archaeological evidence indicates that, outside of violent rhetoric, the decline of paganism away from the imperial court was relatively non-confrontational.. The reference is to ''Markus, R. A. (1990). The end of ancient Christianity.'', also again there is no page number. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There were 4 other refs so I just took the lazy way out and removed him. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok another last one, or two. There are two primary sources, the first at the end of the Bishop of Milan following who had served as governor of Campania, went to Milan to attend the school of Ambrose., and the second in the Arianism section following he studied the Old Testament and Greek authors like Philo, Origen, Athanasius, and Basil of Caesarea, with whom he was also exchanging letters.. It would be better if secondary sources could be found. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested I can't say thank you enough. Bless you my friend! Hope you had a great holiday season. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jenhawk777, I had a great time. Unfortunately January has been less kind. I'll be back to this isn the next week or so. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested If anyone is being unkind to you, tell me, and I will go Hulk out (as per my user page). :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Music, writings and Augustine
, glad to see you working on this again, and happy new year! As we talked about last year, I will plan to write a new music section for it. The more I'm reading about it, the more I'm realizing that this article is using some very old research and conclusions in that realm. Thankfully scholarship on Ambrose's hymns is vast, so it shouldn't be a huge deal to update.

As far as I can tell, the writings section is rather incomplete, so I'm considering making a full bibliography of his writings. I'm thinking the modern editions sections should be subsections of the writings section, thoughts? Also, the Augustine section seems weirdly placed in the article, and I suspect it can be integrated into his biography (or maybe the theology section) at some point. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Aza24 and a belated Happy holidays to you and yours as well! I had a wonderful vacation, but I have to admit I am glad to be back at work here. I am especially glad to hear you have not changed your mind about writing a better music section. Please consider writing a detailed sister article that you can summarize here because it sounds to me like both the music and writing sections should be articles of their own.
 * I moved one paragraph from the section on Arianism that actually talked about Augustine. There is more to be said, but at least this is a beginning step toward organizing this a little better.
 * My thoughts? My thoughts are that all of this sounds exceptionally wonderful! Proceed anon! Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! So far I did some reorganizing, and added a full writings section. Though I am a bit concerned that it looks somewhat messy with all of the links to modern editions. Also, I am beginning to think the lead painting by Veneziano makes the infobox overly long, and might work better in the imperial relations section where there is much room for images. It could perhaps be replaced with this one by Claude Vignon? Aza24 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Proceed with BOLDness Aza24! I like what you've done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Aza24 I love what you've done with the place!! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have quite a few other ideas... but need to get on that music section first! Aza24 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Latin Church
@Aza24, the cited source reads ...distinguished by a vigorous defense of the Church against both Arianism and the authority of the Empire. Are you referring to another source? The concept of the Latin Church was not developed in the 4th century and really not a thing until the East-West Schism took shape. Our own article does not mention any historical references to it, nor does the Catholic Encyclopedia mention any sort of early references, although scholars may retcon this, there was no distinction between "Latin Church" and the Eastern formulation of the faith that Ambrose would've been defending against Arianism and paganism. We certainly don't anachronize Popes in this way. Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 * @Aza24: I see that you WP:OWN that passage as you wrote it and included the McKinnon source. It's also interesting to see the history of the Infobox where Latin Church crept in completely unsourced (It was previously "Latin-Rite Catholic" and "Ambrosian Rite" which are good and accurate.)

I don't know if you're reading a different edition of McKinnon other than what's on Google Books, but McKinnon didn't write "Latin Church" anywhere I can see. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambrose&diff=993263074&oldid=990017331&diffmode=source
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambrose&diff=1063797026&oldid=1063794354&diffmode=source
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambrose&diff=974182426&oldid=968974610&diffmode=source
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambrose&diff=prev&oldid=1027871537&diffmode=source
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambrose&diff=prev&oldid=1014058036&diffmode=source

 * What is wrong with you?—I already reverted myself so what point are you trying to prove now? Are you proud of pulling up the list of diffs—did it make you feel special? Go, report me to ANI (for whatever you think I did), or stop wasting my time. This talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM.
 * By the way, he does use the term, many times; my now deleted comment: "the sentence immediately before says "Together with Augustine and Jerome he is acknowledged as one of the three great Latin Church Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries", implying that the next mention of "Church" refers to the Latin Church. Further references "the introduction of antiphonal psalmody into the Latin Church" and "Ambrose may well have been an innovator as regards the psalmodic practices of the Latin Church", affirm this". So, not only are you pointlessly rude and accusatory, you're also just... wrong?  Aza24  (talk)   23:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am completely unable to find anything resembling those quotes in McKinnon 1999, so your edition must be greatly revised. The references also all make sense from a modern scholarship: the psalmody was practiced and retained exclusively in the Latin Church/Roman/Ambrosian Rites as they developed, so it is distinguishable in retrospect from the Eastern and Oriental liturgies. But Ambrose defending the Latin Church or an infobox describing him as a member, sets up anachronisms. The Latin Church had not developed as a separately identifiable entity by the time of Ambrose's death. I understand that your topical expertise is in music, so this is the trouble with using a modern scholarly reference on music for Ambrose's non-musical identity. Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe try McKinnon 2001, i.e. the source that is actually cited? Log in to the Wikipedia library and go to Grove Music Online...  Aza24  (talk)   00:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ambrose


text: User talk:68.20.99.23

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:68.20.99.23


text:
Nick Cotton

 Nick Cotton is a fictional character from the British soap opera EastEnders played by John Altman on a semi-regular basis from the soap's debut episode on 19 February 1985. Altman has stated that his initial exit was due to producer Julia Smith demanding he was written out after he opposed a decision to make his character gay. After Smith's departure, the character made numerous brief or more protracted stints until his onscreen death in February 2015, which was written to coincide with the 30th anniversary of EastEnders.

Nick Cotton was notably responsible for the death of Reg Cox (Johnnie Clayton), who was discovered unconscious in the first scene of the programme in 1985, and revealed in the following episode to have died. Nick's death was partly scripted as a reenactment of Reg's death, as Nick died in the same spot where Reg had died, exactly 30 years prior.

Nick's primary function was as an antagonist, a drug-user and a murderer. He was conceived by the show's creators, Tony Holland and Julia Smith. A late inclusion to the original cast line-up, Nick was included based on writer feedback to Holland and Smith's original script, which centred on the murder of Reg Cox, whose killer they had not originally intended to reveal. Nick was created to be the assailant and to provide the show with more dramatic storyline potential. During his time on the show, Nick embarked on multiple feuds with Phil Mitchell (Steve McFadden), Billy Mitchell (Perry Fenwick), Michelle Fowler (Susan Tully), Mark Fowler (David Scarboro/Todd Carty), Lisa Fowler (Lucy Benjamin), Tony Carpenter (Oscar James), Ali Osman (Nedjet Salih), Pete Beale (Peter Dean), Kathy Beale (Gillian Taylforth), Clyde Tavernier (Steven Woodcock), Nigel Bates (Paul Bradley), Den Watts (Leslie Grantham), Eddie Skinner (Richard Vanstone), his father Charlie Cotton (Christopher Hancock) and Ronnie Mitchell (Samantha Womack).

Nick is used as an "out and out villain". It was suggested by executive producer Dominic Treadwell-Collins that unlike other soap characters who behaved badly and required a more nuanced characterisation and redemption, it was possible to use Nick as a complete "bad guy". A television critic for The Guardian suggested that, for this reason, the character's dastardly motives were rarely questioned by viewers, as his primary function is that of "an agent of chaos". It was also suggested that Nick's appearances on the show needed to be brief because the level of malevolence he portrays could not be sustained in a character over longer periods.

Nick's most prominent relationship is with his mother Dot Cotton (June Brown). It is portrayed as complex, dysfunctional and somewhat cyclical, with Nick perpetually entering his mother's life, her forgiving him for past misdemeanours (including an attempt to kill her to steal her bingo winnings), then being let down when Nick's true intentions are revealed, often ending in his banishment, albeit temporarily, before the cycle repeats. Nick's eventual demise in 2015 pays homage to this relationship, with Dot – finally realising the extent of Nick's villainous behaviour and accepting his inability to change – ultimately deciding to allow Nick to die, rather than seeking medical assistance after he has a fatal reaction to heroin, her motive being to let Jesus decide whether Nick should live or die.

Creation
Nick Cotton was the twenty-fourth character invented by the creators of EastEnders, Tony Holland and Julia Smith. Nick was not part of Holland's and Smith's original vision for EastEnders, and his creation came about as an afterthought. The first episode of the series was to include the death of an elderly resident, Reg Cox, who had been brutally attacked in his home, and left to die. During the first writers' meeting, where the writers were introduced to the intended characters and early scripts, each independently wanted to know which character had killed Reg. However, Holland and Smith had never intended for the murderer to be unveiled. They had no idea who had killed Reg Cox, and they had felt that "the who" was not important. The fact that he was dead following an attack was the important issue, and Reg's murder was not intended to be solved, it was only there to tell the audience, from the outset, that Walford was a rough and tough place. The writers opposed this. They accused Holland of throwing away a great opportunity and suggested that a murder hunt would provide an array of dramatic possibilities that would captivate the audience. After deciding that all of the twenty-three original characters were incapable of committing the crime, Holland decided to invent an entirely new character, in the form of Nick Cotton. The original character outline for Nick read: "His image is exclusively macho. Vanishes for weeks on end. Mum doesn't ask questions... Unlike Den, Nick is a real crook. Worms his way into people's confidentiality and homes. From then on, lives on his wits. Waiting for the moment to strike; to nick the cash and disappear...Usually chooses his victims who, for one reason or another, are frightened to report him...Nick's a heroin addict". As Nick was only intended to be a semi-regular character, Julia Smith was not involved in his casting and the actor John Altman was chosen by the directors. However, she requested he was axed, after he refused to portray Nick having a gay relationship with Lofty Holloway (Tom Watt) because he thought it was out of character.

Development and storylines
Nick has been described by EastEnders ' executive producer Diederick Santer as "the show's premier villain". An EastEnders Revealed documentary chronicling the character's time on the show deemed him a liar, a thief and a murderer who "thrived on the pain and the misery of those near to him". Co-star Charlie Clements (Bradley Branning) has stated: "You think of soap bad guys, Nick Cotton is definitely up there with the best of them", while Leslie Grantham (Den Watts) opined that "There is no redeeming feature about Nick Cotton whatsoever". This assessment is shared by series story producer Dominic Treadwell-Collins, who has explained: "It's good to have an out and out villain. I think sometimes you can get a character and go 'Oh, they should have a good side as well, and maybe we should redeem them a little bit.' With Nick, it doesn't matter. You can go full pelt, foot-on-the-accelerator bad guy." John Altman has discussed the fact that he cannot remember his character ever once being nice, blaming Nick's unruliness on his father's absence during his childhood. Santer has discussed the "wonderfully dysfunctional mother-son relationship" Nick shares with his mother, Dot Cotton (June Brown), and her perpetual willingness to give Nick another chance, regardless of his history of wrongdoing. Santer explained: "There's that thing where you sort of dare to hope that someone's changed, which is really tragic. They've let you down a hundred times, and yet you still hope that the hundred and first time they'll have changed." Grantham has stated that Dot is the "one friend in [Nick's] life", while Treadwell-Collins has affirmed: "Dot's always going to forgive him. And that's the beauty of Nick and Dot." Concurring with this sentiment, Altman agreed: "No matter what he does, she'll forgive him. So did a lot of gangsters' mothers throughout history. Probably Al Capone's mother thought he was a sweet lad, you know."

The debut episode of EastEnders began with the discovery of elderly resident Reg Cox (Johnnie Clayton) unconscious in his flat. Reg later dies and in later episodes it is revealed that he was murdered by Nick. Holland and Smith wanted to introduce the series in a dramatic fashion, and believed the Reg Cox storyline to be a good starting point, allowing various members of the community to be involved with or comment on the circumstances of the old man's murder. Santer has explained that Nick was established as a "kind of spitting, snarling beast right from the outset", with the end of the first episode seeing Nick granted EastEnders' first drum roll ending as he punched through the glass door window of The Queen Victoria pub after a fight with Ali Osman (Nejdet Salih). After a few weeks of the police investigation, prime suspect Nick left the Square after attempting to mug Ethel Skinner (Gretchen Franklin), and in April it was reported that he had been arrested. After Nick's mother, Dot, was introduced to the cast in July, she informed the audience that Nick had managed to get off on probation, and the following month, he returned to Albert Square. Upon his return, he broke into Dr. Harold Legg's (Leonard Fenton) surgery and came across Kathy Beale's (Gillian Taylforth) medical records, discovering she had a child at 14 years old. Nick threatens to reveal this to Kathy's husband, Pete (Peter Dean) unless she gives him regular payments. Kathy soon tells Pete the truth, resulting in him giving Nick a beating in the middle of the street. Following this, Den warns Nick to leave the square for good, with the exception of visiting Dot occasionally, or he will face fatal consequences.

Nick appears briefly throughout the next few years and eventually meets his father, Charlie (Christopher Hancock) in October 1987 when they both coincidentally turn up to visit Dot. Nick and Charlie make it clear to each other that they don't want each other around. Charlie discovers that Nick is hiding from some criminals after he stole from them and also discovers Nick is hiding from Graham Clark (Gary Webster), an old friend of Nick's who went to prison for Nick's crimes. Charlie lets Graham into the house to confront Nick, and forces him to leave, or else he will hand him over to the criminals he is hiding from.

In 1988, Nick ends up doing prison time for drug offences in Dickens Hill Prison where, coincidentally, Den is being held for arson. It is during this period that the mystery of Reg's murder is finally solved when Nick confessed to Den that he had been responsible. In 1989, Dot learns, through off-screen visits to Nick, that he has married a woman called Hazel (Virginia Fiol), and has a young daughter; Nick had avoided telling her beforehand due to his and Dot's strained relationship. Hazel tracked Dot down in May 1989 and visited her with the child, Dorothy Nicola; Dot was so pleased they visited that she pulled out of attending a Brownie march with Mo Butcher (Edna Doré) and Marge Green (Pat Coombs). This was later revealed to be a lie, and the baby turned out to be Hazel's niece.

Although Nick was only a semi-regular character, his intermittent appearances were always scripted to make a big impact on the show, as well as all the characters involved in his storylines. He reappeared and left several times during the first few years of the show, causing maximum havoc every time, and it wasn't long before the tabloids had begun to brand the character "Nasty Nick". Altman has commented: "I think they keep bringing Nick back because he's one of the characters on British TV that people just love to hate". This dislike of the character by the public was shared by the fictional residents of Walford, with Altman explaining: "Every time he comes back he gets shunned by one and all. It's like being the bad cowboy come riding into town - everybody puts down the shutters and locks up the bar."

The character's appearance was tailored to suit this unlikable, "nasty" image, with EastEnders series consultant Simon Ashdown commenting; "When he comes on, you know this guy is bad. He's got the black hair and the scowl and the leather jacket. He is like that, he is a Dickensian baddy." Frankie Fitzgerald, who played Nick's son Ashley Cotton from 2000 to 2001, agreed: "The look of Nasty Nick, you know, he was a bad guy. Even when he gets dressed up in a suit, he's still got the earring, he's still got the rings, he's still got the tattoo on his neck."

One of Nick's most notable returns to the series occurred in 1990. Nick returned to his mother's life with the claim that he was a born-again Christian, which happened to coincide with her £10,000 win on the bingo. EastEnders writer Sarah Phelps explained: "For Dot, the idea that Jesus had finally spoken to Nick, that was all her Christmases coming at once! Nick knew that. It was sort of obvious that Nick could be saying 'Jesus walks with me' and then just go out and kick somebody or nick their wallet." With the help of a fake priest, Nick managed to convince his mother of his newfound faith and then began a slow campaign to control her eating habits and poison her in order to claim her money. The episode which culminated the storyline, written by P.J. Hammond, was set solely in Dot's house and featured an unusually small cast composed of Nick, Dot, Charlie, Ethel and Alistair, the fake priest. At the last moment, in what Altman has called the "one time we saw a glimmer of Nick's good side", Nick backed out of his plan and stopped Dot from eating the poisoned meal he had intended to kill her with. Once again, Dot was left alone, broken-hearted at what her own son had been prepared to do to her.

Nick was not away from Walford for long. In 1991, he returned with a heroin addiction but Dot initially shunned him and ignored his pleas for help. It was only after discovering Charlie had died that Nick was her only family left and was determined to reform him. Discussing the storyline, Altman has said: "I found the heroin addiction quite exhausting actually, because I grew a really thick beard and my hair was always really filthy. When I was shooting those scenes I met with a guy who was an addict, and he told me things that you go through, like you can't relax when you're trying to come off it. You can't sleep so you drink loads of alcohol to try and kill the pain. The clock barely seems to move. For me as an actor, they really let me go as far as I could on that. We had letters as well from people saying how it's put them off heroin for life, so I guess we did a good job." As the plot unfolded, Dot tried to curtail Nick's addiction by locking him in his room and forcing him to go cold turkey with the help of Pete. During this period, The Queen Victoria's landlord Eddie Royle (Michael Melia) was murdered. The murder was the key storyline of the show during the autumn of 1991. The episode in which Eddie was murdered was written by Tony McHale; it finished with a cliffhanger featuring Clyde Tavernier (Steven Woodcock) in the gardens standing over Eddie's body and holding a knife, which Nick witnessed from his bedroom window. Nick tells the police what he saw, leading to Clyde going on the run with the help of Michelle Fowler (Susan Tully).

Joe Wallace (Jason Rush) eventually came forward, saying he saw Nick out on the square on the night of Eddie's murder, having escaped his room and climbed down a drain pipe. Nick confesses to Dot that he was responsible but insists that it was an accident. Nick is subsequently arrested and charged with Eddie's murder and he stands trial in January 1993. A week's worth of episodes were devoted to the trial, and were all written by Tony Jordan. To present the story of Nick's trial, the programme-makers themselves had to review the evidence and watch the episodes leading up to the death of Eddie. In the end, although it was clear that Nick was responsible for stabbing Eddie, it was not clear that it was murder, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Altman summarised: "Through having a really good defence and lying his head off once again, he got away with murder".

Nick was written out of the show, along with Dot, when June Brown (who plays Dot) decided to depart from the series in August 1993. Their departing storyline introduced his partner, Zoe (Elizabeth Chadwick) and young son, Ashley (Rossi Higgins) to Dot, who was initially convinced that Zoe was attempting to con her, as she remembered the incident with Hazel several years before. Once Dot was convinced Nick was being truthful, however, she quickly grew close to Ashley, and the family moved to Gravesend together. This would be the last time Dot and Nick would be onscreen for several years until 1997, when June Brown was persuaded to reprise her role as Dot.

Upon her return, Dot explained that Nick had been arrested yet again off-screen for drugs possession, and that Zoe and Ashley had moved away, tired of his criminal acts. Shortly after her return, she was informed by police that Nick had escaped prison with his cellmate, Damion Spinks. Damion comes looking for Dot, telling her that Nick cheated him out of money. He keeps her hostage overnight and soon leaves after finding her money. The following day, the police reveal that Damion is in intensive care, put there by Nick.

John Altman reprised his role as Nick after a five-year absence in March 1998. Nigel Bates (Paul Bradley) discovers Nick spying on Dot's house late at night and after telling him to stay away, Nick warns Nigel that he will be back. Nick returns a few weeks later, after Dot discovers him hiding in her house. Nick tells Dot that he is dying of AIDS, caused by his heroin addiction, which she disbelieves at first but is later convinced. Nick reveals that he is planning an armed robbery to pay for his medication. Not wanting Nick to go through with it, Dot decides to arrange the money for Nick. Dot later visits Mark Fowler (Todd Carty) and asks if he has heard of the drugs in question, which Mark denies. Dot then looks up the drug on Clare Bates' (Gemma Bissix) computer and discovers that the drugs are simply sleeping pills. Realising Nick has been lying about his illness all along, Dot calls the police before confronting him, having him rearrested and sent back to prison.

In October 2000, a special 'soap-bubble' titled Return of Nick Cotton aired. The episode centred on Nick's release from prison, his reconciliation with his son, and even featured Nick's father Charlie, making a brief cameo appearance as a ghost almost a decade after his character was killed off. The episode paved the way for Nick's subsequent return to Walford, where he reignited an old feud with Mark Fowler after he discovered Nick was supplying his younger brother Martin Fowler (James Alexandrou) with ecstasy. On New Year's Day 2001, Mark spikes Nick's drink and lures him to the top of the viaduct in Bridge Street and watches as an intoxicated Nick falls, severely crippling himself. Following this, Nick orders Ashley to set fire to Mark's house but he cannot go through with it and leaves Walford after Nick disowns him. Following this, Nick temporarily departs to a spinal unit in February 2001.

After three months away, he returned in May 2001; he was able to walk, but still needed crutches. This comeback was going to be even shorter than his previous one, and followed by a much longer absence from the show. Determined to continue the feud with Mark, Nick starts making threats to Mark's pregnant girlfriend Lisa Shaw (Lucy Benjamin) and soon causes the death of Ashley after sabotaging the brakes on Mark's motorbike, only for Ashley to steal and crash it. Following Ashley's death, Dot overhears an argument between Nick and Mark and realises that Nick had tampered with the brakes on Mark's motorbike. After Ashley's funeral, Dot banishes Nick from her life and tells him to leave and never return, as she would never be able to forgive him.

In September 2004, Dot wrote a card to Nick letting him know that she had kidney cancer on the day she was going to have her cancer operation at the hospital, the reason why Dot needed to reach out to him in a card, despite that Dot disowned him three years previous due to the fall out of his son Ashley's death, and also despite everything that happened between them both, it was because at a time like this, there were things that Dot wanted Nick to know, just in case if her cancer operation went wrong, Dot was letting Nick know that she was thinking of him, and didn't mean anything by not telling him about her cancer treatment before hand, which this eventually ended up leading up to Nick getting back in contact with Dot two years later, when he had his own cancer in 2006.

However, Santer explained: "There will always be a way back to Dot for Nick", a position supported by EastEnders writer James Payne, who stated: "[Dot] believes, I think, deep down, that he has the potential for change, that he can be a good boy. I think that she'll keep wishing that." The first steps towards reconciliation were made in 2006 when Jim Branning (John Bardon) received a phone call from Nick who was in a prison hospital with cancer. Jim and his grandson, Bradley (Charlie Clements) initially kept this a secret from Dot, but Bradley told his girlfriend, Stacey Slater (Lacey Turner), who let it slip to Dot. Dot went to visit Nick, but when he was cleared of his cancer, he refused to let Dot see him.

On 2 October 2008 it was reported that Nick would return to EastEnders on Christmas Day that year after more than seven years away. Executive producer Diederick Santer spoke of his excitement at Nick's return, hailing the character as an "EastEnders legend" and "one of the show's best-remembered and best-loved villains". Altman stated: "After an absence of seven years, I am thrilled to return to Albert Square. The BBC have always given me great storylines as Nick Cotton and I look forward to seeing if Nick will once again spread fear and loathing throughout the Square!" June Brown revealed that she had been asking producers to bring Altman back to the soap for six or seven years, as the two of them shared such a good working relationship. After spending time in Walsall, Cotton returned; walking normally again, he was accompanied by his seven-year-old daughter, Dotty (Molly Conlin). He explained that he had met Dotty's mother Sandy Gibson (Caroline Pegg) while living in a squat, and that she was an alcoholic who had recently died, leaving him with custody of Dotty. Altman explained: "Nick needed something, because I think if he didn't have little Dotty, for him to walk through that door, she would just have treated him as a complete outcast." The actor described other changes to his character since his last appearance, detailing how he had become a plumber, begun dressing more smartly, stopped gelling his hair back and no longer wore an earring.

Although suspicious to begin with, Dot accepted them both into her home, believing that Nick truly had changed this time. Asked whether Nick really was a reformed character, Altman remained ambiguous: "Nick's back, he's got a cute little daughter. He's become a plumber, he's a changed man. ...Or is he?" As the storyline progressed, Nick's true agenda was revealed when he blackmailed his mother into giving him money for custody of Dotty. In a further plot twist, it was revealed to the audience in 2009, that Dotty (real name Kirsty) was colluding with her father all along. In the storyline, Dotty suggested killing Dot for her life assurance policy. Nick leaves following this, allowing Dotty to work on Dot. He returns three months later, whereupon they begin their plan to convince Dot and her friends that she is suffering with dementia, Nick's aim being to kill Dot and blame her death on her deteriorating mental state.

During Nick's brief stay in the square, he overheard Billy Mitchell (Perry Fenwick) telling Dot how he let Jase Dyer (Stephen Lord) die and Nick blackmailed Billy by demanding regular payments or he would tell Jase's son Jay Brown (Jamie Borthwick) what Billy did. When Billy's cousin, Phil Mitchell (Steve McFadden), found out about this, he led Nick into the barrel store of The Queen Victoria public house, where he beats him up and ties him to a chair. Phil gave Billy the opportunity to scare Nick off and end this, however, Billy let him go and told Jay the truth himself. The plot with his own daughter to kill his beloved mother climaxes on-screen in June 2009: Nick's plan goes awry after Dotty has a change of heart and ultimately rescues her grandmother from being poisoned, instead drugging Nick. This leads to a series of events whereby Nick, in a bid to escape once his plan has been exposed, holds various members of the community hostage in the café and an accidental fire is started after Heather Trott (Cheryl Fergison) pushes Nick into the chip pan. The hostages manage to escape due to a fight between Nick and Ryan Malloy (Neil McDermott), who was one of the hostages. This results in an explosion at the café with Nick and Bradley Branning inside. The storyline marked Altman's departure from the show once again. His departing episode was scripted as a cliffhanger, as it was not revealed whether Nick had survived the explosion at the end of the episode. However, in the following episode, on 4 June 2009, Nick is shown to survive the explosion and Bradley is hospitalised with injuries to his eye. Nick departs after once again being disowned by Dot. Dotty is left in Dot's care despite Nick explaining to his mother that Dotty is evil.

In January 2014, Dot's lodger Poppy Meadow (Rachel Bright) receives a phone call from Nick, who wants to speak to Dot. After being told by Sharon Rickman (Letitia Dean) that Nick is bad news, she refuses to let him talk to her. Two months later, Dot is told by the police that Nick has died of respiratory failure from a heroin overdose the previous week. One of the police officers who breaks the news to Dot is Nick's son Charlie Cotton (Declan Bennett). Charlie explains that he was conceived from a brief marriage Nick had with his mother Yvonne (Pauline McLynn) back in the 1980s. During the funeral, Charlie and undertaker Les Coker (Roger Sloman) prevent Dot from looking in the coffin. Dot is suspicious and invites Yvonne to tell the truth and she assures Dot that Charlie is her grandson. A few weeks later, Carol Jackson (Lindsey Coulson) asks Charlie for advice, when he leaves his phone at her house, she answers a call and discovers that Nick is still alive. Following this, it is revealed that Charlie has been impersonating a police officer and is actually a caretaker at a care home where Yvonne works. Charlie leaves work to find his car windows have been smashed, with a message from Nick, confirming he'd done it.

In October 2014, Nick re-appears in Albert Square, seven months after his faked death. Executive producer Dominic Treadwell-Collins promised to deliver the "Ultimate Nasty Nick" storyline and it would be the Nick story to end all Nick stories. Charlie and his fiancé Ronnie Mitchell (Samantha Womack) are horrified to find Nick in Dot's house. Nick blackmails them for £10,000 by the end of the day, or he will reveal to Dot that he is alive. Charlie asks Phil for a loan, he agrees but unbeknown to Charlie, he gives him a bag full of paper and when Charlie gives it to Nick he finds out there is no money. On Halloween night, Charlie reveals to Dot that Nick is alive, he goes to find him but while he is gone, Dot finds him in her house. Nick reveals that he was involved in a robbery at a jewellery shop and Charlie convinced him to fake his death. Dot agrees to hide Nick until they can raise enough money for him to leave. During this time, Dot is once again manipulated by Nick and starts to become happy that he is there, believing she can finally have a mother-son relationship with him. Fed up being stuck in Dot's house, Nick decides to go outside but is spotted by Ian Beale (Adam Woodyatt), who tells Phil and Sharon that Nick is alive. Phil goes round to Dot's house to attack Nick but is stopped by Ronnie. Ronnie tries to bribe Nick to leave by stealing £100,000 of Phil's money but he returns for Charlie and Ronnie's wedding. Having overheard Ronnie and Phil talking about killing him to get rid of him once and for all, Nick decides to cut the brakes on Ronnie's car. After she goes into labour at the wedding reception, Ronnie, Charlie and her sister Roxy Mitchell (Rita Simons) are involved in a car accident which later kills Emma Summerhayes (Anna Acton), while Ronnie is left in a coma. Yvonne discovers that Nick cut the brakes of the car but he convinces her to frame Phil by planting the oily rag in his coat pocket. Yvonne tells Charlie what Nick has done but he does not believe her until he catches Nick with some of the money Ronnie used to bribe him. Then Nick implicates Yvonne in Ronnie's accident so Charlie tells them both to leave. Dot hides Nick in the derelict house next door and obtains heroin for Nick. Dot's lodger Fatboy (Ricky Norwood) finds out and urges her to stop so when she sees Nick she urges him to confess to the police about framing Phil for Ronnie's sake but he says he does not care about Ronnie, telling her he hopes she rots. Later, Dot finds Nick unconscious but he regains consciousness briefly and reveals to Dot that he was responsible for Reg Cox's death in 1985. Dot decides not to call an ambulance and instead lets fate decide if Nick should survive. Dot accepts that she is to blame for Nick becoming a monster as she saw what he was turning into but turned a blind eye to it in the vain hope he'd change. In his final moments, Nick sincerely apologises for everything he put Dot through and asks for forgiveness. Dot refuses and tells him to ask Jesus instead, seconds before Nick dies in her arms, in the same location that Reg was discovered thirty years prior. Dot confesses to letting Nick die to Charlie who plans to get rid of Nick's body with Les Coker's help to save Dot from going to prison.

In the live episode aired on 19 February 2015 to coincide with the show's 30th anniversary, the very first scene from the show's first episode was recreated. Stacey, Martin and Kush Kazemi (Davood Ghadami) find Nick's body in the same way Den, Ali and Arthur Fowler (Bill Treacher) found Reg Cox thirty years earlier. Dot confesses to killing Nick and is taken away by police. His body is removed from the house the following day. Three months later, Dot receives 14 months in prison for Nick's manslaughter but she is later released after four months. Nick's funeral takes place in June 2015 with only Charlie, Roxy and his grandson, Matthew in attendance.

In 2021, nearly eight years after Nick's death, it is revealed that Dotty (now played by Milly Zero) is not his daughter and that her father is Nick's half-brother, Tom "Rocky" Cotton (Brian Conley). However, in 2022, it is revealed that this is a lie and that Nick is indeed Dotty's father.

Altman revealed that producers were told to 'write him out' of the show after he opposed a decision to make his character gay.

Reception
Nick Cotton has become one of EastEnders ' most renowned villains. His 'nastiness' was voted the 25th "Greatest Soap Moment" in a Five poll in 2004, and he has also been voted the 4th most villainous television character in a Channel 4 poll. The Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker has denied Nick's villainous characterisation, however, writing: "The man simply isn't menacing; he's half as terrifying as an Argos catalogue. Whereas [Coronation Street villain] Jez Quigley (Lee Boardman) looked as though he'd enjoy riding an onyx stallion through a field full of groaning, recently-impaled victims before galloping home to bathe in the blood of the fallen, Nick Cotton merely looks like he might, at a push, dispute the price of a dented tin of custard with a supermarket checkout girl while you wait behind him, wondering when he last washed his hair." The Times ' s Fiona McCade satirised the character when Altman appeared on the children's TV show Balamory, advising parents to: "be prepared to cover your little ones' eyes as the bad boy of soap strides into the colourful, fictional paradise, no doubt goosing Miss Hoolie, upsetting PC Plum and making Josie jump. I also fear for the safety of Archie, the chubby, cheerful posh boy who wears a pink kilt and lives alone in a big pink castle. With Nick in town, he doesn't stand a chance."

John Altman was nominated for "Villain of the Year" at the 2015 British Soap Awards, but lost out to Hollyoaks actor, Jeremy Sheffield, who portrays Patrick Blake.

title: Nick Cotton


text:
John Egan (CPR)

John Egan was General Superintendent of the Canadian Pacific Railway's Western Division from 1882 to July 1886 with headquarters at Winnipeg, Manitoba. He was succeeded by William Whyte.

Formerly with the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway, Egan was hired by William Cornelius Van Horne to oversee the completion of the first transcontinental rail link in Canada. He was present at the driving of the last spike on November 7, 1885.

Egan returned to the United States where he held executive positions with the St Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway amongst others.

title: John Egan (CPR)


text:
Psusennes

Psusennes is the Greek form of the ancient Egyptian name Pasebakhaenniut (p3-sb3-ḫˁỉ-n-nỉwt, "The star appearing in the city (=Thebes)". There are three major figures of that name:

Two 21st Dynasty pharaohs:
 * Psusennes I
 * Psusennes II

and a 21st dynasty High Priest of Amun, who may be the same person as Psusennes II:
 * Psusennes III

title: Psusennes


text: Category:Japanese singers

title: Category:Japanese singers


text:
User:JarΙaxleArtemis

Created to prevent impersonation. The first Ι is actually an iota.

title: User:JarΙaxleArtemis


text:
User talk:JarΙaxleArtemis

Created to prevent impersonation. The first Ι is actually an iota.

title: User talk:JarΙaxleArtemis


text: Template:24 (TV series)

title: Template:24 (TV series)


text:
User:Black Cat

Black Cat

title: User:Black Cat


text: Category:Scientific observation

title: Category:Scientific observation


title: File:TravWilb1Cover.jpg


text:
Radio Pet Fencing

Radio Pet Fencing is the third record by rapper MC Lars, the last record released with his former stage surname Horris, and his first record to be released outside of the United States.

All songs on the 2003 album were written by Lars, except "Escape from Robot Island", co-written by Timothy Thompson.

Track listing

 * 1) "Hey That's Me"
 * 2) "Yes I Am an Alien"
 * 3) "Atom You're Awesome"
 * 4) "Certified"
 * 5) "Mr. Wormsly's Addiction"
 * 6) "The Séance at Harpers Ferry"
 * 7) "My Rhymes Rhyme"
 * 8) "Rapbeth (Foul is Fair)"
 * 9) "Make Way for Ducklings"
 * 10) "Humphrey the Whale"
 * 11) "Sarah"
 * 12) "Escape From Robot Island"
 * 13) *Featuring MNP

Additional musicians

 * PJ McCombs – electric bass
 * DJ Raymundo – scratching
 * Craig Brown – drums on "Humphrey the Whale"
 * Michael Love – keyboards on "Escape from Robot Island"
 * Timothy Thompson – vocals on "Escape from Robot Island"
 * Wesley Willis - vocals on "Yes I am an Alien"

title: Radio Pet Fencing


text: Category:Data collection

title: Category:Data collection


text:
Talk:The Sasquatch Gang

Untitled
Question: On IMDB it says that the movie is being made by Tim Skosen, not the guys from Nap. Dyn. or am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerberj (talk • contribs) 22:24, August 23,2005

Answer: It's not being made by everyone from the Napolean Dynamite crew, but does include quite a few, including:  Jared Hess as executive produce (writer for N.D.),  Jeremy Coon as producer (producer and editor of N.D.), and Tim Skousen as director (first assistant director for N.D.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.1.179.73 (talk • contribs) 04:51, February 15,2006

Fantasy Film
It doesn't really seem accurate to tag this as a fantasy film since the only fantastic element is part of a hoax, so I'm removing the article from this category. However, if anyone disagrees feel free to start a discussion. 75.93.9.235 (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just Saw This
Technically, I don't think there is any sign of interest in Sci-Fi in this film. Just Fantasy films. And it's a stretch beyond sarcasm to deem any characters involved "highly intelligent". Seems as if the kids were written to be very very young (and still below the stuff of average intelligence) but ended up being placed in highschool for some technical reasons. yksehtniycul--12.213.80.52 (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot synopsis
Is anyone that has seen the movie able to clean up the plot section. Written very poorly and overly wordy. Is very difficult to actually make sense of the plot based on this write up. 2600:1700:19C1:B420:4028:BE77:1903:44D8 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Sasquatch Gang


text: Talk:Radio Pet Fencing

title: Talk:Radio Pet Fencing


text:
User talk:Snake.plissken

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Karmafist 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Snake.plissken


text:
User talk:Goptex

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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 Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image copyright problem RE: Image:022205 79AKK14.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:022205 79AKK14.jpg. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:
 * The copyright holder, and
 * The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this:.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:
 * An open content licence
 * Public Domain
 * Fair Use

 * The copyright holder gets the best protection of their work by licencing it under an open content license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: cc-by-sa-2.5. The GNU Free Documentation License is another option. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag GFDL.

 * The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.

 * Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.)  However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.

 * Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Fair use.

For more information, see Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --WonYong 09:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Bobdeuell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bobdeuell.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Bobstew.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bobstew.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 07:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Bobstew.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Goptex


text:
User:Harab Shtaal

Other IP addresses and account names used by this vandal include:

title: User:Harab Shtaal


text:
Category talk:Languages of Pakistan

You are missing the Khowar language which is a major language of Pakistan, but youve included languages spoken by less than 100,000 people like Burushaski and Wakhi

title: Category talk:Languages of Pakistan


text:
Air Force–Colorado State football rivalry

The Air Force–Colorado State football rivalry is an American college football rivalry in Colorado between the U.S. Air Force Academy Falcons and Colorado State University Rams. The Ram–Falcon Trophy is awarded to the winner of the game.

Ram–Falcon Trophy

The origin of the Ram–Falcon Trophy is traced back to Shelly Godkin, a former ROTC commander at Colorado State. The trophy was carved by local Fort Collins artist, Bill Wrage, who donated several artistic works to Colorado State University. It was first awarded in 1980, when formerly independent Air Force joined Colorado State in the Western Athletic Conference (WAC); CSU won 21–9 on September 6. Both teams moved to the new Mountain West Conference in 1999; Air Force leads the trophy series .650.

Series results
Rankings are from the AP Poll.


text:
User talk:Abhijitpai

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Msrit esb 1.jpg, Image:Msrit esb 2.jpg, and Image:Msrit esb 3.jpg. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add those to let us know their copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 22:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Buenos Dias!
Hi,I'm User:Trampton,wishing you a happy beginning of March and warm time editing Wikipedia,you sound like a cool person,I too love basketball,infact I own basketball court,maybe we can shoot some hoops sometime,Happy editing!Trampton 10:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually no,I'm in the U.S.Trampton 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Request for assitance
Hello Abhijit,

Dev Boro Dees Deum.

I am User:Deepak D'Souza, a Wikipedian and Konkani like you.

Perhaps you may be aware, or maybe not , that there is a Konkani Wikipedia on test at Wikimedia Incubator. It has been around since August 2006, but has been lacking contributors. Till now it has been a one man effort by User:Fredricnoronha. I myself became aware of it in February.

Since you show an active interest in Konkani related articles, and are an experienced user,I strongly request you to contribute to the Konkani Wikipedia. We intend to make it a muti-script(at least Romi Lipi and Devanagiri and also Kannada script.)

We have started with a few articles and need a lot of help given the various dialects and scripts in use for Konkani.

Your contribution will be neccessary to make this project a success. Any little time you can give will be greatly appreciated.

The url is given below:

http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Konkani_Wikipedia

With regards Deepak D'Souza.

Re Diff not Diffing correctly
Hi, everything looks OK to me, though your missing out 80+ intermediate changes, which is probably why your experiencing problems. Use helpme if you need further assistance and someone will come and help you much faster than I can, or if your patient, give me a shout and I'll come and have a look further. Nick 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Embassy Golf Links
An editor has nominated Embassy Golf Links, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP Bangalore Meetup
Following the Mailing list discussion that we had, here's a call for an informal meetup of Bangalore Wikipedians soon. Please see Meetup/Bangalore/Bangalore3 --  Tinu  Cherian  - 08:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Konkani Language Babel Language Templates
Greetings fellow Konkani,

It is suggested that we translate into Konkani. The idea behind the language templates is to suggest to another user a users proficiency in a particular language. Under this logic, it is only fair that the templates be translated into Konkani. We will enlist our phrases and deliberate thereupon. Phrases based on mutual consent will then be posted.

Please lave suggestions and comments on the Discussion page.

देव बरॆं करॊ, Imp er ium Caelestis  05:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project
Hi Abhijitpai,

My name is Victor Grigas, I’m a storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation working on collecting stories of Indian Wikipedians for the 2011 fundraiser.

I found your name on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Bangalore

I’ll be traveling to India from the 12th -20th of November to conduct face to face interviews with Indian Wikipedians. I’ll be in Bangalore from November 12-15 and in Mumbai for WikiConference India from November 17 - 20.

If you are interested, and would like to schedule an interview with me, please mark your time and place of interview on this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011/Indiastorytelling or send me an email (vgrigas@wikimedia.org) with any questions or concerns you may have.

If you feel that you’d like to talk to me, but wont be able to make it to either of these locations and would like to schedule a Skype or Telephone interview, please email me at vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Cheers, Victor

PS If you know of anyone with whom I should speak please let me know :)

Nomination of Ittiam Systems for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ittiam Systems is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ittiam Systems until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. I am One of Many (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abhijitpai


text:
User talk:Ccsnjf

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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 Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Copyright problem on Gallery Rifle Shooting
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://galleryrifle.com/about-galleryrifle/. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. If you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... some people do make life hard.... I own the site Galleryrifle.com - all content on there is mine. NeilF (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the material is now released under a compatible license, I have restored it. When copying licensed material from this website in the future, please add attribution as part of your citation. of how to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ccsnjf