The statement "I gave y'all my truck payment last week," is more precise than "I gave you my truck payment last week."
to
The statement "I gave y'all my truck payment last week," is more accurate than "I gave you my truck payment last week."
You rolled it back saying
"No, it's a distinction between one person and two or more people. That is precision, not accuracy. In standard English "you" is always accurate regardless of number."
But "y'all" in the sentence I edited is not more precise than "you", it is less precise. The original sentence's "y'all" is more accurate, because the sentence is referring to multiple people, and "y'all" is the term in Southern American English for multiple people, more accurate than is "you", which in that dialect means one person, not multiple people. That is why I changed "precise" to "accurate". DocRuby (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have it wrong. "Y'all" more precisely indicates whom the speaker is addressing compared to "you". "You" in standard English is unclear, thus less precise (it can refer to one person or several people). "Y'all" in Southern English adds that precision by indicating that the speaker is addressing more than one person. Thus, if a Southern English speaker wishes to be precise he/she will select "Y'all" or "you" to achieve a precision to indicate one person or more than one person. "You" in standard English is always accurate, whether speaking to one person or several people (i.e., it is perfectly grammatical in either case). But "you" in standard English does not have the precision that is available in Southern English ("you" vs. "y'all"). Thus, if I speak standard English, I am always accurate but sometimes imprecise. But if I speak Southern English, I can be more precise. Sundayclose (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you are making good edits about psychology
Hi, Sundayclose,
=
I first noticed the discussion about editing Southern American English you had with another editor, and have since seen you make constructive edits on articles related to psychological testing. Would you like to join in as another editor (at least) and I slog through a massive revision of the Psychology article? I have been using Wikipedia Library online access and other library access I have to gather a large number of reliable sources for medical articles on topics related to psychology, and I think it would be helpful as I revise the article to have other editors looking on at what I'm doing. Keep up the good work; see you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words, and thanks for the great work you are doing. My time is very limited so I usually make very small edits. I will do whatever I can, small though that may be. I certainly will try to look at the article from time to time. Thanks for the invitation, and you keep up the superb work as well. All the best, Sundayclose (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: I want to apologize on behalf of the community for the problems created at Talk:Dreamcatcher_(novel)#Infobox. Occasionally someone with persistance and an unwillingness to compromise will camp out on an issue, and will be unusually persistent about something. His language about the change, morover, is very inappropriate. The page has since been reverted to the version you adocated for. We have a number of editors that don't understand how to give constructive criticism.... Please keep up the great work in the community and again many apologies! Sadads (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Of course, only one editor owes me an apology (which I will never get), but you are most kind for expressing your concerns. All the best. Sundayclose (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be uncooperative, but the souce doesn't specifically say that he identifies as a Catholic, just that he is criticizing Catholic University for its lack of Catholic identity. WP:BLPCAT is grossly violated, not just with Catholicism, but with almost every religion. I'm just trying to clean up the category. By the way, apparently the writer infobox doesn't have a religion parameter. If you find a suitable source, I think it's best if you just put a statement at the end of the "Early life" section stating that Blatty is Catholic. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion about including sources in my edits to personality test. I am curious how the the following claim I elaborated upon made it up in the first place, since it does not cite any source whatsoever: "Fundamentally, a personality test 'is expected' to demonstrate reliability and validity." Any direction you could provide would be appreciated. Cgdodd (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for answering on Sundayclose's talk page, but a demonstration of reliability and validity is a standard requirement for any psychological test, and that statement can be found in any standard textbook on psychological testing. You can find citations of such textbooks in my psychology source list in Wikipedia user space, shared to you and to all Wikipedians for updating and improving articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both Cgdodd and WeijiBaikeBianji. As to how the claim got in the article unsourced, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Uncited material gets in. That's why we highly paid editors monitor some articles (just kidding of course). Sundayclose (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Daley Family
Thanks for providing the source. It's a good thing Wikipedia has strict rules about biographies of living persons and specifically about religious identification (see WP:BLPCAT and particularly read the criteria for inclusion in a category). That's why William J. Murray, who became famous for being an atheist, cannot now be identified as an atheist on Wikipedia. Take a good look at Category:American Roman Catholics, or any religious category for that matter. At any given time about 10-30% of people in the category are not sourced as currently identifying as RC. It was close to 50% before a few editors started pruning it. Some were placed in the category simply because they had Italian or Hispanic last names. Sundayclose (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thing is, I get the rules... But I also get that this is an apples/oranges issue: we're not talking about a relatively minor figure in this case -- William Murray while a footnote for a social issue in contemporary America, is by relative comparison nothing like the extremely visible mayor of America's third largest city (where the entire Daley Clan has historically been very publicly identified as part of the Catholic Church -- the Daley-Kennedy connection is an Irish Catholic political bond, and the Daley family -- like the Kennedys -- are widely known for being adynasty of Irish Catholic politicians ). Also, when you read the articles for the Daleys, there is ample evidence in the content of the articles to confirm their religious affiliation, and nothing stating they renounced the church and became atheists.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that there was unequivocal evidence of their religious affiliation. I can attend a church, contribute to a church, and even believe in a church. But unless I state that I am Catholic (which I am by the way), don't put it in Wikipedia that I am a Catholic. I know a number of people who do all of those things but do not identify themselves as Catholic. As for major or minor figure, that's beside the point with BLPs. You may not see the need for more than "getting" the rules about BLPs, and I respect your opinion, but your opinion is not the same as everyone's opinion and that's why we have policies. Sundayclose (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing to argue. If a member of the Daley Family renounced their Catholicism, it would be a major local news story and hence make it into the WP articles. John P is most certainly a practicing Catholic -- Nativity over on 37th is my girlfriend's church and I've seen him take communion there. I get the rules, I also get the overwhelming evidence in the body of the article, and nothing contradicts the infobox statement (e.g. renouncing their religion). The Daley family is a major name in Irish Catholic politics, locally and nationally. I've given citations. You can question someone's true faith all you like, but John P is a member of the congregation as well. Google it if you doubt me. I'm going to work now.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No actually you are the one who is trying to provoke an argument. I never questioned anyone's faith. I simply asked for citations in adherence to WP:BLPCAT. This is my last comment on this issue, and I'll ask you to no longer comment on my talk page about it, including responding to this last comment from me. If you have a problem with my edits within policy, take it up at WT:BLP. Thank you for the citations. Sundayclose (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
adolf hitler health
i was trying to explain According Frederick Redlich an psychiatrist was found out that Hitler was also exhibiting symptoms of extreme paranoia(mental disorder) and was aware what he was doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnachaitan (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC) it is based on fact can you add the information with good grammar in that adolf hitler health section[reply]
Qualifications to be listed Anglo-Catholic
Hi Sundayclose,
If I am using Talk incorrectly I apologize, this is my first 'Talk'.
I am confused why we need more specific evidence to be listed as an Anglo-Catholic church than anyone else. We have a 'high' service, and we self-identify as Anglo-Catholic. More than 1/2 the listings are tagged as 'self-identifies as Anglo-Catholic', with no references whatsoever. If the criteria to be listed is specific evidence, why aren't all those churches with no links deleted as well? Put another way, why are we being singled out to provide evidence when no one else is held to that same standard?
Thanks for your comment. It's not my intention to hold your church to a different standard, but I can only fight one battle at a time on Wikipedia. Eventually I will remove a lot of the churches listed as unsourced entirely and perhaps others as inadequately sourced, but in the mean time "other stuff exists" is not a good rationale to add to the inadequately sourced material. My initial goal is to prevent more from being added to the article, then later pare down what's already there. I acknowledge this is a matter of opinion because "Catholic tradition" in Anglicanism has a wide variety of meanings. If we include every Anglican parish that acknowledges their Catholic traditions, almost all would go in the list. To me that's not sufficient. What is Catholic tradition? Does it mean weekly private confession? Type of vestments? Public recitation of the rosary before every Mass? Excluding non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, non-Anglican people from communion? No ordination of women? Some Anglican parishes deny that they are Protestant entirely, claiming that the Anglican church was not part of the Protestant Reformation. I don't have a clear answer, but without the use of "Anglo-Catholic" in the church's self-description, it leaves the matter very open to interpretation. I encourage you to get more opinions on the article's talk page because I always respect consensus even if I disagree with it. This should be an issue for the larger community to address, not just you and me. Thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, until we meet a specific definition that you agree with of exactly what being Anglo-Catholic is, no one can add any new churches to the list? The definition was already on Wikipedia and cited at the top of the page [2] as "...people, beliefs and practices within Anglicanism which emphasise the Catholic heritage and identity of the various Anglican churches rather than their Reformed heritage." By that definition there is no good reason why we shouldn't be on that list. Being new to this, however, I will defer to your judgement. Just to be clear though, if that is the standard than I am allowed to go through the list and delete every church on it on the basis that does not have any reference, or one that does not have a reference that meets your criteria listed above? Please advise. Eastcoastjim (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand: It is not me or any single editor who decides how to define "Anglo-Catholic"; that is why we are having a discussion. Again, let me encourage you to address these issues on the article's talk page so that the broader Wikipedia community can get involved if they wish. I appreciate your concerns as a newcomer, and I'm definitely not trying to be dictatorial. It might help if you read WP:CON and WP:BRD to learn how the consensus process works. I challenged something in the article as inadequately sourced. That's only the first step if there is disagreement. And, as I've said, I will always respect a clear consensus no matter how much I disagree. And to answer your question, yes you are quite entitled to remove unsourced entries, especially since there is a global "unsourced" tag at the top of the page that is well over one year old. In fact I encourage you to do so; that has been my intent also, I just haven't had the time to cull through the entries. But it's important to emphasize, that is not based on my standard; it is based on Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing. If you find an entry that is sourced but with which you disagree, you may also remove that item, although it might become subject to discussion, as is the case between you and me right now. Thanks for your efforts here and for this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits in Lumosity
I don't understand why you keep reverting my edits... Re: "AGAIN, citation needed tags stay up for more than a few days. LEAVE IT and wait for someone to provide a source." What citation? What source? Have you read their website? The company name is Lumos Labs (not Lumosity), they are sponsoring neuroscience research but they are NOT "neuroscience research company". "Brain training company" is an oxymoron. Please explain why you are repeatedly correcting perfectly valid test based on facts from the company website.Wiki-shield (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between a "citation needed" tag and a citation. Citation needed tags are placed to let other editors know that a citation is needed. Such tags are NOT removed within two days after placement, as you did; that is a policy violation because it removes legitimate tag. Wait a reasonable period of time for other editors to find the citation(s) and put them in the article. This is basic Wikipedia policy; if you disagree raise the issue at Template talk:Citation needed rather than arguing with me here. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more point: This is the first time you and I have crossed paths, and I respect the fact that you may be a relatively new editor who is not familiar with some policies, but I happened to notice your comments in other discussions. Let me strongly suggest that you tone down your personal attacks on other editors (and I'm not referring to myself). More than almost any other policy, that will get you a quick block from editing, as it should. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and ad hominen comments are very destructive. If you don't want to collaborate civilly, then perhaps you should find other venues to spend your time. Sundayclose (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that adding request for citation "protects" incorrect information and the text marked with "citation needed" tag cannot be removed until some time passes. What is the reasonable period of time to wait until such text can be removed (obviously, if it is not substantiated by facts)?
Thanks for the warning, the problem is that for the past 3 months I politely explained my every step and reasoning to this "other editor" and spent hours on his talk page and on my talk page responding to his messages despite his repeat attacks and threats. Finally, he decided to put me on the admin noticeboard :( This obviously caused my "gloves off" reaction. Sadly enough, it looks like here in Wikipedia editing world quality and content supported by facts mean less than the number of contributions and status. I started editing Wikipedia after I noticed how much junk is there and I was horrified that millions of people read this and trust this information... Well, now after having my interactions with some of the editors and admins I am no longer surprised. I will tone down my rhetoric and try to learn the rules better, thanks for your advice again. Wiki-shield (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific time period for a cn tag to stay up that is carved in stone; if there is difference of opinion or controversy (which is safe to say is the case with this article), I never remove a cn tag in less than a month, and then only after I raise the issue at the talk page. The only exception is biographies of living people; unsourced critical comments can be removed immediately. As for your personal attacks, there is NEVER a justification for personal attacks under any circumstances. There are other means for resolving content dispute; see WP:DR. I don't usually review another editor's edits unless I see a problem, and I saw it in your edits. You may not intend to do so, but you have presented a confrontational tone in many of your edits. I suggest not editing articles which have been a problem, including Lumosity, Cogmed, and Arrowsmith School, for a while until the dust settles; express your concerns on the articles' talk pages (without the attacks), and if you feel that other editors are making problem edits address that issue at the appropriate noticeboard. Your style so far has not helped your case for keeping your edits, not to mention your reputation as an editor. Please accept my comments as constructive criticism intended in the best in of Wikipedia and in your best interest. Sundayclose (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your recommendations, though I may disagree with your suggestion to stay away from the articles listed above - these articles were a mess and I tried my best to reflect the facts and to make sure that these articles are edited according to WP:NPOV principle. Agree, I may have been a bit too positive with Cogmed, though everything there were pure facts. Yet, Cogmed is one of the reasons I started editing: I work in a clinical setting that unfortunately doesn't offer Cogmed, but I evaluated few ADHD teens who took Cogmed training and they had amazing results. Two of them were able to go off meds... Then one of my patients told me that Wikipedia has poorly written, negative article on Cogmed and that's what triggered my actions. Unfortunately, my good faith efforts got lost in Wikipedia politics :(
As for your recommendation re WP:DR, I tried using the form but it gives me the error when I submit it (I already alerted another Steven Zhang about the issue). Have a nice weekend! Wiki-shield (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what form you refer to, but no you haven't tried all of the processes outlined at WP:DR. And the problems are more than just "Wikipedia politics" though that may be part of it. It is possible to be too close to a topic, which is why I suggested that you disengage for a while. But it's always your choice to continue editing the same articles. I suggest reading WP:Edit war if you want to avoid a block from all editing. Sundayclose (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the articles on Fadi Chehadé, ill find precise sources and add them. I remember seeing a source that identified him as Catholic, but I can't remember where it was...--Quantum Particles (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
On those two videos on ICANN wiki (look below the personal life section), he identifies as Coptic Catholic. Are videos unreliable, even though he identified as Catholic in them?--Quantum Particles (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The video is reliable as far as I'm concerned but here is the problem that applies to both sources you have cited: Chehadé never identifies himself specifically as Catholic. He must identify himself as an adult as Catholic, not his parents when he was a child. Moreover, he doesn't even say his parents are Catholic. He says Coptic Christian. I'm not sure you understand that Coptic Christian can be Catholic or Orthodox. But most importantly, it is his current religious identification that is necessary, not his parents'. If I say that I was raised Catholic, that does not mean that I am currently Catholic. Again, I know you are editing in good faith, but WP:BLP holds editors to a much higher standard than most Wikipedia policies. Sundayclose (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I now know what you mean, after reading the BLP policy, and reading the controversies that led to it being so strict. I am sorry if I wasted anyone's time! I remember seeing a source on some news site that he "Identifies as a Coptic Catholic", but I think it was taken down... Oh well. Thanks for explaining it though!--Quantum Particles (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have just undone your reversion of my minor edit on "I like to had. vs I lacked to have had". I'm glad you (un)did so, but your original stated reason for the reversion was wrong: I did not change the content at all, only the formatting. This was one of two places on the talk page where indentation had been made with spaces rather than colons, resulting in preformatted text which on small screens (e.g., my smartphone in the beta Mobile FrontEnd), instead of wrapping, ran off the edge of the screen. See that section as of just before my edits. (Please {{ping}} me to discuss.)--Thnidu (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a nice name, - I had a nice Sunday until I read the templated warnings you left on a friend's page. Louder than Words. Do you understand "This is correct.as tagged, it needs a citation, but not removal." Did you even see it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for complimenting my name. I leave warnings when they are called for, so whoever your friend is deserved the warning. Sorry it bothered you. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What bothers me is not that he is my friend but that you seem not to understand that the request to cite a fact is an invitation to find a reference, not to remove the fact, as you did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with you, so if you can't accept my answer there's no need to reply. CN tags are placed after the fact when another editor previously put unsourced material into an article. CN tags are not to be placed by editors who want to add anything they wish to an article and are too lazy to find a reliable source. Otherwise anyone can add anything to an article simply by placing a CN tag; if I want to add a statement to Moon stating that "the moon is made of cheese", I can do so as long as I place a CN tag after it. If you disagree, don't reply here. Instead read WP:V ("Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed") and WP:BURDEN ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"). Now, I again am sorry if I caused you any distress by placing legitimate warning templates, but if you cannot accept my explanation please don't waste my time and yours by seeking a debate here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RfC of interest
Hello! This is to let you know that there is a current Request for Comment on a topic which you previously commented on. The RfC is at Talk:List of European cities by population. The question is, "In articles which rank European cities or countries in order by population or area, should the entire city or country be counted, or only the portion which is in Europe?" Your input there would be appreciated. MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback
Thank you for giving me those suggestions. This is a learning stretch for me. Are you a Wikipedia Content Expert? I was looking for one when my sentences disappeared. I was having issues trying to add my citation with the citation builder. I want to try to add the sentences again with the appropriate citation. Would you mind looking at it again to see if it is done correctly? I am working on it now, and should be finished in a few minutes. I have also added a note on the talk page for the Piaget article and a help me note on my talk page.M02000297 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see you did the citation correctly. Your comment on Piaget's talk page clarifies things. Since I now know that you will be working on this for a while as far as I'm concerned we can see how it turns out later and then I can make suggestions if necessary. BTW, some editors are quick to revert without checking the talk page (I've been guilty of that at times). As you make edits, you might occasionally mention your talk page comment so editors will know to check it before reverting. Sorry, I'm not a Wikipedia Content Expert. Good luck! Sundayclose (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hi, since you see a problem sufficiently big to block me, can you please point out which of my edits shouldn't be marked minor. My understanding is that when adding to information or changing information in an article it's not marked minor. If it's syntax or turning a list say, into prose, or putting an unbroken article into sections or giving it wiki layout etc, including picking up typos, missing words, fixing or making links, they're all minor edits. Has something changed that means I am required to negotiate every change on the talk page. There isn't much evidence for this in general... Or are you an editor in the habit of biting the unwary, with only two notices. Either way I need a simple guide, thanks. Manytexts (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS if it's about changing worded numbers into digits I understand either is acceptable & I change them occasionally because the former slows my reading pace.
I just checked Tim the Yowie Man & didn't realise that I marked minor when I obviously added material. Sorry about that. Can you show me what else I've miss-marked? thanks Manytexts (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would help a lot if you would go to just a little trouble and read WP:MINOR thoroughly, taking special notice of the statement "If you are in doubt about whether an edit is minor or not, it is always safer not to mark it as minor." An overarching issue should be: if there is even a slight possibility someone might challenge your edit, don't mark it as minor. Adding (or removing) a reference citation, as you did here, is not a minor edit. Note that you also changed content, including a section header, even though it was just a few words. Someone might wish to challenge your selection of a citation; that's not minor. Someone might not agree with the section header you selected. Someone might not think your example in that edit accurately represents the concept. This is just one edit with several items that are not minor. There are others. Let me suggest that you not mark any edit as minor unless you correct spelling, grammar, or formatting. As you gain more experience, you might aquire a better grasp of what is minor, but right now you tend to think edits that change or add content are minor; and such edits are almost never minor. Again, if in doubt, don't mark it as minor. Sundayclose (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you bother to check sources already cited in an article before changing the article? Do you read edit summaries, specifically this one? Let me try to make this as simple as I can: Go to Kath Soucie#Career. Find citation number 2 immediately after the sentence "Soucie was born in Cleveland, Ohio". Click on that citation, which will take you down to the References section. Click the link to the Hischak source in #2. Read. I hope that's simple enough. Sundayclose (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for pointing that out, and it seems like the source that says she was born in Cleveland is legit especially it being in a book, but however a another good source know as imdb.com says she was born in New York City, and she couldn't have been born in both places, so one of the sources has to be false information. Wikiman103talk14:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14th Dalai Lama, your deletion of my earlier post as "unreliable"
Hi there Sundayclose, thanks for your attention to this article but I do feel obliged to question your deletion of my post as 'unsourced' or 'unreliably sourced'. The citation I have given for my post is perfectly reliable. The book I cite, of which I have a copy to hand, is published by Rider/Renguin Random House group and co-authored by the well-known Tibetan statesman Gyalo Thondup who is also the elder brother and political mentor of the 14th Dalai Lama and Anne F. Thurston who is editor/co-author of the worldwide bestseller The Private Life of Chairman Mao and author of Enemies of the People and several other specialist reference books on China. How more reliable can get be than that, and on what basis can you presume to delete the entire book details from the bibliography? The post I inserted uses the exact words of the authors but not verbatim. As such, can you please kindly show cause how this citation from such an impeccable source is, in your opinion, unreliable. In case I inappropriately used the brief book citation template, and you don't like that, I have changed it to use the formal detailed book citation template and included a full quotation of the relevant passage, hopefully to dispel any further doubts in your mind, and I trust this does the trick. If I have done something else wrong, that I still don't understand, please let me know what, exactly, and I will try to correct it. Many thanks indeed, MacPraughan (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you read my edit summary, it says "inadequately sourced" because you simply gave an author, date, and page number. If it had remained with that citation, the information could not be verified. But I see that you have now provided a complete citation, so there is no problem. Thanks for your contributions. Sundayclose (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what you wrote in your message to me, your message to which I was responding, was (and I quote)"you made a change to an article, 14th Dalai Lama, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed..."
I also beg to differ, in that the information could have easily been verified by referring to the cited age in the book listed alphabetically in the Bibliography identified by the authors' names, with date and page number where the information was given; at least, it could until you just deleted the book from the Bibliography as 'inadequately sourced'!
Had you looked at the details of the book which I had entered under "Bibliography", instead of just deleting it as unreliable without actually checking, perhaps you would not have been so hasty to condemn my post as 'unreliable' - or 'inadequately sourced' for that matter. You would have seen that Gyalo Thondup was an eyewitness to the event related, which he had described in his book in his own words. What is more reliable and more adequate? Anyway, I am glad that you now concede that the post was both reliably and adequately sourced, so yes, there is no problem. Thank you for your interest.MacPraughan (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I offended you by leaving a standard template that is widely used on Wikipedia I apologize. If you think I somehow violated Wikipedia norms your next step should be to address the matter at WP:ANI. Now, we are finished discussing this issue. Thank you again for your contributions. Please don't message me about this matter again, including a response to this message, and I will do the same after I notify you about my response. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing my own credits
Seeing as how people rely on Wikipedia for its perceived accuracy, I've taken it upon myself to correct inaccuracies in my own Wikipedia page since, arguably, I'd know my own credits better than anyone. For example, no matter how much someone insists I had an uncredited role in "Wreck-It Ralph," the fact remains I never received a paycheck from that film because I wasn't in it. If I can't fix such blatant errors, who can? Doesn't accuracy trump perceived conflict of interest? I'm not adding anthing new, I'm removing things that never were.Itsamike (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)--Mike Pollock, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pollock[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I see your point. Maybe I jumped the gun in leaving you the COI template; if so I apologize. As long as you don't add anything unsourced or try to slant the article toward an unjustified point of view, then you're not violating policy, including the one about COI. COI is a pet peeve of mine. A few years ago Amy Fisher tried making massive and unsubstantiated changes to her article. That doesn't appear to be your agenda. But it doesn't just happen with celebrities. There's a lot of COI added to Wikipedia by people with an interest in promoting their business or products. Anyway, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. BTW, I left yet another warning for the latest culprit on your article, anon 73.29.184.78. A problem with anon IPs, unlike registered users, is that their warnings become "stale" so administrators are hesitant to block them. If this one continues let me know and I'll take it to WP:ANI to get a block if I can. By the way, you may already know about the WP:3RR rule; don't revert on the same article more than three times in 24 hours, even if you're correcting an error. That could get you a block, but message me and I'll help out if I can. Sundayclose (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. My main objective is to fix a couple of persistent mis-credits that follow me all over the Internet. They end up propagating to the IMDb and various series-related Wikis with everyone crediting Wikipedia as a source. Beyond that I'm more than happy to let Wikipedia users have their way with the page (within reason of course, like the Anon IP you mentioned). And I hadn't known about WP:3RR, but I do now and I'll use appropriate restraint in the future. Thanks. Itsamike (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
My page is apparently being vandalized. "Charizard X" isn't a thing. The vandal is goofing on "Sonic X" in the previous row. Note the parallel character name structure. Thanks. Itsamike (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Same goes for "Charizard Boom." Not a thing. Itsamike (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose, While in retrospect I can agree with it not being a minor edit, but the editorial I took out was and is just that. It is someone's opinion that really has nothing to do with the surrounding text. "I know how John Cena feuds tend to work. He loses one match, then wins the next two or three. Look at Rusev and Bray Wyatt as examples. These feuds don't really help talent." How much more opinion do you get? Why not just write John Cena indiscriminately buries talent? It has absolutely no value in a biographical encyclopedia entry ThaRock1976 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation is an opinion. Many quotations on Wikipedia are opinions. But they are not necessarily an opinion of a Wikipedia editor. And it isn't necessarily my opinion. I didn't restore the quotation because I have some vested interest in portraying Cena one way or the other; I really don't have an opinion about him. I could argue that your desire to remove the quotation is POV, but I'm not. I'm simply stating that the quotation is relevant to the article. If an editor had simply inserted an unsourced comment about Cena's feuds, that would be unsourced POV. But it is a sourced quotation, and it does in fact relate to the text of the article. The article discusses numerous feuds. This is a content dispute. There are no Wikipedia policies involved. Get consensus on the article's talk page before removing the quotation again. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wikilinked List of minor planets/3001–4000, which only names the asteroid; it does not explain the origin of the name. That's why I reverted. But I clicked the link provided above and discovered that almost the entire article is unsourced. So then I clicked 3768 Monroe, only to discover that it redirects to List of minor planets/3001–4000. We clearly have a problem with WP:CIRCULAR and WP:V. But I restored your edit. I hope you will change the wikilink to the better article that mentions her name. I don't doubt your good faith, but frankly I was appalled at such poor sourcing. Sundayclose (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just visited Killers album's article and checked the revisions. Your last revision caught my attention. The person was right an you were wrong for undoing his edit. It is indeed stated Live at the Marquee, London 4 July 1980 on the releases of the single. Proofs that it's true – 1, 2 and 3 (image called Booklet). I'm going to undo your edit and please try to do some research before undoing edits.
I see you didn't even bother to look at sources which are there for a long time. It is clearly STATED in those sources where all those live tracks were recorded. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you didn't even bother to read my reply above or click the links to read policy. So until you do, here's another message: Stay off of my talk page, including a reply to this message. And if you have thoughts of not honoring that request, here's another policy: WP:Harassment#User space harassment; one more message here and you'll be blocked from editing. If you have any doubt about who is responsible for appropriate citations, read WP:BURDEN. If you have issues with the article in question, address them on the article's talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tertiary source
Dr. Carrier characterizes the sources in the proposal as showing that the methodology is "proven to be logically invalid across the board". See page 21 of "On the Historicity of Jesus".VictoriaGraysonTalk02:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AIV report
The user has over 13,000 edits since late 2011, and a clean block log. That alone should tell you AIV is not the right place, unless the account has been compromised — MusikAnimaltalk21:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so after I rack up 13,000 edits (without a single edit summary or attempt to discuss removal of appropriate content), and after dozens of warnings from numerous editors, I can then remove anything from any article that I wish with impunity. Sorry, that's bull. Don't get me wrong; I think the vast majority of admins do an admirable job with a thankless job, but sometimes a few go out of their way to protect vandals. No need to respond here at this time, but please keep any eye on MisterMorton's edits and see if anything changes. When it doesn't, I'll accept your acknowledgement that you made an error in judgment (albeit in good faith, still an error in judgment). Sundayclose (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MusikAnimal that the case is too complicated to have been appropriate for AIV. That doesn't mean he can get away scot-free – it means it requires more careful review in a more appropriate venue. AIV is for obvious cases that can be quickly handled. I considered this one more carefully than I would for a typical vandal. — Capt'nEarwigarr! / talk18:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to Jerry Lee Lewis
Please don't make me bring up basic policies of verifiability in response to this. There's been enough genre warring at that article. If there ever was a consensus at this article, then it should have been based in sources that would support those genre. Please cite them instead of restoring more unsourced material to an article littered with it. Dan56 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pot calling the kettle black. No one has genre warred any more than you have: [1], [2]. And from the looks of your block log you seem to have a habit of edit warring in general. Discussion of the issue of genres is perfectly OK. But I don't care to waste any more of my time on your hypocrisy of pointing out policies to others that you yourself have violated in the same article and accusing others of the very same behavior that you have displayed. If you have other issues with Jerry Lee Lewis take it up on the article's talk page. Don't message me here again. Sundayclose (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled1
Hi sunday! THank you for taking the time to review my edits. The 10 key issue areas are listed in the about section of the one billion acts of peace campaign, I don't understand how they aren't in the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroeththo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, new messages go at the bottom of a talk page, not under the first section header. Secondly, you took quite a few liberties in wording the 10 issues, so much so that I question their accuracy. Thirdly, there are two citations to the information about the Nobel Prize nomination: one has almost no identifying information; the other one doesn't confirm what you wrote. Fourthly, don't put citations at the end of headings; put them at the end of a sentence or at the end of a section. Before you edit Wikipedia any more, please thoroughly read: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE.
Hi again, can I ask what the issues were with that last edit? The sources all included something about the 1baop campaign. You asked for more info on the Nobel Peace Prize nomination and I found a copy of the nomination letter by Desmond Tutu - this is about as accurate of a source as a person can get isn't it? You said that the ten issues areas didn't match the source, so I found multiple sources that the issues areas all match up with. Now if you'd like a larger variety of sources like books, then say so, maybe remove the questionable sources, but I don't think that these edits are justified by removing encyclopedic wording that there are lots of sources for. Everything you asked for in the first post was done by the second post. I thank you for your edits and I don't like arguing, I'm confused as to how doing what you asked for the first time results in even more edits.
Hello Sundayclose,
You reverted my recent additions to Michael Marshall (skeptic), Peter Popoff and Good Thinking Society because they were 'poorly written' in your view. I'm not a native English speaker as you can see on my profile, so it's quite possible I'll make mistakes on occasion. Reverting my entire edits (including other unrelated previous edits) seems a bit unwarranted though, but ok. I asked two of my native English speaking friends for advice, and they were able to spot two grammatical errors that I've now corrected. I hope this will satisfy you, and if not, please (indicate how you would) rephrase it yourself, and if you like please explain why, so I can learn from it. Thanks in advance! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leonard Cohen
Hello Sundayclose,
I am unsure how I am supposed to give references to my additions. I state, correctly, that the band the Sisters of Mercy is based on a song of the same name. I also point out the names of their Albums that are lyrics from leonrd cohen songs, this is something that anyoan check put hasn't necessarily been published in an article so where would the references come from?
regards mycocktaildress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycocktaildress (talk • contribs) 12:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Assassination of Abraham Lincoln". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 October 2015.
The request for formal mediation concerning Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
"Hard of hearing" is an adjective, not a noun. Compare "deaf" and "deafness." "Hardness of hearing" is correct. You wouldn't say "I am afflicted with 'hard of hearing.'" 73.172.99.131 (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion of SCI Camp Hill article
Hello Sundayclose:
Why the reversion to this article? It adds history and background for the facility and cannot be considered vandalism. The citations and references are pending, as most of the background events predate collection on the web. (Local newspaper is not archived to the 1940s-1990s.)
If this is the error of an inexperienced contributor, my apologies, but the contribution is factual based on personal acquaintance with the Harrisburg, PA, region.
No apology needed. We all have been inexperienced at some time. I appreciate your good faith efforts, but a core policy on Wikipedia is that all information should be verifiable with reliable source. Information based on personal knowledge that cannot be verified with a reliable, secondary source is not allowed. It's not acceptable for citations to be "pending" because often pending citations never get added. Once you are able to add the citations I think you can make some important improvements to the article. For help on how to do all of this, click the blue links in this message. Thanks for adding to the project. Sundayclose (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Patricia (disambiguation page)
Can you please stop reverting my edits on Hurricane Patricia (disambiguation), many reliable sources are already given in the main article so there is no need to cite the same sources again. Please read WP:DABREF Disambiguation pages usually do not need sources, most disambiguation pages here on Wikipedia don't need to repeat the sources that are already listed in the more detailed article. And if you check on many disambiguation pages for hurricane names you will find the same unsourced material, but that does not mean that it is not valid, or that it has not been previously sourced on each main article.
You are also falsely stating that I am publishing unsourced material, and that is clearly not true. 181.209.246.164 (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk Reply
Hello Sundayclose,
I just wanted to let you know that I've replied to your comments/questions about some of my edits on the Bixby Letter page. Since there's been a delay from the time you made your post until I was able to write a reply on the Talk page; I thought I should contact you on your Talk page to make you aware of it.
Sincerely,
--Libertybison (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Catholic church.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hello Sundayclose,
I just wanted to remind you that I've replied to the post you made on the Bixby Letter Talk page about one of my edits to the article (concerning which military unit son George Bixby belonged to). Since there was a long delay between your post and when I was able to reply, I wanted to make sure you were aware of it.
Sincerely,
Libertybison (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All sources rely solely on Lentulus, which has dubious reliability. Don't add the information without first discussing on talk page and getting consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lentulus'description is of especial importance, whether it is authenthical or not, because it has been the introduction for most artists, a citation from a better source should fit. The letters of Pilate and John of Damascus are generally considered authentical, or you dispute this? Should I question the last two on talk page as well? --IllusIon (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said, take your case to the article's talk page instead of here. Lentulus has doubtful reliability, and you need consensus on the talk page to include in the article. By the way "The name", I hope you realize that changing your user name every few months does not get rid of your problematic edit history, or warnings. The best way to deal with those problems is to learn from your mistakes, which you seem to be having trouble doing, not changing your user name. Sundayclose (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit in The Wizard of Oz
Sundayclose, as of what you think I'm not vandalizing anything in the article. In the edit I made I add "|editor= Mark A. McNally & Susan Odjakjian" When I first made this edit, I've used IMDb's page as the source & the names were listed under "Series Editorial Department" but I didn't list the source. The end credits of the show had the same names & were listed above "Assistant Editor - Trudy Alexander" which occurs at the 0:22 mark. This is my second edit, as seen here. I know IMDb is an unreliable source for any article on Wikipedia I understand that, but I just couldn't help myself. I just wanted to add more information in the article. I apologize for any inconvenience I brought up to you.
There are multiple problems with your edits. First and foremost, "I just couldn't help myself" is an absurd excuse for policy violation. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal website. That will get you a block if you continue. The YouTube link is a copyright violation and not a reliable source. See WP:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites. And finally, a "format editor" is not the same as Editor of the entire production. This is not the first time you've added incorrect information to articles. Please stop this nonsense. Sundayclose (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wake Forest Dining Facilities
I deleted much of the information in the Dining Facilities section because I believe it is non-encyclopedic; you reverted with the edit summary "not encyclopedic; quite relevant" (which confuses me since we both seem to agree the content is non-encyclopedic). To the point: a lot of the information seems non-noteworthy and trivial (e.g. "The Magnolia Room ... offers a "Premium Dinner" with two seatings," ""Shorty's Restaurant & Bar ... open for lunch, dinner and late night," "Starbucks ... opened in 2008," "Subway ... open 24 hours." This sort of information would perhaps be of interest to a student or visitor to the campus, but most likely not to a general reader. Would you please clarify why you believe this sort of information belongs in the article? Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion in my edit summary. I intended to say "not unencyclopedic". I consider the the dining facilities, icluding type of food offered, notable enough to include in the article. It is a component of student life, which is as important as athletics. That subsection comprises a very small portion of the entire article. If you want to remove "open 24 hours" or specific location on the campus, that's OK with me to remove. Sundayclose (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I still feel most of the information is non-encyclopedic, but not strongly enough to raise the issue on the article's Talk page and solicit input from other editors. I've lightly pruned some of the content. Contributor321 (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paul McCartney
I wanted to add but noticed it was locked, with good reason I'm sure.
An omission, I believe, is the noteworthy addition to Sir Paul's legacy is the creation/co-founder of Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts. A mention and link to the wiki page I would think is appropriate.
Cheers,
Jim Jimdunaway (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. I can understand leaving the images, but Wikipedia should not be giving Blausen advertising by linking to his website any more than anyone else. Free licensing does not entitle someone to free advertising. If someone want to find the source they can click on the image. No need for it in the article any more than the source for any other image. Sundayclose (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not linking to their website. We are simply referencing their website similar to how we reference other commercial sources and we are not mentioning their name. I do not see an issue with mentioning that their is a further animation in the ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. It is rare to see a citation with an image caption. In fact, I don't ever recall seeing one. It's nothing against Blausen, it's just a matter of principle. As I said, readers typically click on an image to find its source. If a link to the website goes anywhere in the article, it should be under "External links". Sundayclose (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive the intrusion, but can I inquire as to the location of the content being discussed? I take it from what has been said already that we are talking about a reference in a caption and not an external link inside the caption itself (which would without question be against policy)? I will say that, while it is quite rare, references do occur within captions from time to time, and I am unaware of any policy which excludes them. In fact, if the caption includes information that needs to be sourced and this is not satisfied in the main body of the article's text, it would arguably be required--though it's also worth noting that captions are generally meant to reiterate or refine information found in the article's prose, not introduce entirely new information, except to the extent that the captions text is wholly dependent on the image in order to make any kind of sense. Anyway, if the ref is more concerned with directing towards the source of an image than supporting a claim in the caption, then I'd likely come down on the side of Sundayclose's interpretation that this function is meant to be served by the filepage's details. But it's hard to say without having seen the full context. Snowlet's rap23:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No intrustion; I welcome comments. No, the caption does not have unsourced information. We are discussing many articles in which BruceBlaus (talk·contribs) added images and a link to his website that typically says "See a full animation of this medical topic" in which he inserted an external link to his website, essentially making the link spam. DocJames rightfully points out that the images are high quality and under open license. I'll ask DocJames to correct me if necessary because I don't want to misrepresent what he says, but I believe he converted the external link to a citation (see example). My point is that the citation is unusual and not necessary because it is not needed for unsourced information. Readers can follow the usual process for finding the source by clicking the image. So it's not an inline external link, but it is an unnecessary citation to the website, which still makes it spam in my opinion. I appreciate BruceBlaus' contributions, but that does not entitle him to spam his website. And as I said, if the website is linked at all in the article it should be under "External links". Sundayclose (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the distinction now, and I'm inclined to agree. Any debatable ambiguity here is, in my opinion, eliminated by the inclusion of the "video in reference" comment, which essentially translates this reference into an external link for content outside the project placed within the body of the article text--which is, of course, prohibited by policy. I wonder if Mr. Blaus' intent is necessarily promotional here though; taking a (very) cursory look at his contribs, it seems that he is quite determined to add these links to all uses of his donated material, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that this at least partially motivated by a desire to share the animated versions of this content instead of, or in addition to, promotional intent. I can't help but think that the animations would be a wonderful asset to our readers in many instances, so I'd hope most editors are moving the links to external references sections rather than eliminating them altogether, but I rather suspect that is not happening in the vast majority of cases. Best of all would be if Mr. Blaus could donate some of these animations as video files. As introductory materials on physiology go, they seem to be fairly high quality. I wonder if anyone has ever approached him with regard to this possibility. Snowlet's rap00:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't know Blaus' intentions, although he received warnings about spam. But regardless of his intentions, spam is spam and shouldn't be permitted. Obviously it is Blaus' decision as to how much freely licensed content he wishes to provide. I don't blame him for not giving animations free to Wikipedia when the company's income is from licensing them. Even without the citations to the website, however, including the still images on Wikipedia does promote the website, just not as blatantly and not against policy. Sundayclose (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes me wonder if he might not be amenable to donating some of his animations for the same purpose. Do you recall what the policy is for watermarks in video content used within articles? Snowlet's rap01:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither should be in the text of the main body of the article (captions included), but linking the site in the external links section--that is, post reflist--could be of benefit to our readers, especially if we link directly to the animation. Snowlet's rap07:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain in my edit summary, but if you need more detail here it is. One point to understand: I am not challenging whether these individuals have claimed to be the Messiah. The issue is notability. There are literally thousands of people throughout history who have claimed to be the Messiah. Wikipedia can't include all of them and must draw the line on notability. Read WP:WTAF. Many non-notable claimants have been added and removed based on notability. The established procedure on this article is to either write well sourced articles on these two people, or get consensus on the talk page to include them. Sundayclose (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sources for Port Arthur, Texas
What do you mean by unsourced content? I got the information from the Wikipedia page for Mike Rabon, as well as the reference information from Allmusic which is mentioned on that page.
I would appreciate it if you would not arbitrarily reverse my edits. So far, you have done so twice. The 1st time I let it go as I had not provided an adequate source for "armada of ants;" I concurred that the source cited did not specify ants, rather ants were used as an example. This time, you have reversed "mob of cattle;" the source is more than adequate as it specifically says "cattle" or "sheep" when on a drive. If you cannot find the definition at my source, look lower on the page as British English. Actually, "mob of cattle" is most commonly used in Australia. I gave a similar explanation on the talk page.
Dstern1 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic Church
Sundayclose. In your edit summary, you incorrectly state: that Sui Iuris churches "should never have been removed, especially without discussion. It explains a lot in a few words."
As the author of that statement, it is my right to remove that statement. I own the copyright on that statement, and never relinquished that copyright, and can choose to remove my own contributions. Under the Creative Commons license, under which I licensed the sentence, you can choose to restore it if you wish. That is simply how Wikipedia works. It is sufficient to state that you disagree with the removal of a clause when you restore it; to declare that anybody must do anything is inappropriate and frustrating to other editors.
This is a discussion about editing behavior. I do not care strongly about the statement regarding sui iuris churches. I removed my own contribution because I did not think it particularly valuable. If you disagree, I am flattered. --Zfish118⋉talk03:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zfish, I am assuming good faith here on your part, but I'm sorry you don't own the copyright to anything that you put on Wikipedia. See the third item in WP:5P. Once you put it in Wikipedia, it is freely licensed. If everyone who adds words to Wikipedia has a copyright on those words and can add or remove them without concern for discussion or consensus, Wikipedia would be in massive chaos. Every time you make an edit on Wikipedia, the following words are in the edit window: "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." In fact, Zfish, no one owns the copyright to the words "sui iuris". Two words cannot be copyrighted. A brand name, such as "Toyota Camry" can have a trademark, but the use of a few words in a text can never be copyrighted. If you think you have the copyright to those words please provide the copyright documents for all of us to see. As for "editing behavior", I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, but everything on Wikipedia is subject to discussion, especially when it is challenged. The reason I said "especially without discussion" is because the "sui iuris" item had previously been removed and restored before you removed it again. According to WP:BRD, after it was restored there should have been discussion before it was removed again. I assume in good faith that you were not aware of some of these details. But please don't accuse me of violating your copyright or other inappropriate "editing behavior". Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose; I am not accusing you of violating my copyright. You may freely use my contributions under the terms of the Creative Commons license, as I explicitly stated in my original post. However, I am free to remove my own contributions without asking permission, and you are free to restore them if you feel otherwise. I am indeed flattered that you thought my contribution was worth keeping. After you restored it, I never removed it. If someone else did, I was not aware.
I am upset by your edit summary stating that it should "never" have been removed. Writing a high quality template requires give and take. If every edit is going to attract recriminations and accusations of violating some obscure interpretation of consensus, nothing will get done. There is no consensus that the template MUST mention sui iuris churches. The template is a few weeks old, and no body happened to object to including mention of the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches. I later reconsidered my own contribution, thinking it was too complex a topic for the infobox, and removed my own contribution. You happened to object to its removal and restored it, as that was your prerogative.
All I ask is that you not use accusatory language in talk page summaries. I have been editing Wikipedia for several years, and know the policies. I am reaching out to try to avoid future frustrating encounters. --Zfish118⋉talk17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If copyright wasn't an important issue in your statements above, why did you write "I own the copyright on that statement, and never relinquished that copyright"? And no, with all due respect, you are not always free to remove your own contributions once that removal has been restored. Again, read WP:BRD. You can remove it because anyone can make any edit, but you should have discussed it since it was previously removed and restored. Otherwise there can be an endless adding and removing. That's the whole point of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You said, "After you restored it, I never removed it. If someone else did, I was not aware": Read my comments above; I acknowledged that you may not have been aware, but that doesn't mean that I cannot restore it. And I never said there is "consensus that the template MUST mention sui iuris churches"; I said that once it was removed and restored there should be discussion before restoring it again. I never made "recriminations and accusations of violating some obscure interpretation of consensus." WP:BRD is not "obscure"; it's something that every editor with a modicum of experience is aware of. If you weren't, that's fine, but don't accuse me of inappropriate "editing behavior" simply because I am aware of it and pointed it out. I suggest at this point we both move on from this matter so as not to inflame something that is over and done with. I restored sui iuris after it was previously added, removed, readded, and again removed, and you are free to discuss that on the article talk page if you want it removed again. I assume you have done everything in good faith. If you can't assume that about me, I don't plan to continue this argument. We both have more important things both on Wikipedia and in real life than squabbling over this. Thanks for your many contributions to the article and for all the good faith negotiating over the last few weeks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Sundayclose as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk04:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following sections that I deleted from "Do You Want to Know a Secret" are really unnecessary and pointless. The "Language =" section of the blue "song" infobox is not needed because it's obvious that this song is in English and you don't typically see "Language =" in infoboxes of other songs in English that is in the English-language Wikipedia. The "Misc =" section in the yellow "single" infobox is not needed either because the song infobox already has it showing the music sample in it. The "prev_no"/"next_no" sections of the blue infobox, not necessary because the track list of the "Please Please Me" album is already there. The other sections, such as the "Writer =", "Genre =", "Recorded =", "Length =", and "Producer =" sections, I deleted them from the yellow infobox because they are already in the blue infobox, and it's about the same song with the same recording, and I've seen articles other Beatles songs (like "Yesterday (Beatles song)") that don't mention these sections on the yellow infobox because they're already mentioned on the blue infobox, so I think this particular article shouldn't be any different in terms of infobox sections.
All the best, Meluvswiki (talk). 3:27 PM, 23 December 2015.
(New messages always go at the bottom of a talk page, not the top.) Thanks for your message. First, "it's the same song" is not correct. It may have been unintentional, but you removed several parameters for the B-side (Thank You Girl): Recorded, Genre, Length, Writer, Producer. Look at the diffs for your edit and you will see that those parameters do not apply to Do You Want to Know a Secret. As for the other removals you made, to put things simply, infobox parameters generally stay even if they are empty. It does no harm to leave them in. But even more importantly, it is not your decision as to what should stay and what should go in the infobox. Any of us is subject to error in removing a parameter that might be filled in later. Your edit is a perfect example. You removed parameters for Thank You Girl (unintentionally I assume) thinking that you were removing for Do You Want to Know a Secret. The bottom line: it does no harm to leave empty paramters. Please stop. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2001:5B0:2A70:1790:C97E:F84B:130C:4BA2 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)To Sundayclose: I know the alternate version to the Beatles song "Magical Mystery Tour" exists, because I have it on my digital collection. May be sourced from one of their rare bootleg albums. As such, it doesn't mean such a version doesn't exist. Please restore my edit for full historic accuracy, or remain incomplete as far as that particular data is concerned. Thank you. Doug.[reply]
Not my fault
I'm not completely familiar with the Wikipedia formatting rules. Notice I said COMPLETELY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U2fan01 (talk • contribs)
(Please comment on users' talk pages rather than user pages). I don't expect you or anyone to be completely familiar with formatting. What I do expect is for you to either preview your edits or at least look at them after you make them and revert them if they make a mess rather than just moving on. That is your fault. But thanks for replying and I hope you will improve. Sundayclose (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That response makes no sense whatsoever. But it's time for me to move on rather than wasting more time on this. So far I've considered your problem edits mostly an annoyance. If they continue, however, I will start viewing them as either vandalism or incompetence. Sundayclose (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they be viewed as vandalism if I'm trying to add information to the article? u2fan01 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2015 (CST)
Vandalism includes being repeatedly destructive to Wikipedia when you have been repeatedly told to stop. Or if you prefer that your actions should be interpreted as incompetence, be aware that competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Now, I don't care to waste more of my time on you. You've been adequately warned. Don't message me again. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2001:5B0:2A70:1790:C97E:F84B:130C:4BA2 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)To Sundayclose: I know the alternate version to the Beatles song "Magical Mystery Tour" exists, because I have it on my digital collection. May be sourced from one of their rare bootleg albums. As such, it doesn't mean such a version doesn't exist. Please restore my edit for full historic accuracy, or remain incomplete as far as that particular data is concerned. Thank you. Doug.[reply]
Re: Deletion of addition to List of Anglo-Catholic Churches
Hi, thanks for your note on my Talk page. My source for describing St Chad, Stafford as self-described AC is their own website, where under Services they say they are of an A-C type. This is consistent with some ref to incumbents as "Father" and the Gallery and Video on the website. Many (most?) other entries on the List were unsourced so I thought why bother, when the church website could be consulted. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statements I added in in heading of Garage rock are fully sourced
The statements I added in the heading are fully sourced in the article and need to be stated. We have a whole new well-researched section in the article that carefully explains the psychedelic connection with certain garage rock acts, Psychedelic garage rock in the 1960s. The statement about garage's influence on punk is well-sourced in the article and has been there a long time Emergence of punk aesthetic and movement.,[1][2][3] Mick Jones, Charlie Harper, Poly Styrene, Vic Godard, Bryan James, and Captain Sensible are quoted attesting to garage influences in Robb's book. The punk rock article makes clear in the heading that punk had roots in garage and protopunk, and they etymology section there is very comprehensive. To deny that garage influenced later punk is simply not factual. So, please trust that I know what I'm talking about here. I assumed that there would be no objection to my additions, because they are so obvious, based on what has been sourced and established. So, we need to put them back. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^M. Gray, The Clash: Return of the Last Gang in Town, Hal Leonard, 2004, Ch. 1, pp. 26–29. Gray discusses influence of garage rock and Nuggets compilation on Mick Jones; he mentions on page 27 that his mother, who was living overseas (in Detroit) in the early 1970s, would send him copies of Creem magazine – he would read articles by Lester Bangs using word "punk rock." Gray discusses how the perception of punk shifted away from its previous 60s and early 70s connotations following the rise of the Sex Pistols and the whole "year zero" outlook.
^Robb, John. Punk Rock: An Oral Biography. PM Press. Oakland, California. 2012, pp. 34, 66, 76, 106, 132, 133, 187, 215. Oral accounts by Mick Jones, Charlie Harper, Poly Styrene, Vic Godard, Bryan James, and Captain Sensible that discuss the influence of garage rock (American bands such as the Seeds and the Shadows of Knight, as well as British bands such as the Troggs, and the Nuggets compilation) on musicians in the early London punk scene; Page 76: Mick Jones refers to bands on Nuggets as "early punk".
^Aaron, Peter. If You Like the Ramones. Backbeat Books (an imprint of Hal Leonard Corporation). Milwaukee, WI. 2013. Page 53 mentions the participation of three of the original members of Ramones in 1960s garage bands; page 46 mentions that Ramones did cover of the Troggs' "I Can't Help Myself" on the album, Acid Eaters.
No problem--you always mean well. Would it be OK if I restore the one about garage's influence on later punk--it too is well-sourced and I didn't think there would be any objection to its presence? Only if it is OK with you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that I removed that is sourced, feel free to restore. You certainly are much more familiar with the article and the topic than I am. Thanks for asking. Sundayclose (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm responding in the correct place. If not, my apologies. I also apologize for any content I may have removed, as it was accidental and inadvertant. I have no idea which content or template you are referring to, but again, I apologize.
I'm responding because you accused me of 'lying' in my source citations. You must know that a lie is an intentional misrepresentation of facts. If I misrepresented my source incorrectly, it was not by intent, therefore not a lie, but a mistake. I was not representing that IMDb listed those films or shows as containing "magic negroes", but cited them as sources for film release years and cast listings.
I don't understand why IMDb would not be a reliable source. Perhaps you or a reader can advise me as to more appropriate ways to source such listings.
Thank you.
IndigoP (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't cite something if it does not confirm what you add to Wikipedia. The source must specifically identify the character as Magical Negro. As for reliability of IMDb, did you bother to read WP:IMDB/RS? Sorry, but you need to find sources yourself. Just be sure they conform to WP:RS. If you have any doubt, ask on the article's talk page and wait for responses. The article has a long history of people adding what they think is Magical Negro. But most of those could not be reliably sourced. Sundayclose (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
I've been noticing all of your many fine contributions to Wikipedia, and I just wanted you to let know how much I appreciate them and how grateful I am. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt your good faith, but can you point out the policy or guideline to that effect? And which are the main and superior categories in this case? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the fundamental characteristic of the categorisation system that it is heirarchical, so, for example, under the top category "Music" you will find "music in Tonga", "Jazz", and under that "Jazz in Munich" etc. I was surprised not to find "The Beatles" as a subcategory of "Musical groups from Liverpool". That is clearly because the article itself has been put where the category should be.Rathfelder (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not to assume bad faith, but help me understand something. You removed the superior category "Musical groups from Liverpool" from the article, but you didn't put the category "The Beatles" in "Musical groups from Liverpool" where it should be. Help me understand how that makes sense. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The plan is that "the Beatles" is the main article in [[:Category:The Beatles]. It's that category that should appear in the superior categories, rather than the article itself. That way people who are looking, for example, for the films, or the concert tours, would be alerted to the fact that there are separate articles about those things, which they might not expect. There is no real rule about this stuff, and I certainly don't plan to fight about it. The idea is to try and think what is the most helpful way of leading people to what they are looking for, bearing in mind that, by definition, the readers will know less about the subject than the people who write the articles. I have put Category:The Beatles into Category:Musical groups from Liverpool, and I was just wondering what other categories it should be in, as I'm not familiar with them. But perhaps you could do a better job of that than I could. Rathfelder (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody who's Catholic calls their fellow co-religionists Roman Catholics. People incorrectly refer to Catholics as Roman Catholics. So I guess you're right "Catholics are sometimes referred to as Roman Catholic." But it's a mistake. I know because I happen to be Catholic not Roman Catholic.
NapoleonX (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what planet you're from, but I've been a Roman Catholic for 65 years. And my fellow Roman Catholic have frequently referred to Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics. The language we use is not a "mistake". Don't assume your opinion is fact. Get your facts straight, or find a reliable source to back up your claims before you tell 1.25 billion people that they are wrong on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Natalie
I wasn't sure why the lead read "eastern" United States. That seems kind of wordy, and redundant. In the article it is clearly explained she grew up in several states on the East Coast. EHC0413 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. The most important reason I messaged you is to remind you to leave an edit summary, especially when you remove information. Otherwise, other editors have no idea why you removed content; you didn't vandalize, but vandals often remove content without explanation, and you don't want to be confused with a vandal. A less important point: the lead of an article is a summary of the entire article. Some redundancy is expected. Sundayclose (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
English Wiki
Noone said the English Wikipedia is written in American English by default, nor that Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia. It's written in all varieties of English. However, Wikipedia is an American website and non-English international topics are open to differences of opinions and can be American English. Meesalikeu (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"non-English international topics are open to differences of opinions and can be American English": AGAIN, read WP:ENGVAR: "within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently". The JPI article has been written in British English consistently since its creation, and changing it to American English, as you did here, is inappropriate. Sundayclose (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox parameter removals
Sundayclose, I'm sorry I keep constantly removing empty infobox parameters. I won't do that anymore from now on. I now learned my lesson. Thank you. Meluvswiki (talk) 3:03 PM, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Disney World Incidents
Hi Sundayclose. You recently left me a message that I was removing information from the Incidents at Disney World articles. I made two edits to that article, the first changing the word 'butt' to 'rear end' because I didn't think butt sounded to encyclopedic. The second edit was fixing what I saw as a typo. I certainly don't want to remove information from Wikipedia when it's not right to do so, please let me know if you think those edits were inappropriate.
Thanks for your message. If you had changed "butt" to "buttocks", that would be making it more encyclopedic, although entirely unnecessary because almost every English speaker knows the meaning of "butt". But Wikipedia does not change words because someone might consider the words offensive, and changing "butt" to the euphemism "rear end" is a form of censorship. Sundayclose (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be ok if I changed it to buttocks? I don't want to re-edit the article with out talking it out. I didn't see it as offensive, just too casual for an encyclopedia. I was split between buttocks and rear end before I edited, so I understand what you're saying. I just think that butt is too colloquial for an article on this website.
AnandaBliss (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion on "With the Beatles", 'Three Harrison leads'
I'd like to inquire at what point essentially straightforward facts 'require a source': just run down the Beatles' track listings, noting Harrison's leads. It would seem the biggest sticking point is Harrison's CO-credit on "You Really Got a Hold on Me"; I could call it 'sole-leads'. Would there really be any basis for doubt? It's "just the facts". Here, BTW, is Harrison's list of (sole principal) leads:
Chains (Please Please Me...)
Do You Want to Know a Secret
Don't Bother Me (With the Beatles...)
Roll Over Beethoven
Devil in Her Heart
I'm Happy Just to Dance with You (A Hard Day's Night)
Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby (Beatles For Sale)
I Need You (Help!...)
You Like Me Too Much
Think for Yourself (Rubber Soul...)
If I Needed Someone
Taxman (Revolver...)
Love You To
I Want to Tell You
Within You Without You (Sgt. Pepper)
Blue Jay Way (Magical Mystery Tour (EPs or album))
The Inner Light ("Lady Madonna" single)
While My Guitar Gently Weeps (The Beatles ("White Album") (two discs)...)
First, Um, no. I've removed the info and reverted once. That's 2. I haven't even reached 3, let alone passed 3. Clean up of links and sources aren't reverts. So your warning is unnecessary and incorrect. There was no 3RR violation. BRD is a suggestion, not a policy. Regardless, the info was removed by him, you reverted it. I removed it, you reverted it. You've reverted 2 different editors without any discussion, so it would probably be you who should start a discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And those sources don't call them a criminal enterprise. They don't even use the word criminal in the articles. I've reworded it to reflect what the sources do say. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Genre vs. Theme
Hi, I accidentally hit "minor edit" after I got your message and went back to revert it and do it correctly. I saw that you said "time travel" isn't a genre, so since the Science Fiction page says it is a "subgenre," is there a part of the infobox for "subgenre?" Should I update the other pages I saw with subgenres as genres or take "time travel" out of the main page of "Science Fiction?" Please advise. Thank you.
Hopeliz (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there is no parameter for subgenre. Best not to overload the infobox anyway; it should be very brief. Those details can be discussed in the article text, although you also don't want to put excess in the lead either. The plot summary usually makes it clear that time travel is involved. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it was quite some time ago & my memory isn't perfect. The consensus I mentioned (reached in 2012) was for the infoboxes only. Anyway, again I asked for input concerning Kagan's article intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
You removed the link I put in here as a "see also" because you said it was already linked elsewhere: Can you tell me where, as I haven't been able to find it.
Also, though, the reason I put it there is the reason I gave on the talk page: if that is valid the link would be better in plain sight. What do you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked in the item for Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda. If you want to delink there and add to "See also" that's OK with me, just not both. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh! Thanks! And it does need to be there, doesn't it, so it's probably best just to leave it out of the See Also. There's been no reply my comment on the talk page, anyway, so It shouldn't matter that much. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Violet page
Hey I was editing the page with accurate information that has been confirmed multiple times and I can give you a list of sources if you'd like. If you'd kindly tell me why you decided to take my information down if greatly appreciate it. Thank you! Teaspiller97 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, new talk page messages go at the bottom of the page, not randomly placed in the middle of the page. Secondly, "A&E biography" tells us almost nothing. What episode? When was it aired? Is there a link to a transcript? Users must be able to verify based on the citation, so my edit summary was "inadequately sourced". Thirdly, your comment "She did what she wanted without marriage." is a commentary based on your opinion, not what's in the source. Sundayclose (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is against policy to remove others' comments from user talk pages. Read WP:TPO. Not "end of story". Do that again on my or anyone's talk page and you will be explaining yourself at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, you just provided one more example of a poor attitude about editing Wikipedia that an admin will use to block you if you continue on this path. You are becoming a problem editor. Everyone makes mistakes, but ignoring warnings and assuming the attitude that "I can do whatever I want on Wikipedia" can quickly get you blocked, and deservedly so. I don't really care whether you do or do not "cry over" it. But start respecting policy and warnings, or get off of Wikipedia. Now, don't message me again about this issue; if you are again tempted to ignore that request, read WP:HUSH. Sundayclose (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I been listening closely and when I hear Good Morning Good Morning I gear the Horns into the the Love Remix of Drive My Car and JG66 Keeps deleting it. Can you help me make the message non deleted about giving proof Liron54 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume that every one of my edits is vandalism. We just resolved an issue with Twinkle that was a legitimate mistake. Oh, and another thing: Why are you targeting me? It seems like almost every one of my talk page messages are from you. I highly doubt you leave that many talk page messages for other people. U2fan01 (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle? Utter bullshit. You made a frivolous speedy nom. And drop the paranoia. I can put any page I want on my watchlist, and if you happen to make one of your disruptive edits, I warn you. It's as simple as that. Stop making such edits and you'll never hear from me again. Now, I have no obligation to explain anything to you, especially my legitimate warning for your disruptive edits, so don't message me again about "targeting" you or "almost every one" of your talk page comments being from me. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your language, please. I feel that a good Wikipedia editor has respect for others (newcomers, naivetes such as myself). You have been warned. I will report you if another incident such as this comes up. U2fan01 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, please report me for responding to false accusations on my own talk page. You might want to read WP:BOOMERANG and WP:HUSH first. Speaking of warnings, message me again and you will be explaining it at WP:ANI, and that includes a response to this message. You are officially instructed to never message me on my talk page again. That is the only time I will say that. Sundayclose (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: taken notice of the suggestion and will include a source. However I must point out that all other names listed in that final section are without sources as well so I think there ought to be a follow up on all of those and not just mine. Thanks. 220.240.201.48 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As for "follow up" on all other names, two points. Wikipedia is a work in progress. There will always be problems. No single editor can fix everything, and that includes me. Second point: Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and that includes you. Feel free to improve the article. Sundayclose (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11.22.63 episode list
You rolled back my addition to the 11.22.63 page, citing copyright infringement. I was under the impression that when detailed summaries have not yet been written, adding official promotional summaries as placeholders is standard practice for TV shows on Wikipedia. For example, on the The Man in the High Castle page, the summaries for episodes 3 to 8 are identical to the official summaries available on the IMDb episode list. As the summaries I added are official promotional material for the show, why should 11.22.63 be treated differently? At most, surely the episode list can be kept without the summaries? Reverting my edit wholesale seems rather excessive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnlistedVermin (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. Information copied from a website that has a copyright notice (as IMDb has) is considered a copyright infringement unless you can provide evidence from the copyright holder (whether the production company or IMDb, or both) that the information is released for public use with no restrictions. For example, material on Wikipedia is copyrighted, but Wikipedia specifically grants everyone permission to use it under the GNU Free Documentation License. See WP:COPYRIGHT. Because the legal implications for Wikipedia are very serious if there is copyright violation, the standard is to err on the side of caution. Simply assuming that the material is free to use is insufficient. Please provide evidence. Please click the blue links in my first message to you and read the policies. As for other Wikipedia articles, copyright infringement on other articles in no way mitigates your responsibility not to violate copyright. As for keeping the names of the episodes, I don't think it's a copyright violation, but it does need to be reliably sourced, and IMDb is not considered a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDB. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
George Harrison - George Fest
I kindly disagree that the addition of George Fest to the George Harrison Wiki page does not grant merit. This historic concert was produced by the family in honor of George to be released on his birthdate in the same fashion as Concert for George which already has mention in this exact section? So why would this be omitted? Thanks --GuitarWeeper (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what I added to Harrison is factual and significant as far as his Beatles legacy...it's not a huge deal but it improves the intro slightly...so what am I suppose to do to get 'consensus'?...and what's ungrammatical?? (nothing)....do you get in trouble for reversing my edit? or do just I get in trouble for reversing your reversing of my edit?? why??
First, new messages go at the bottom of talk pages. Secondly, yes, you will "get in trouble" (blocked from editing) if you repeatedly restore something that has been removed unless you discuss on talk page and get consensus. Have you clicked the links and read anything in the warnings on your talk page. See WP:BRD. Thirdly, find information about consensus at WP:CON, and follow it; don't continue to revert unless there is a clear consensus on the talk page. Fourthly, one Rolling Stone article is not "often ranked among the Beatles' finest" as you have described it. Only report what is in the source; don't embellish with you own opinions. Find another source if you want to write "often ranked among the Beatles' finest". Fifthly, "theses" is ungrammatical. Sundayclose (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that's a typo, not ungrammatical....the citation is just a prominent example of the widespread phenomena of his songs almost universally showing up in top Beatles song lists and being highly ranked by critics...suppose could cite endless other lists....anyway learning Wikipedia..put something in the 'talk' page on Harrison about it...it's a small change but of significant note to someone learning about the subject for the first time, imo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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.
WP text must conform to the statements made in the cited source, not your opinion or personal preference. If you continue to revert sourced content you may be blocked without further warning. SPECIFICOtalk18:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to respond.
What you saw was my first Wikipedia edit, you probably have made your first edit too. Thank you for commenting that I forgot to put a source, I personally thought it was acceptable to link to another Wikipedia page which confirmed this fact. If you actually clicked on the Hawai'i Sign Language page, you would have seen almost instantly that it says that HSL is endangered with only 40 signers left. Honestly, I was a bit upset that you basically patrolled over a one sentence edit, that was made in good faith. I think that if someone else saw that message, their desire for editing and contributing to Wikipedia would probably be demolished. Just my opinion. Thanks.
Myhotdog (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RE: February 2016
Hi. Please consult the following for further evidence that the individual does not warrant inclusion in the section WAITING FOR APPROVAL when it is clear that section is designed for those whose causes have to either RECIEVE approval or are in the air being proposed.[5]220.240.201.48 (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello S. I wanted to let you know that pings don't work for IPs. In this case it hardly matters but I wanted to let you know for future reference. This one is certainly displaying a WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality. Everyone has done what they can to explain things. There must be a variation of "we've told you until we are blue in the face" for the amount of typing that has gone into that thread :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk02:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again S. I'm not sure about this. Since there isn't a formal RFC I don't know if anyone who is not involved will come along and close it. It is possible that we will have to ask for that at AN or something like that. As I say I am not sure so please feel free to proceed how you see fit. MarnetteD|Talk16:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on these matters. But I think any editor who hasn't contributed to the discussion can close it. I'm willing to give it a few days. Beatles articles have a lot of eyes on them. But if no one closes it in a few days, could we post a message at WT:WikiProject The Beatles and ask that any interested editor consider closing it? Thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your comment on my Psychology edit. If you'd just give me a chance I'm trying to put in citations to support the statements. Vrie0006 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, understood. It's a good faith effort on my part. I've learned my lesson and am finalizing stuff in my sandbox before posting it in. Vrie0006 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction. For the psychology sidebar the talk page is not exactly what I would call active. I posted there about including behavioral genetics but I don't think I'm going to get an answer any time soon. I would suggest it is easy to make a case for Behavioral Genetics as basic type or field in psychology, espeicaly relative to some of the other "types" included in that sidebar: evolutionary psych, differential psych, personality psych, comparative psych, etc. Vrie0006 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If no one comments any time soon, you can post a message at WT:WikiProject Psychology seeking opinions, but the consensus discussion must occur at the talk page for the sidebar, so just mention that you're seeking opinions on that page. If that doesn't help, you can post a request for comment at WP:RFC. The sidebar has a history of people adding their favorite and very specific topic, so it can become too lengthy for a sidebar if there isn't some discussion. If you do what I suggest and no one objects in a few weeks, you can readd and I won't remove; can't promise no one else will though. BTW, I'm not an admin; anyone can do what I've done in this situation. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to work with you cooperatively, but you have refused to follow any suggestions, and now you are claiming that the community is "supportive" even though no support has been expressed. Read WP:DR and follow the suggestions there. Repeatedly adding challenged information without consensus is disruptive editing and can result in a removal of editing privileges. So far I'm assuming good faith on your part, but next time I won't Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've been very helpful, and I'm thankful for that. I thought I did what you suggested? I posted on the talk page of the sidebar on March 3. No one has objected. I posted on the talk page of the wikiproject psychology talk page 5 days ago. No one has objected. I thought those were the hurdles you thought were important to jump over. Perhaps I didn't post in the places that you suggested? Or I didn't wait long enough? Or "support" from the community requires getting positive support, just not a lack of negative sentiment? I hope you'll continue to work with me and understand that for a wikipedia newbie the wikipedia guidelines and customs are not the easiest thing to get used to. You can assume that everything I do/have done on wikipedia is in good faith. I'll check out the link you posted.Vrie0006 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read my comments above? Did you click the blue links about procedures to follow for a content dispute? At this point it's not a matter of "waiting long enough". You need to get a consensus, and simply posting your opinion is not "getting support" when your edit has been challenged. Again, please follow WP:DR. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Anything more you'd like me to do re: the psychology sidebar inclusion of behavior genetics? I'm not sure if the issue needs to be further escalated according to WP:CON. Thanks again for all your help in making sure this is done right. Vrie0006 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would leave the RfC up for a total of month (around May 22) before changing the sidebar, unless overwhelming consensus develops one way or the other. I don't see much opposition to the change. After a month, if there are no additional comments, I suppose you could be WP:BOLD and add the item to the sidebar. Then it's up to others to express any disagreement. But you should not close the RfC since you're involved in the discussion. At some point someone will come along and close it. Sundayclose (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change just now. The same time I made the change to include BG in the sidebar RfC was closed by bot. Thx again. I think I've learned a lot about wikipedia norms through this process. Vrie0006 (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome your input on how to align with WP:IPC while allowing for less experienced editors (like me!) to contribute. I started a thread on the talk page. I would also like to gently remind you of WP:ROWN since as a more experienced editor I'm sure you're familiar with the concept. Carlaxs (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
how is my change in the Beatles page "not confired by the source"? We are talking about an academic journal, a scholar who has published a major book on Sgt. Pepper (https://www.routledge.com/products/9780754667087)… He writes an introductory essay on "Beatles studies" in which he shows that popular music studies started with the study of rock music and that the analysis of the Beatles' music contributed to the legitimization of the field - where is the "gross overstatement"? Cf the abstract: "While focusing on the Fab Four’s contribution to legitimize this field of study"…
Thx
Zamuse (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zamuse: This discussion belongs on Talk:The Beatles, not here. Read the edit summaries that have reverted you and respond to those. If you continue to revert without a clear consensus you will be blocked from editing. Don't respond here, only at the article talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lets defuse this nonsense
You and I are going about this all wrong. I don't respond well to name-calling; in fact it brings out the very worst in me. Maybe you were unaware of how detrimental and incendiary it is to accuse a fellow editor of wikilawyering and edot-warring. That is why you were greeted with the level of hostility you were; you had (in my estimation) more than deserved it. Also, an action by the other editor in the article did something exceptionally uncivil and threatening. They aren't shining out as a beacon of intellect, so I am going to confine my efforts to you.
If I am not mistaken, you think the wording is fine, as it is either innocuous, innocent and in general describes the progress of Portman as an actor. As well, you think that because it hasn't been challenged before now that the language should remain as is. Am I correct? If not, please correct my misapprehension of your view. If it is accurate, please tell me how you understand my viewpoint to be. Perhaps that will help us to avoid misunderstanding (and subsequently demonizing) each other's position in this discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word "major" should remain because the filmmakers gave Portman fist-billed status. I've said that repeatedly on the article talk page. It has nothing to do with whether the word itself is innocuous or innocent. There are a number of reasons to designate the role as major, but the only one needed for Wikipedia's purposes is the filmmakers' decision to put Portman's name as first billed. This discussion about the article belongs on the article's talk page and I prefer to make all the discussion transparent to all editors, not just you and me. Sundayclose (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and I am interested in transparency, as well. I came here so that we could de-escalate the misunderstandings and missteps in our approach to one another. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
addition of a band member's name on Bob Dylan's page
Hi, I am the musician in question's assistant. He asked me to add his name to the list of band members in that sentence, which seems rather arbitrary and might have been posted before this person joined Bob's band. Can you provide me with a reliable source that can verify the other people mentioned in that sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWhip (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is the responsibility of the editor who wishes to make an edit to find a source. I didn't add the names, so unless they are removed and I wish to restore them, I have no responsibility for providing a source. Also be aware that "other stuff exists" (that is, there is already unsourced information in the article) is not a justification for adding to the article's problems by adding more unsourced information. And finally, being affiliated with someone does not entitle an editor to add that person's name to an article without following the Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sourcing. In fact, read WP:COI regarding possible conflict of interest. But, of course, we have no way of knowing that you are assistant to the musician because everyone edits anonymously on Wikipedia and anyone can anonymously claim to be affiliated with anyone else. Sundayclose (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Band member's addition on the Dylan page
Aside from your comment about my removing the entire sentence, I don't know what you want me to do. The musician in question can contact you directly (he is traveling with Bob in Japan right now), but you may doubt that it is really him. Throw me a bone here.....he simply wants his name included as a major band member. Keith Richards gave an interview in a British magazine last year, where he said that the musician in question was a major driving force in the band. Would that do as a source? I can't find the tildes on my keyboard because they're worn off.
WikiWhip — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWhip (talk • contribs) 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to see the Keith Richards interview to determine if it is acceptable. Do you have a link?
I have no responsibility in helping you find a source for your edit. That's not how Wikipedia works. Take the time to read the policies I've linked, and do what the rest of us have to do: find a source and cite it. There's nothing "special" about your situation that deserves a rare exception to the same process that thousands of editors have to do each day. Dylan is a big act; it shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source that Receli is in his band. This isn't a matter of what I want you to do or me "throwing you a bone"; it's all about Wikipedia policy. So "what I want you to do" is to either find the source, or leave the article alone. This is my last response on this matter so don't message me again unless you come up with a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iistal and edit warring
Iistal has been adequately and repeatedly warned for edit warring. You are under no further obligation to warn him again. In fact, in the interest of harmonious editing, it might be better of you stay away from his talk page. The exception would be, if you report him to a noticeboard such as WP:ANEW and are obligated to inform him of the discussion, leave the notice.
Thanks. I wanted to be sure he was warned in case he reverts again. But that's good information to know. As for my staying off his talk page, I'm not sure about that. I have learned to simply let some things go, but not everything. The reason I got involved with his behavior is that many of the articles he edits are on my watchlist. I can tolerate a lot in terms of bad editing, but repeatedly adding unsourced content after it has been challenged, and especially when multiple users issue warning, is unacceptable. And even worse, of course, is the attitude that he doesn't have to follow the rules. I do appreciate your message, as well as your attempts to resolve some of the issues. Sundayclose (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abbey Road revert
You reverted a picture I had added to the Abbey Road page, but I don't understand your reasons for doing so. The reason you gave was that 'selecting someone's favorite of many related images is POV', but I know of no other image (or example) of interior design being influenced by this album. I feel the picture adds an interesting dimension to the legacy aspect of the album's iconography. If I add some supporting text would that be enough to satisfy you?Obscurasky (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you like the image, but the Abbey Road image has inspired hundreds, probably thousands, of images. I hope I don't have to search them for you, but if you're at a loss in finding them, start with [6] (and I am not suggesting that this is an exhaustive list). Your very comment "I feel the picture adds an interesting dimension to the legacy aspect of the album's iconography" illustrates how it is POV; it's how you feel about one of thousands of images; it's not how others' necessarily feel. I personally feel that it adds nothing to the article except a bit of humor. Sorry, but no, adding supporting text is required for an image, but in this case it is not sufficient. This is a POV issue. Get consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you speak as if I'm an idiot. "I understand that you like the image", even posting a Google link - in case I don't know how to search for an image?? Pretty obviously I used the term "I feel" because "I" was trying to explain my reasons for adding the photo - not because I like it, but because it adds an interesting dimension to the legacy aspect. Do you have a different image showing interior design influenced by the album?Obscurasky (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not speak as if you are an idiot. If you want to take such a defensive and personal stance on this issue simply because someone disagrees with you, we are finished here. Whether you like the image or not, whether you think it adds something or not, I have clearly stated that this is a matter that requires consensus, if for no other reason than it has been challenged. Please read WP:BRD. So please get consensus. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
my 'defensive stance', as you call it, has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me - it's entirely due to your condescending tone. disagreement is a perfectly normal aspect of the editing process and, as I'm sure you know, it is not necessary to actively seek consensus before carrying out an edit of kind. i've given a perfectly reasonable explanation for my edit - and Interior design is an interesting extension to the album's legacy. Why don't you work with me to develop it?Obscurasky (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take this discussion to the article's talk page where it belongs, not here. I have made my points clearly and I don't intend to argue with someone who can't follow the standard procedure of WP:BRD. Don't message me here again, and don't restore your edit without consensus. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In popular cutlure" items are sourced by the very media artifact they refer to, and do not require an additional secondary source. This is precisley the same as "Plot" sections in film and book articles. If you think the items you deleted are "trivial", that's another matter, and one that can be discussed. Please do not edit war by reverting again, go to the article's talk page and make a case for why the items you removed are trivial. Please see WP:BRD. BMK (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one edit warring, and please don't command someone to discuss when WP:BRD clearly indicates that after someone is bold by adding to an article (the original contributer), and another editor (me) reverts, it is then up to an editor who wishes to revert again to discuss. You've been around long enough to know that. But in the interest of settling this without a major conflict, I'll simply ask you to do a partial self-revert and remove the Bollywood item because "inspired by Gilda" requires a source because that is not explicitly stated in the film itself. If you can agree to that compromise, we're good. If you can't, then we have a bigger problem. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you're totally wrong about BRD. You made a Bold edit, which I Reverted, then the next step is to Discuss, but you did not Discuss, you Reverted again -- it's BRD, not BRRD. I then restored the status quo ante -- as called for by BRD -- and reminded you to Discuss. So, your next step is not to revert again (BRRRD), but to, well, discuss. You have yet to do so, and since you're the one who has a problem with the entries, the onus is on you to discuss your objections. Please do so, and once you make your objections specific and not general, I will be glad to answer them with specific opposition or agreement. What I will not agree to is generalized deletion of popcult entries on bogus or non-specific grounds. I'm happy to discuss anything, but you must first start the discussion. (And yes, I have "been around" long enough: 11 years and 188K+ edits, so, yes, I understand BRD quite well, and, no, you have no grounds for trying to cop a superior attitude, so I'd be grateful if you'd drop that shit.) BMK (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: No, I'm not wrong about BRD. The addition to the article was "B". How could I revert something that was not already added to the article? My revert was "R". It was then up to you to "D", discuss. And no, I have not copped an attitude, so please stop the false accusations as well as your confrontational tone. I've tried to discuss here with you, including agreeing to leave two of the items in the article with a request that you remove the item that is not supported by the film itself, but you clearly are not open to discussion. I added a cn tag to "inspired by Gilda", per WP:V. If you remove it without discussion, I'll be seeing you at ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not verified by citation? Did you follow the links that verified the information given?
Yes, the cited link to Oracle of Bacon has nothing about Richard Tol. Nor does the link to the other citation? Did you follow the links? Sundayclose (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Go to the Oracle of Bacon, and type in "Richard Tol".
Then go to MS Academic Research, find "Richard Tol", and click co-author path.
Finally, go to Six Degrees of Sabbath, and find "Solex". She's 11 steps from Ozzy, but 10 from Sabbath. I'm two steps from Elizabeth, as we both played with Ton Morsch.
It's not my responsibility to find sources for your edits. If you can't cite a source that verifies your edit, either find another source or don't make the edit. Please read WP:BURDEN. Sundayclose (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me why Wikipedia is not the place to be.
You're quite welcome. If Wikipedia "is not the place to be" perhaps you shouldn't be here, unless you're willing to follow policies such as WP:V. I'm glad I could help you figure that out. Most Ph.D.s understand the need for verification of facts, so I'm glad I could help you realize that applies to Wikipedia as much as it does to the rest of the world. Sundayclose (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Cosby
Well if I can't put the other jobs in the inbox can I put them in the intro of the page, also can we put the directing/other work in the filmography notes. And can I at least put the occupation of singer in the infobox he doesn't have a Discography for nothing you know!00:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Ksksksksks (talk)
Please note that you have to use wiki markup (==Bill Cosby==) to create a header; otherwise what you thought was a header is just the first two words of the first sentence. The article talk page is the appropriate place to address these issues, not one editor's talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Diocese
I got your message and included an explanation with the edit. The data on the Archdiocese of Atlanta, GA is unsupported. The references either do not work or, the lead to articles unrelated. In addition, the population of the Entire state of Georgia is just over 10 million. IF the entire population of Georgia lived in the Archdiocese of Atlanta, GA and IF the Catholic population was 14% of the population (source says 8.9%, http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2004/11/state-by-state-percentage-of-white-evangelicals-catholics-and-black-protestants.aspx) . Split the difference and say it's 12%, this would mean 1,200,000 Catholics in ALL of Georgia. In this sense, the data for North Carolina is also questionable. The same source above says the RNC population of NC is 11%. 11% of 10 million is 1.1 million. The Wikipedia for NC diocese total about 800,000...closeriously to realits but still likely off. Since your links don't work or don't actually lead to quantifiable data, until you can prove otherwise, your page needs work. Mikeanthony1965 (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, if a link in a citation is dead, you should tag it as such with {{dl}}. If the source doesn't confirm the information tag it as such with {{fv}}. In either case, don't remove the citation. Wait to see if someone fixes it. Secondly, you removed the citation to the Nelson source apparently without finding the source to determine whether or not it confirms the information. Thirdly, Wikipedia does not extrapolate from hypothetical assumptions as you did ("IF the entire population . . . and IF the Catholic population . . . Split the difference . . ."). That violates WP:SYN. In summary, you removed citations inappropriately, and your assumptions violate WP:SYN. And last but certainly not least, it's not my page, nor is it your page, nor is it any editor's page. No one owns any Wikipedia article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thora Birch / Above Suspicion
Hey there - hope you're having a great day. Since the article from Deadline is the most circulated article on their site today, Emilia Clarke is number one on IMDB star meter and everything else involved in this film, it seems that it's about as worthwhile to keep on her page as anything. This is literally one of the biggest film stories of the month. Have a great Memorial Day!
Donmike10 (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Just saw your revert. It's not in a header. This is totally acceptable for Wikipedia as long as it's not in the lede. Please don't revert and start a war with me. It's not worth it. I'll leave it alone. Please do the same. Donmike10 (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one knows how notable the film will be because it just started shooting. We don't devote an entire paragraph in an actor's bio to a future film because we have no idea whether it will be a major success or a flop. It's fine to mention the film, but that's it until the film gets well established. There are other, much more established, films in the article that don't get an entire paragraph. Have you actually read WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT? Sundayclose (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Catolic church and it's relations to the Orthodox Church
I understand now that a joint declaration after one single meeting between the pope and the patriarch of Moscow in February 2016[1] not is enough to the classify the relations between these churches as "unfrozen" after nine and a half centuries of conflicts. Thanks for your effort to maintain the correctness of Wikipedia. Aguila (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you've seen fit to revert the addition of St Oswald's Church, Coventry, as you feel it is unsourced. I can only assume you failed to notice the link to the parish website which describes in detail the parish and its outlook. Or is this not a suitable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.246.40 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I moved some other entries into their correct alphabetical position in the list. My bad. Maybe I shan't bother trying to help in future. 2.124.246.40 (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After you explained here what you should have explained in an edit summary, I left your edit intact. If you want to discuss policies and editing civilly, I am happy to do so. But if you simply want to argue because you didn't bother to leave an edit summary, then please stay off my talk page. And if you are tempted to respond with another snarky comment, please read about another policy: WP:HUSH. Sundayclose (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled
Sunday User, can some one do correction It looks like as if Kapu caste is now included in backward category instead mention the following "In early 2016, the Kapus of the modern Andhra Pradesh state launched an agitation demanding the status of Other Backward Class, leading to violent protests.[11][12] Non-ruling parties or parties who are not in power for example The Indian National Congress party and the YSR Congress party have supported their demand but ruling party or party in power Telugu Desam Party is not considering reservation for all and presently the main line castes Kapu, Balija, Telaga and Naidu castes are forward communities and fall under 15% of Upper Castes or Other similar to Kamma/Naidu,Raju/Kapu and Velama Naiducastes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridharmurthy100 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reliable source: http://election.rediff.com/special/2009/apr/15/loksabhapolls-caste-to-the-fore-again-in-andhra-pradesh.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridharmurthy100 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridharmurthy100 (talk • contribs)
Dear Sundayclose. Thanks for the info you provided me. It only enhanced what I suspected. While I appreciate that many users and editors take an interest in history especially ancient history I noticed that is a big of a mixup between history and contemporary politicized revisions with sourcesome mostly Wikipedia and Google. I am not one of these users. I am not confused about what or where Jerusalem is, nor do I believe that there is any dispute or conflicting reports about it. Jerusalem existed as the capital of the Jewish state before the Romans even set foot in the region that later was called Palestina. I am sure that there are still history books stating so. Jerusalem is still were it was 3000 years ago and still the capital of the Jewish state which today is Israel. Confusions, disputes, resolutions between Wikipedia users will not change this. If the status of Jerusalem in the future will change, ir an Arab state will be created alongside Israel, maybe Palestine, then the change will be reflected in the articles as well. Until then Jerusalem is in Israel and don'the edit my articles again.
That's just it. It'seems not about users opinions or want they think or perceive. It's about history and facts which tend to be overlooked by ignorance in most cases. You actually edited my entry and I had to restore the truth. These articles are meant to inform people not to express someone's opinion or beliefs based on knowledge or lack thereof. I will take it up with the admin. and if need be further. These articles should be based on knowledge not consensus or personal beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roni4488 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN, restore the notifications from the bot, click and READ the blue links. If you're not willing to do that yet continue to add inappropriate external links, you'll be blocked and there's nothing more I can do. Sundayclose (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted a paragraph under the heading of the 21st century section about a man who claimed to be Jesus, which had a reference, and when I reinstated it, you removed it again, under the claim of a reliable source not being listed. As the man is probably insane, and was claiming to be the messiah, I am not sure where you expect to find a reliable source on him, as the only place he has claimed to be Jesus is cited. As all sources have been cited, and he technically falls under the banner "claimed to be Jesus", I'm not exactly sure what more you want to be done there.
If there is no reliable source, then it can't be included. It's not a matter of where I expect the reliable source to be. It is a matter of Wikipedia policy. Read WP:V. Sundayclose (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Harassment
Please quit hounding me. Stay off my Talk Page, stop refactoring my comments on article talk pages (a wiki no-no if you weren't aware), and don't expect the world to turn on your dime. I'll respond on article talk pages when and if I choose, don't hound me or message me again. JesseRafe (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have already been asked to stay off my Talk Page. This is a convention that should be respected. If you do not, I will seek an ANI. JesseRafe (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is not harassment to leave a legitimate warning. By all means, if you think I have harassed you with a legitimate warning, please do take it to ANI. You might want to read WP:BOOMERANG first. Now, if you want me to stay off your talk page, stop messaging me here and stop edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following your assertive reverts of the 'Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel version' section of the Here Comes the Sun article, I have added a new section on the talk page to try and gain some opinions on the section. I agree my original addition of the cover version information was comprehensive and so probably excessive in view that it is a cover version and not an original. However as the highest UK charting version of the song, I don't agree that my latest edit should not be retained within the article.
As per WP:SONG, the version meets notability requirement and is "discussed by a reliable source". Your original revert recommended I get consensus to include this much detail, and I came to the conclusion that such detail was probably not necessary - hence my edit today only adding some limited additional information, which was sourced and entirely applicable to the song in question. You then seemingly change your mind in demanding I get consensus to expand the article to "this much detail", by now insisting I get consensus to expand the section in any further detail, small or not. In your latest revert, you state 'Per WP:BRD', which states itself: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work; instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." So therefore I ask what policy or guideline do I, in your opinion, infringe with my latest edit? I do not see anything stating that properly sourced and relevant information can not be included in the cover version section, simply because that version is not 'more notable' than the original. Ajsmith141 (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Dear Sundayclose, thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia, especially your recent revert of vandalism on the Alcoholics Anonymous article. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk03:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Minor edits
Care to tell me which edits you're referring too? Most of my edits are minor ones. When I feel an edit is a not a minor one, I don't mark it as such. CrashUnderride01:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, I hope you'll carefully read WP:MINOR before trying to argue that the following are minor edits: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. If you revert someone and it's not clear-cut vandalism, that's not a minor edit. Leaving an edit summary does not make it a minor edit. These a just a few. Sundayclose (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe the one for Courtney Rush or Bobby Roode weren't, they were in my eyes. But the Brennan Williams and Luke Joeckel involved one sentence for Joeckel and less than one sentence for Williams and the Mahal one was removing a small amount of incorrect information. Those three were hardly major edits. CrashUnderride05:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crash Underride: From WP:MINOR: "typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content". Rearranging the words of a sentence may be a minor edit. Removing a sentence is not a minor edit unless it is clear vandalism. Adding to a sentence beyond grammatical changes, and especially if new material is included, is not a minor edit. Providing a source to such an addition does not make it a minor edit. I don't plan to argue about what's clearly written. Sundayclose (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Unsourced"
Since the entire section is unsourced to begin with, this seems like a particularly unhelpful edit summary. Did you make any attempt to determine which of the two versions is correct? --JBL (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Just to be clear that I understand the situation: you have no idea whether either version is correct, right? --JBL (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your removal of my edit. I linked the Beatles article to other Wikipedia articles. I don't think it should be necessary to verify that an existing Wikipedia article satisfies copyright restrictions. If you disagree, then tell me how I do that, please.
Garfield Garfield
You are quite right. I forgot that I had inserted that link. I will avoid doing that in the future. I suppose that's why one seldom finds lyrics in Wikipedia articles. People just have to get those "off the street" or buy the book I guess.
Someone removed my links to wiki articles, but didn't give any explanation. I think the links were helpful. The were the sort, you know, saying that the main article is such and such. Garfield Garfield
Aptronym Edit Removal
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Aptronym, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you please clarify why you felt it was not constructive, it was an example inline with other names present and one that I felt met the criteria of being an Aptronym. If I was wrong then so be it, but I would appreciate clarification on what exactly was wrong with it, so I may avoid such examples in the future.
If you had bothered to look IMMEDIATELY BELOW your edit, you would have seen the following internal comment: "DO NOT ADD EXAMPLES WITHOUT A RELIABLE SOURCE STATING THAT IT IS AN APTRONYM, PER CONSENSUS." You did not cite such a source. If you want to read the consensus discussion, go the the article's talk page. I also explained in my edit summary here, which you also didn't bother to read. Additionally, the consensus is to only include a few notable examples. The article is not intended to be a never-ending list of everyone's example of what they think is an aptronym. Sundayclose (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) Apologies, I presumed linking to the subject in questions name to his article, which highlights the inaptronym nature in the first line of his article would be sufficent. I shall add non-wikipedia sources in future.
2) I am new to editing Wikipedia, I had no idea such a thing existed, and have no idea how to access it as it was not linked in your inital post, I have now read it and my thoughts are as in 1).
3) Obviously it is not for all such examples, but as there were only four inaptronym examples compared to the six aptronym examples, I did not feel it was excessive.Jsw11984 (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Development of the Hebrew Bible canon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tanach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Contribution to clergy sexual abuse, and notice to be blocked
I have answered your admonition in my talk page. This is a very delicate matter and you should not block actual victims of abuse from contributing to the page. Thank you. JaijetJasmin (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert my George Carlin edits?
Dear Sundayclose,
Regarding your reversion, my edits are plainly sourced. Carlin's IMDb page, indicated at the bottom of the article, is where I got the information I added regarding his accolades. And regarding the paragraph I created about I Kinda Like It When A Lotta People Die, was your concern that I created a link to that album's non-existent page? As far as citing a source for the paragraph, there is an indicated reference to the article where I gathered the information (http://splitsider.com/2016/08/george-carlins-unreleased-album-i-kinda-like-it-when-a-lotta-people-die-is-out-next-month/).
Best Regards,
Ddlfan
The information you added to the lead is not sourced in the article. Additionally, if you restore it, there needs a different source than IMDb, which is not a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet discussion invite
You are obviously aware of the frequent bad edits to the Walt Disney World Railroad article, but have you ever considered that the vast majority of those unregistered IP edits are being done by the same person? If you look up the geolocations for the ones that do those huge walls of edits all at once, they are all from the same town: Lexington, South Carolina. I opened up an investigation about it here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.107.173.231. Feel free to comment there when you have a moment. Jackdude101 (Talk) 6:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The information that I edited on the Jennifer Marlowe page is 100% correct and accurate. Shout Factory did indeed restore Fly Me To The Moon for it's Complete Series DVD set and their individual season set releases. Only the original 20th Century Fox Season 1 DVD set used Beautiful Dreamer. All other subsequent DVD releases have restored Fly Me To The Moon. I was one of two people who did the very long and difficult research to identify each and every piece of music used on WKRP and reported what did and did not get used on the Shout Factory DVD set. The Home Theater Forum post where this was documented was cited on the main WKRP page in reference to the music on the show. I also cited this on the Jennifer Marlowe page. I'm not sure what more verifiable source you need in order to correct the incorrect information on the page. Again, not all subsequent DVD releases have used Beautiful Dreamer for Jennifer's doorbell. To state it so is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickysman1976 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Verifiability is the standard; see WP:V. Verifiability is only achieved with reliable sources: see WP:RS. Blogs and message boards are not reliable sources because they have no editorial control. Anyone who joins can add anything, regardless of accuracy. So you can do "long and difficult research" at such crappy sources from now until doomsday, but information that you add to Wikipedia from such sources will not remain. I can do "long and difficult research" and in about five minutes find evidence that Elvis was abducted by aliens, but that doesn't make it true. You obviously didn't do "long and difficult research" reading the policies blue-linked in the message I sent you. PLEASE click the blue links on your talk and in this message and read the policies before trying to argue with me. Otherwise your messages will be ignored. If you continue adding poorly sourced information you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity Fair novel
The guidelines do not rule out a glossary at all. As someone who has just reread the book, which uses five languages other than English, together with some out of date English words, I would have found a glossary most useful, which is why I set out to help other readers. Artistry9 (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, it is original research. It is your selection of items as to their relevance and importance, and it is your translation. That's OR. Secondly, randomly select 20 articles about fiction and the chances are just about zero that they will have gloassaries or dictionaries. I did that, and not a single one had a dictionary or glossary. If someone is having that much trouble understand the words in the fiction, Wikipedia is not the place to educate them. Sundayclose (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just shows how Wikipedia could improve the standard of their entries, and be one step ahead. Every article in Wikipedia written by someone will be the result of an author selecting by relevance and importance. If another reader disagrees with my translation, they are free to amend it. I would welcome help with the Greek. I don't see how a glossary could be created other than by original research. Anyway, I have now sent it to a publisher's notes page on the novel, who I hope have a better appreciation.
Lastly, a quote from you: "If someone is having that much trouble understand (sic!) the words in the fiction, Wikipedia is not the place to educate them." Some might disagree, even Jimmy Wales.Artistry9 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please place further comments on User talk:Lord Laitinen, using this page for this nonsense is not respectful to the page owner. Sundayclose you are of course free to re-open, I close the thread in respect to Sundayclose
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Lord Laitinen has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. How dare you accuse me of unconstructive removal of content. I am a lifelong Catholic with highly advanced knowledge of theology. Mary is the Theotokos (Mother of God), not just as the mother of Jesus. God prepared her to carry the Second Person of the Trinity from her conception, to the Annunciation, and on. Catholic belief states that Mary gave birth to the Word of God, one divine person with two natures: one divine and one human. Whether or not Protestant beliefs conflict this fact is mute testimony. The article is summarizing CATHOLIC beliefs, and I made no error in removing a demeaning, sacrilegious statement that was not there until recently. Do not bother me again.~Lord Laitinen~ (talk)06:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't care about the fact that you're a "lifelong Catholic" (nor that I am) or about your "advanced knowledge of theology" (nor mine). The only thing that matters here is proper sourcing. You removed sourced information. The warning was appropriate. If you want me to stay off your talk page about this issue, then don't message me here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Laitinen: This is an Encyclopedia not an online church or religious blog, kindly keep your beliefs to yourself. I love science (and am a strong believer that science trumps religion every time) but you don't see me pushing my ways on anybody here, nor do I post "science quotes of the day" again this is an Encyclopedia not a place for you to promote your beliefs. Have a Higgs boson day. - Mlpearc (open channel)16:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlpearc: I have never addressed an editor disrespectfully because of their beliefs, and I will politely ask you to watch your mouth if and when you address me again. Though I am glad to do apologetics for my Lord, I will not allow atheists, science-worshippers, or heathens to openly disregard me on the site or anywhere else on this planet! I honestly do not care if people want to hear me; they always will. My faith gives me a voice louder than any non-believer. My religion does NOT cause conflicts of interest in my editing; I found that change to the Catholic Church article to be unnecessary. I had no idea exactly when the change was made, and assumed it was recent, as I read the article and did not remember seeing it just weeks ago. Also, religious beliefs should be taken into account on the CC article. The article's purpose, as I have stated so many times now, is to summarize and inform readers of Catholic doctrine, not foolish theories that say Jesus is not God. That kind of information belongs on pages pertaining to the numbskulls Arius and Nestorius. I will not be intimidated, mocked, or ostracized because my religion is among my passions for editing this encyclopedia. I will put whatever I choose on my user page, and I know I am within my rights, as many editors have user pages with odd, offensive, quirky, or downright disrespectul content, while mine is peaceful and banal, for the most part. I find most of your assertions about me to be so ridiculous that I will not take further action on this topic. Leave me be, and I shall do the same. GOD BLESS YOU! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk)13:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No false accusations here, Sundayclose. None of the above paragraph pertains to you, just in case you did not notice the ping. Also, I'm not sure if you have visited the Catholic Church talk page or article, but the undiscussed recent change that I fixed twice and you reverted twice has been removed, because the Theotokos dogma translates into English as "God-bearer," not "Jesus-bearer." Other users pointed out that Mary is obviously mother of Jesus; this can be inferred with the most common of knowledge (it's even mentioned in her article title). "Shoehorning" it, as one user lovingly put it, right into the middle of a dogma was inappropriate. I hope we can get along in the future; I cannot stand fighting with fellow Catholics :) ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk)23:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Laitinen: I know that your comments were addressed to Mlpearc, and they include false accusations. I may be a fellow Catholic, but that doesn't mean I condone such comments toward anyone. Keep the false accusations off of my talk page and we won't need to "fight". Sundayclose (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for intruding, Sundayclose, but I think I might be able to help @Lord Laitinen: understand some of the core problems he is encountering. Clearly, LL, you know your scripture and theology. That's always great to bring to an article. However, you cannot apply that knowledge in any capacity except to note when something is wrong. When you do detect something wrong, you can only point out that error by using a citation from a reliable source to back up what you are saying.
We cannot use your opinion or your knowledge because - as an editor - you aren't a reference. If you have written books on the subject, you can cite those books, but you - we cannot use your word. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that Wikipedia itself cannot make any value judgments about any aspect of our articles. We only reference others who do. It is one of the hardest things that a lot editors chafe against while contributing to Wikipedia.
Also remember that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a bad person, it just makes them someone who disagrees with you. Don't be mean and don't be a jerk; no one wants to edit with someone like that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think either editors I may have reprimanded on this page are bad people. However, I feel that faith is among the main categories of what makes a person good. Among those categories is also respect for oneself and others. Mlpearc seems to despise faith in favor of science and made fun of my "prayer of the day" section on my user page (which few people but me will ever see), the latter clearly illustrating disrespect. Also, I do not like it when editors who have nothing to do with a situation fuel the fire of conflict with negativity. I certainly do not mind when users not involved, like you, try to resolve the conflict in intervening. It is obvious that you are not a troublemaker, and even though I do not agree with everything you said above, it is obvious that you have respect for me, and I for you. God bless, and happy editing. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk)00:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Indulgence
The sentence "It may reduce either the penance required after a sin has been forgiven or the temporal punishment after death, in the state or process of purification called Purgatory." was removed because retaining it was not an improvement. It is at best obscure. "Required" by whom? The confessor who assigns the penance? If that's the case, please provide a citation that indulgences have anything to do with that. It is generally understood that penance, assigned or voluntary, may remit some portion of the temporal punishment due to sin, and that some of these penitential acts are indulgenced, rendering them more efficacious. However, the sentence in question does not appear to state this. What is your understanding of the aforesaid line? Mannanan51 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Penance isn't just the actions required by a priest during confession. The Catholic Church teaches that God ultimately determines the penance (temporal punishment) for sin. That penance may occur during life, or after death in Purgatory. According to the Church an indulgence can reduce this temporal punishment. The indulgence is given by God through His Church. This is explained later in the article. It is not necessary to source in the lead if it is sourced later in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a difference of opinion on what the Church teaches, but on terminology. The Church uses the term "penance" for (a) the sacrament, (b) a condition of absolution, and (c) for practices of satisfaction. They apparently do not choose to equate it with "temporal punishment" so as not to create confusion. Sections 1471 et seq of the CCC discusses this in detail. They don't say "penance" when they mean "temporal punishment". (Please note the sentence in question implies that penance is required while one is alive, and temporal punishment when one is not. That is, as you are no doubt aware, not the case. As penance is believed to reduce temporal punishment owed, I think it a disservice to the reader to conflate the two terms. That's all. Cheers.) Mannanan51 (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If by "two years" you mean "since this past May". See this edit. You clearly have a problem with my and you are stalking me and reverting my edit in violation of actual policies. WP:RS and WP:V apply here and there are no verifiable sources for this information. Should you find one, feel free to add them. Until then, stop harassing me. Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that many years ago it said something unreferenced which was then removed and stood removed FOR YEARS doesn't prove your point at all. Quite the opposite, actually. Your first edit today was to revert me on an article you never edit and to go to an IPs talk page to tell them you think I am wrong. Yes, you are stalking and harassing me. Stop it. Don't ever put something on my talk page again. I'm tired of your harassment.Justeditingtoday (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Justeditingtoday: You are flip flopping all over the place. First you say the article must have the status quo version, then you claim that the actual status quo is meaningless. Read WP:CON. Something that has gone unchallenged for years is a de facto consensus and the status quo. Unless you want to discuss rationally and civilly, stay off my talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sundayclose. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
.jpg)
.png)
_(14586469407).jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. U2fan01 (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Lord Laitinen has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. How dare you accuse me of unconstructive removal of content. I am a lifelong Catholic with highly advanced knowledge of theology. Mary is the Theotokos (Mother of God), not just as the mother of Jesus. God prepared her to carry the Second Person of the Trinity from her conception, to the Annunciation, and on. Catholic belief states that Mary gave birth to the Word of God, one divine person with two natures: one divine and one human. Whether or not Protestant beliefs conflict this fact is mute testimony. The article is summarizing CATHOLIC beliefs, and I made no error in removing a demeaning, sacrilegious statement that was not there until recently. Do not bother me again. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
