User talk:Elizium23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism[edit]

If neither Esoglou nor Roscelese (I'm not pinging at this time) is willing to file a request, perhaps can you yourself or I myself file it? --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I simply don't have time. As much as I desperately need these two parties to move past their perennial dispute, my life is about to become extremely hectic for at least a month and a half. It also represents a huge time investment to go through the prolific editing histories of the two disputants and find behavioral evidence for a case. Right now, I am so ignorant of the arbcom process that I don't even know if a third party can file a request. If this is indeed the case, then perhaps you would want to do so. I am willing, as time permits, to offer observations and discussion in an ongoing case. But I will not be available for any more significant participation in such a task for the foreseeable future. Elizium23 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case, I've filed a request for arbitration. The link is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality. To reply to others, do so in your own section. --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The case is accepted: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncontroversial moves[edit]

Please list them correctly; they go in the uncontroversial moves section at WP:RM, and are not performed by using the Rm template on the article talk page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that all too well, now... thank you. Also thanks for the talk page tweaking, I appreciate it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


In view of what you wrote to me on this matter, you might like to add a comment here. I have usually made the request as uncontroversial and had it accepted as such, but two were accepted with the comment "presented as uncontroversial". I made this one request as potentially controversial, in order to have something to refer to, if opposition ever arose to making such a change. This one I chose as one of the incipits that people may be most used to seeing capitalized and therefore more likely to be controversial. The Vatican website text of the encyclical in Latin is here. Esoglou (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


I made a change to an article, Eucharist, which you reverted. What is a reliable source in your definition? I quoted a biography about William Booth [1] by Edward Harold Begbie and linked to a website with further quotes from the same book. Unfortunately I didn't have time to go through all relevant biographies, various editions of The Handbook of Doctrine, vintage articles of The War Cry and various books and pamphlets on the subject to find the exact quotes, I was looking for. But I placed the main quote, stating that Salvation Army simply didn't practice sacraments, because in the beginning the Army did not intend to be a church. I was simply trying to establish the difference between early practices - practical theology - and later attempts to create a systematic theology in salvationism on the matter, which the article clearly lacked. Not even academic thesises demand, that every sentence is documented with references. ;-) Gywerd (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February.. If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee. If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

Call to Action[edit]

"""Comment""" Apologies for thinking the Call to Action site had been deleted Tomcapa1 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI[edit]

Please note that we don't use former in the intros of living retired officials. For examples: Albert II of Belgium, Jimmy Carter, Kim Campbell, Beatrix of the Netherlands etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You will also note that we don't use "was" in their intros either! So please don't revert me. Elizium23 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
We very much do use "former". See MOS:BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've made some adjustments to ...served as pope...'. We should use pope emeritus in the intro, to avoid any futher conflict, though. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

On SOL Laptop[edit]


«Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.»

The author of the article, that additionally happens to be the owner of the company, has used duplicate accounts to modify it, and also to reinforce his arguments while, BTW, using offensive language against other editors. I think that's surpassing a limit to assume good Faith by far.

On the other hand the article itself hasn't been marked as non noticeable before, that was other different article that happened to be fused with this one, AFAIK. (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Midnight Rider (film) article split[edit]

Thank you for your request to add the article history of Midnight Rider (film) to split article: Midnight Rider train accident. If possible could you review:

Talk:Midnight_Rider_(film)#Split_article_authorship_issue and offer any advise as to best way to address issue. DFinmitre (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Life of William Booth