User talk:Elizium23

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Wellness check

Hoping you are doing well; saw you very abruptly disappeared from editing pages affiliated with Wikiproject Catholicism and wanted to check in. Noticed something might be up when you didn't respond to my various diocesan page edits and my note on the project talk page. I don't know you but I'll pray for you because I get the feeling something funny is up. Take care of yourself and I hope to see you again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Same. I wonder what's up. Also, what is Lowercase Sigmabot III? It keeps deleting my topic and I don't know what's going on. 2601:980:100:360:55DA:D54A:F936:EC2F (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @User:Elizium23, I edited from an IP address until recently. I would work on projects alongside you and other WP:Catholic editors. I noticed that you suddenly stopped editing a month ago, and I want to make sure everything is okay. Cheers, WikiIsKnowledge (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pbritti and WikiIsKnowledge: Elizium23 may be on an unannounced wikibreak, but you may wish to try the "email" option to reach out. Hopefully all is well with them. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@User:Locke Cole, thanks for the suggestion. I already reached out. Weird, though, that I didn't get a "ping" notification from your comment. Thanks, WikiIsKnowledge (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@WikiIsKnowledge: Odd, I got your notification. It may be because I was adding two sections during the edit, or the subsequent edit where I merged the sections canceled the ping? I don't think I ran afoul of any of the requirements listed at mw:Manual:Echo (though the page is currently tagged as "outdated", and there is a catchall all markup is parsed with regular expressions; sufficiently tricky markup can trigger bogus results at the bottom of that page). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed I hadn't seen you around in quite a while. Hope you are well, Elizium23, and that we see you back on Wikipedia when you are in the mood to edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: yes indeed, thank you for your concern, all who've inquired about me! In fact, I'm gainfully employed now (a rarity in Elizium23's five decades of life) and so, I've de-emphasized Wiki as a priority for time/effort. I don't expect to be active in the foreseeable future (work is marvelous!), but I have popped in while not logged into my account, I must confess. That's all for now. Elizium23 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Cristero War edit war

Hi, I'm not here to moan about the block or insist on the other user getting blocked, but what exactly is the way forwardhere? The initiating editor is very clear that they don't believe they need to provide sources, build consensus, or engage at all (beyond logging out to avoid a block). Given that the edit messages were 100% personal attacks I assumed that any mod reading them would understand this, but ... maybe not? Thanks ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The way forward involves discussion and consensus building. Elizium23 (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I get it -- I broke the rule, I'll take the block. I'm just at a loss as to how one builds consensus with an intransigent editor on a "this is political bias" kick; I've tried reaching out multiple times, but have only been met with wild personal accusations and an insistence that removing these unsourced, highly inflammatory claims is "revisionism".

What is the practical solution here?

If the the answer boils down to "a mod will eventually notice", in the meantime we're pushing this nonsense out to a whole new generation of readers who will believe we are committing "historical revisionism" when it gets removed again.

OTOH if "build consensus" is a euphemism for "organize with other editors to take turns reverting it", it seems like editors invested in keeping the unsourced, inflammatory version have a pretty decisive numerical majority.

Anyway, thanks for the reply, I really wasn't expecting any response to a post venting about an edit-warring block. ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You pursue WP:DR for dispute resolution or you just disengage awhile. It's no big deal if one or two editors wants to take over an article for the sake of pushing something in/out of it. It's just one article. That's all your block is for. So you're free to start an RFC, tag and discuss, seek more opinions (such as on WikiProjects), post to noticeboards (such as WP:NPOVN), take a walk, I don't know. There's a ton of options for dealing with disruption. Elizium23 (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Good perspective -- alongside the option of "take a walk", the idea of initiating Wikipedia Arbitration Proceedings against user marioplumber234 does sound pretty silly. Thanks ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ShadyNorthAmericanIPs, the IP address has been blocked as well, and the page is protected to prevent further logged-out editing for a while. You have continued edit-warring after receiving a clear warning; I'd do the same to Trainerash123's account if they continue after the warning they have received. There is no hard evidence for Trainerash123 having logged out, for privacy reasons. If they don't edit for the next two weeks, though, this may be caused by the IP address block that will also affect whoever-that-was while logged into any account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg

Thank you for the revert. I don't know why, but I was sure that the movement was "School Strike for the Climate". That, in combination with the literal translation, was why I had edited that. I was wrong, so thanks for reverting my edit. All the best, ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 20:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Teresa Forcades

You've just reverted my change in Teresa Forcades article.

About the reason you gave:

"this looks like a publicity stunt and was apparently not any sort of honour or awards ceremony, just a panel discussion with a gigantic panel and no men."

This list called "BBC 100 Women" begun at 2013 and in this month (of 2022) it is still being published. So it is a serious list.

And it doesn't present men because, as the name says, it is a list of 100 Women.Sintegrity (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes; I was also concerned because it looks like you've mass-added this blurb to over 100 BLP articles. I checked out the category and it has been nominated for deletion twice. If it were up to me, I'd delete the category, because it's not WP:DEFINING for the reasons I outlined. I question whether it belongs in all the articles you updated, but I have refrained at present from mass-reverting you, in light of the fact that the category has itself survived two CFD rounds. Elizium23 (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. All of the women I added to the category are really there. I am organizing an edit-a-thon for 2023.

As you may see in this Test page I looked at ALL of the Wikipedia English article and categorized them for this 2023 edit-a-thon.

And if you look at my contributions in Wikidata, you will see I ALSO improved the information about them there.

And, before you ask. No, I am not a bot. And I also don't know how to create one. Iam not a developer. Sintegrity (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, since the category is not WP:DEFINING then I would say it is up to editors of each article to establish consensus for or against inclusion of this category and mention of it in the article. I can see other valid objections being raised, so there is no guarantee that your edits will stand everywhere. Elizium23 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Defrocking. You're acting in bad faith. This is your final warning. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti, I find your aggressive behavior off-putting and if you'd like to report me to WP:ANI then do it sooner, rather than later. You're hurling all sorts of random accusations as if you'll eventually hit on something that will stick. This is not the way to win or resolve a dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You are an experienced editor. Discuss the issue with specifics on Talk:Frank Pavone, Talk:Defrocking, or Talk:Loss of clerical state. Try focussing on content. I don't want you blocked. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no vandalism and you know it. There's no incivility either, and you know that full well. Your threats of blocking are empty and you seem to be intent on winning the argument or quelling my arguments against your position. Why so hostile? Elizium23 (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not a content discussion. Again, attempt one at Talk:Frank Pavone, Talk:Defrocking, or Talk:Loss of clerical state and cease your vandalism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you going to do if I keep vandalizing articles, will you defrock me? Elizium23 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, that is not content. Are you going to provide additional reasoning on any of the talk pages listed? If not, I'll accept that you have no further dispute with the content I have added to Defrocking and Loss of clerical state and don't dispute the word "defrocked" when referring to Frank Pavone. If you do wish to provide additional reasoning, you are welcome to add said reasoning. Further vandalism will likely result in a block, with neither ritual nor canonical stipulations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous assumption. I've said my piece and I don't need to hammer on about it without others weighing in. I think you need to accept the fact that a dispute still exists and stop removing maintenance tags out-of-process, because that is disruptive, my friend. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Not how it works. You have to provide continuing rationale for a tag to remain up. If the issue has been discussed with no further dispute or need for additional, the tag comes down, per policy. This doesn't address the Pavone article, either. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

While placing maintenance tags is a clever, they can't remain in perpetuity without cause. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring on abortion article

Are you edit warring on an abortion article at Frank Pavone? 73.92.146.88 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO #3 (sockpuppetry). Who wants to know? Elizium23 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Negev. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Zhomron (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)