User talk:Jayarathina

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

Catholic-hiearchy template[edit]

I object to migrating references to this template. Instead, the references should be deleted, because catholic-hierarchy.org is not a WP:RS. It is frequently abused as one but it has no editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking, and indeed has many factual errors as it puts bishops in their sees before they are installed, or even ordained! So I think an automatic process should go through and convert these to, say, {{citation needed}} in need of a better source for corroboration. Elizium23 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Elizium23, I am not removing or adding references. I am just changing it to a different template made for this specific purpose. The references already exists in the article. Also I personally think it is a reliable source. Once the records are officially published in a press release by the Vatican, a person becomes "See-Elect", it updated in the website (There is a difference between Appointed and Ordained). I think it is designed to be that way on purpose. This is a non-primary, 3rd party resource, which is an added advantage as that is a requirement for being a reliable source. The data is taken from the official source, if there is any discrepancy, it is scribal error alone (which I have yet to see). Th source is mentioned at the foot of every page. It is managed by a single person, so I personally do not that one or two errors should lead to disregard the entire site. At least for historical bishops, it is a reliable source. (Can you mention any errors that you think is note worthy?) The author of the website is also a Wikipedian (User:Dcheney). He has volunteered to clarify any doubt regarding the website (here and here). In any case, Please start a discussion in some relevant talk page so that the community could decide. You should inform User:Dcheney, so that he can explain his position in this matter. (Also even if the community decided against using this website, wouldn't it be easier to process if all the references point to {{Catholic-hierarchy}}?) --Jayarathina (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The onus is not on me to prove it is unreliable. The onus is on you to prove its reliability. This means that it has a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. I see no evidence of either one. Elizium23 (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Elizium23, I thought that was exactly what I did in my above reply, reasons why it is a reliable source. Any way can you please give proof for your statement: reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight --Jayarathina (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Elizium23, Please do start a discussion regarding this in some relevant talk page and ping me the link so that I can know the result of the discussion, to decide whether to proceed or not. --Jayarathina (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, from Caselle Landi[edit]

Hi, dearest Jayarathina, how are you?

I saw your work in this page, and I'm asking if you can help me to open in Tamil the page about father Maurizio Malvestiti, my dearest bishop.

The picture are all mine and free licensed. Please, I'll be happy if you can help me, also with a little page.

I'll be pleased to help you to open a new page from English-Italian, ot English Portuguese. Thanks a lot and God bless you!

Rei Momo (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Rei Momo, Yes check.svg Done :) --Jayarathina (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank youuuuuu!!! Rei Momo (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits on the Thomas Rosica page. They were very good and the breitbart source was a needed addition. After your edit, an anonymous user added some additions to the lawsuit section which were quite unbiased. They may have put reliable information at risk of being removed as well, so I pulled them. talk 14:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)