User talk:Afterwriting

Edit warring at Steve Darcis

Your recent editing history at Steve Darcis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That is pathetic! I am enforcing policies and you give me a warning?! Really pathetic! Afterwriting (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You should know better than to edit war over something like this. The user's edits are not vandalism, and this is clearly a content dispute. There is nothing blatantly wrong with the edit the user is making (although it does appear to be a case of WP:RECENT - an essay) and they do not appear to be being purposefully disruptive. Discuss the issue on the talk page, rather than via edit summaries in an edit war. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are being totally ridiculous and inexcusable. Afterwriting (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The warning from Kingpin13 is valid and should be heeded. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not valid at all. It is inexcusable and pathetic. Afterwriting (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 2.28.163.229's edits were not vandalism, and you were wrong to edit war over them and describe them as such. The article seems to have stabilised now, as he has managed to reach a compromise on the wording with other editors. If you have a problem with any particular action I have taken, you are welcome to raise that, as long as you do so civilly and explain clearly your reasoning. Simply complaining about receiving a warning for edit warring when that is exactly what you are doing, is not going to cut it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I did not, in fact, describe his edits as vandalism this only highlights just how ridiculous you have been. Afterwriting (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"please don't leave warnings on the talk pages of responsible editors such as myself for reverting vandalism" (emphasis added) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That was VANDALISM by OTHER EDITORS which I reverted. Anything more ridiculous and pathetic you want to contribute? Afterwriting (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Steve Darcis

Please look at who you're talking to. I had no clue what the fuck you were saying until I looked at the history.

Darcis is not "best known" for defeating Nadal. Maybe that's what you know him best for, but he's well-known in his home country. Defeating Nadal is significant, yes, and I agree that it belongs in the leader. But saying that he is "best known" for upsetting Nadal in a first round is just flat out wrong.

And you, my friend, are completely confused as the edits you are complaining about were NOT made by me. Afterwriting (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Graham Leonard

Hello.. I noticed you made a correction in this edit. I'm sorry I'm not a native English speaker, I just want to make sure that, based on the source, valid ordination refers to the bishop not the church. I think your recent edit means that all bishop ordained under Old Catholic Church considered as valid, which is incorrect. This is a case by case basis, not all bishop of Old Catholic Church considered by RC as validly ordained. I look forward to hear your thoughts. Regards, Ign christian (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It certainly has been the case, at least until they began ordaining women, that the ordinations of the Union of Utrecht churches have been recognised as valid by the RCC. I am not aware of any of their ordinations until recent times only being recognised on a case by case basis. So I believe my edit is essentially correct. I also cannot see any difference regarding this matter between my edit and yours in which you asserted that their ordinations are valid. The problem with this is that we don't make assertions in articles about whether anyone's ordinations are valid or not ~ only about whether and by who they are recognised as valid or not. I hope this clarifies matters. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your last edit, now it has greater clarity. I agree with you, my problem is I can't construct a good phrasing as you did. :-) Thanks again, Ign christian (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Glad we could discuss this and improve things without any conflict. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Nitschke

I responded to your revert on my talk page Ratel (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Singular or plural

Given that the editor concerned has made a very large number of edits to articles about bands with plural names, can I suggest that you set out your views (which which I fully agree) on some central discussion page, so that this issue can be laid to rest once and for all, rather than it having to be addressed by individual editors reverting changes on a piecemeal basis? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you have a discussion page in mind? Afterwriting (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that, given we have MOS:PLURALS, the discussion should be at WT:MOS. I see another editor is now reverting some of the changes, but reinstating some that other editors have changed back! It's very confusing... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ghmyrtle : It's already being discussed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bryce.C2.A0Carmony.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I never said I was "honourable." That is the English spelling. I said "honorable," which is the American spelling. And I did discuss the change I was making on the article's talk page. If you would read the article's talk page you will see the entire sad history of this. One editor deleted that change and asked for a source. I found a source and retyped my change. The second editor simply deleted it. Now you have come in with yet some new reason justifying deleting my change. And I answered it.

"My highly deplorable incivility" is in reaction to having my contribution to Wikipedia being summarily deleted twice, with the goalposts moved three times. Most normal people would agree that is enough to be considered insufferable treatment. Ivain (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This applies to your comments. Afterwriting (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

---

So you think that your patronising and gratuitous pomposity is perfectly okay then? Calling another editor a "barbarian" is probably the worst example of incivility I have had the misfortune to see on Wikipedia. And yet you have the nerve to extol yourself as being "honourable" (or whatever spelling you prefer) and try to shame others. The word "hypocrisy" does not even begin to describe your pathetic behaviour. Afterwriting (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Returned to sender -- TL:DR Ivain (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Diana and Landmines: Using wikipedia to self promote a business

An encyclopedic article should avoid using adjectives as used in the sentence "the world's oldest and largest" that is quoted from that organization's press release. It is also factually inaccurate, as there are older mine clearance organizations (in the US and South Africa, for example) and there are larger ones in operation today. This is also irrelevant to the article about Princess Diana, and does not appear next to names of other organizations she had worked with, which may also call themselves largest, oldest or best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:2:A800:A193:24FD:E5AA:4E22 (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Including such information from a press release is not a straight forward case of "using Wikipedia to self promote a business". That is a ludicrous comment. Whether the information is accurate is an entirely separate issue. In any case, I did not add the information. I also wonder why this issue is so important to you. I suspect that your motive in removing the information is not so much accuracy as something else. Afterwriting (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

London based universities

Hi, first of all compliments for your great work in improving style of Wiki articles. I have learnt a lot from your edits. Can you please quickly go through the lead paragraphs of these articles: Imperial College London, London School of Economics, University College London, Golden triangle (universities) (and King's College London as you already do), and improve style of their leads and possibly establish some ground rules regarding how we write these leads in a neutral manner. Maybe reviewing University of Oxford and University of Cambridge in this process will also be a good idea. I believe the current University College London lead is a good template for others universities to follow. Thanks. LondonMan (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look asap. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter Foster

Thanks for your improvements to the Foster page. Would you mind holding off on corrections for a day maybe? I'm in the middle of major edits to some sections, and you may have made corrections to text that is being changed. I'm trying to get it out of the way while I have time. Please feel free to return and make corrections, though. Cheers. Pallas Blade (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. No worries. Afterwriting (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I might need another day or two. The article needs some serious work, fixing omissions and trimming the fat. Thanks again. Pallas Blade (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: CoE

Thank you for the information. However, a news media report is hardly trustworthy for the details of canon law: as a professional educator, you presumably are aware that academic work in religious studies, history, sociology would not accept a newspaper report as authoritative in such a topic. Please find an actual reliable source that provides the information stated in this paragraph. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Instead of being patronising you could instead show me anywhere in the policies or guidelines which suggest that a major British newspaper such as The Daily Telegraph is not acceptable as a reliable source. The onus is on you to justify the removal of adequately referenced information. Until you do so you are required to follow WP:STATUSQUO. Therefore the factual information has been restored to the article. Your ignorance of the Church of England is no excuse for your disruptive editing on this matter. There is no such concept of "unordination" in the Church of England. Afterwriting (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Afterwriting on this. The Daily Telegraph is an excellent source for providing news. I do not think anyone would argue that it is reliable in terms of expressing an official opinion, but it is certainly reliable in providing accurate news and updates regarding a subject. So, indeed, it is a reliable source.SeminarianJohn (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Gertrude (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Rowan Williams

I notice you removed the link I provided to the comprehensive bibliography of Rowan Williams which I have just made available here: http://rowanwilliamsbibliography.blogspot.co.uk/ Please could you explain? It's the first time I've ever edited a Wikipedia article. I can appreciate that the style may not have been up to scratch but I can't see how it can be anything other than helpful to point people to a full bibliography.

Thanks for asking. A personal website of this kind, regardless of the quality of its information, is not normally acceptable for inclusion in articles either as a reference or an external link. Links to websites which require a subscription or membership to view are also not normally acceptable. The policies are at WP:ELNO. Hope this helps. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Serial Comma

The serial comma is a matter of form and not just style. Its omission would largely be seen as erroneous throughout American English. Its regular placement avoids ambiguity that its omission entails.

The section is not specifically about American English. You also cannot add your personal commentary to articles and tell people what they should think. Afterwriting (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

MOSCAPS

Hi - if you are going to put personal comments in an edit summary undoing my edit which restored yours, maybe you should have commented when you decided to restore my edit? Or have I missed something? Doug Weller talk 13:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I was momentarily confused by your edits and edit summaries and did not understand the problem until after I had fixed it. It seemed that you were restoring a problem and justifying it with an incorrect appeal to the MOS. I've already apologised to you for this so bringing it up here is quite petty on your part. Perhaps you should have noticed my correction before you reverted it. We all make mistakes. Afterwriting (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Bailey

In reverting my edit you reduced his nationality to one nation and not three which are relevant to the roles the subject plays. you also incorrectly amended his wife's name. Culture759 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

How did I did "incorrectly" amend his wife's name? And if he has three nationalities or citizenships then this needs to be made clear in the article. None of this excuses your mass reverting of my obvious MoS corrections. Afterwriting (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Peerages, baronetcies & many other titles

@Afterwriting: You will be well aware that I have recently (almost constantly) been in battle with MOS & some of its lead advocates. However unlikely it seems to me that I can earn support from (m)any quarters on Wikipedia since almost anything I touch seems to get wholescale criticism, I note that you have attended deftly to the Wiki article about baronets, for which I am much obliged. M Mabelina (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: You'll no doubt understand why I fear doing anything too drastic to articles nowadays, but I would be happy to see that so-called quotation ("Official Roll") either deleted or reworded. M Mabelina (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: how canst Wikipedians & I thus for better terms. M Mabelina (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey if you have a point to make let me know - I'm here to co-operate. It's no good grassing up each other on Wiki citations, it gets us nowhere & looks a bit childish - let me know your thoughts - cheers. M Mabelina (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It was already made very clear that this section requires referencing. Removing the citation needed tag was hardly being co-operative on your part. If you want to help then stop creating problems. Afterwriting (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The so-called quote was not a quote - it had been bastardised before I saw it. In fact the whole article about baronets was a mess - I hope you can find the spirit within yourself to commend the present version? If not, just revert the whole thing whilst blaming Mabelina which is seemingly par for the course nowadays. I'd sincerely like to know a) what pleases you & b) what do you actually know about British noble families, titles, heraldry etc? M Mabelina (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is a direct quotation or not it still requires proper referencing. This is how Wikipedia works. Afterwriting (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is how Wiki should work & by the way I am or could be one of the most fervent advocates of what I think you are stating. However, what was written about baronets and so many other articles is utter nonsense & frankly if this is the quality that Wiki aspires to the whole project is going down the pan... M Mabelina (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

you only have to take a look at the articles about Lord Athlone & Lord Bessborough to see

@Afterwriting: are you responsible for "as the Knox line, have been made tenuous due to internal family dispute"? Sounds gossipy and there are definitely more substantive examples. Also who introduced the stuff about hersldic supporters? M Mabelina (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Note

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue (Mabelina (talk · contribs)) with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Style changes to University of Sydney

Hello, I see you have made some minor stylistic edits to the University of Sydney article. However, your recent reversion removed very significant updates to the rankings section, fixing rankings and clarity. Please make your minor stylistic changes on top of those important ranking edits. Thank you.

It is your responsibilty to correct any problems without mass reverting to a previous version and restore style mistakes in the process. Afterwriting (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Terry Wogan

You seem to stop people referring to Sir Terry Wogan as an "Irish-born British". He held citizenship for both countries, which is why he can be referred to as "Sir". If he were just Irish, he wouldn't be Sir Terry Wogan.

---

I really couldn't care less. The problem is that you are edit warring on an issue which is already being discussed on the article's talk page. Take your arguments there. Afterwriting (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing on Avril Lavigne's page

I'll have to respectfully disagree with most of your editing on Avril's page. The commas are their because when you describe someone, rather it's their profession or nationality, and then used their name, a comma must be placed before and after their name. Or if it's an specific item. Unless the item is at the end of the sentence, then just add a comma before it. For example, "Avril Lavigne's debut album, Let Go, peaked at number 1 on the UK Albums Chart." Or "Avril Lavigne's debut album peaked at number 1 on the IK Albums Chart." Both are correct. But saying, "Avril Lavigne's debut album Let Go peaked at number 1 on the UK Albums Charts", is incorrect because the sentence already mentions her album, but then states the name of her album without pauses in between. My teachers been teaching us this since grade school. One example I remembered was, "Let's eat Grandpa!", meaning that they're TALKING ABOUT eating their grandfather. But they really mean this, "Let's eat, Grandpa!", meaning that they're talking TO their grandfather. I don't go around throwing commas after every word, but I always reread the sentences before placing the comma where it correctly belongs. Kalope (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Many, if not all, of the commas you added to the article I considered as being either unnecessary or grammatically incorrect. Whether commas should be used in the way you used them in the article often depends on whether we are using the definite article (such as "the album") or an indefinite article ("an album"). Please provide some examples in my edits which you consider incorrect if you want to discuss things further. I will check my edits again to see if I have made any obvious mistakes. Afterwriting (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've changed back one of the edits you made as it was possibly preferable to include them both before and after the name of the album in this particular sentence. One problem with using commas in Wikipedia articles is that American English often uses them (and much more often) in ways which other forms of English generally don't. As Lavigne is Canadian then the article should be in standard Canadian English but I am not aware of how this differs from American English when it comes to punctuation issues. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Blossom Margrethe Dearie's name

Hello, I noticed that you reverted the spelling of Blossom Dearie's name with the note, "Not in reference". I checked again and it is still in the reference. Specific mention of the spelling is in the audio archive (not the text of the linked page) at timestamp 1:20 - 1:30 as I mentioned in the reference text (discussion of her name in general starts at 0:20). It seems reasonable to me that Dearie herself is the foremost authority on the correct spelling of her name. I don't want to engage in an edit war; can you agree with this? For your convenience I'm including the link here: Blossom Dearie on NPR Piano Jazz Thank you and Best Regards. JeffBuckles (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Her obituary in The New York Times originally stated her full name as "Marguerite Blossom Dearie". My reversion you are referring to was in response to this and was "correct" as far as the reference was concerned. But, as you will see from the "Correction" now at the end of the obituary, the paper later corrected her name to "Blossom Margrete Dearie" and I then also corrected her name in the article because of this. So there is no disagreement between us on this matter. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Response: FYI : "Conflict of Interest" (COI) editing issues

Hello,

Thank you for your message and I have had a look through the COI page. I understand and agree with the points made. However, the information I wish to take out it not a reliable source 'Daily Mirror' and the use of middle and maiden names pose a security risk to the family which is non-negotiable. As the page currently reads (unless changed again), I have no issue. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.197.69 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I don't have any real problem with your recent edits (but it wasn't wise to delete the whole personal life section as that kind of thing can get you on the wrong side of many editors). I agree that too much detailed information on people can be a potential problem and isn't usually needed. All the best to you. I enjoy seeing M. here in Australia. Afterwriting (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, deleting that whole section was a definite error on my side. Thank you for settling on the changes I have made and understanding why they have been done, we appreciate it and are both glad to hear you are enjoying M in Oz! Take Care! 5.64.197.69 (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.197.69 (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Billy Brownless

By definition State of Origin is the games highest level, as only the best players are selected in the sides. And plenty of people have said it is, Wayne Carey for one in the video Wayne Carey feature - Part 1 (AFL players.com.au).SportsEditor518 (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of which players have said such things it is still only their personal opinion rather than an objective fact. Other notable players would probably disagree. And as state of origin games are no longer played by AFL players ~ and are not likely to be played again in the forseeable future ~ then it is obviously no longer the "highest level" even if it was once considered to be by some players in the past. Afterwriting (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's irrelvant, and I disagree about other players saying different things. It is by definition the highest level in the game, as only the best players were selected in the teams. And more than just players have said so. If you want to add it was the highest level in the game, feel free, but it is a fact that it was, and so should stay.SportsEditor518 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing "irrelevant" at all in my comments. Your edit only represents one POV and there is nothing which makes the POV that state of orgin is "by definition the highest level in the game" the actual truth. For the article to be NPOV then we can only say that state of origin games "have been considered by some players as the highest level in the game". Any other kind of wording is POV and / or personal commentary, both of which have no place in any Wikipedia articles. End of matter. Afterwriting (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As an interested party, and in the interest of building a consensus, I concur with Afterwriting's position and the improvements that he is presently endeavouring to make. SportsEditor518 has been warned before and even considered for an topic ban (here) due to bias-pushing on the subject of interstate football. Aspirex (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aspirex and Afterwriting. The SoO concept never really took off in the way that it did in rugby league. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cuban (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to T. S. Eliot may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• publisher=Haus Publishing|location=London|pages=34–36}}</ref> In the end, Eliot did not settle at [[Merton Merton and left after a year. In 1915 he taught English at [[Birkbeck, University of London]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Myers-Briggs

Hi Afterwriting,

You may be interested in Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Do we want to mention any criticisms in the lead? because it relates to a part of the lead that you edited.

Yaris678 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Honorifics

Can I ask why you removed the honorifics from the non-ordained people, but left the honorifics for the clergymen on Revised English Bible ? Wayne Jayes (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wayne Jayes : Thanks for asking. In many or most of these cases these people were ordained and I only removed the academic title. As per WP:CREDENTIAL (and elsewhere in the MoS I believe), academic titles or honorifics such as "Dr" and "Professor" are not normally used with people's names in articles. Some editors also remove clerical styles and titles on the basis of WP:HONORIFIC. I realise this seems inconsistent on my part but the latter guidelines on clerical styles do not seem so clear to me as that on academic ones. What are your thoughts on this? Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Leonie Kramer

Hi! Can you please beef up the lead of the subject article and do general cleaning also if needed. I have given a shot myself. This might help in posting at RD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tony Robinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sign of the cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sacramental (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Roman" Catholic Church

I noticed you reverted several edits in which I had removed the improper colloquialism "Roman Catholic" and replaced it with the proper term "Catholic". Would you please explain why "Discussion and consensus [are] required for this kind of change"? The "Roman" is gratuitous at best, blatantly incorrect at worst. It's not even of Catholic origin—it was originally used as a pejorative by the Anglicans, alongside such epithets as "papist", "popery", and the like. It is also almost exclusively an Englishism; in Spanish, for example, it is almost always referred to as "la Iglesia católica"; the term "la Iglesia católica romana" is a rarity.

(Also, walk up to the typical "Roman" Catholic, ask them what denomination they're part of, and they'll respond simply "I'm Catholic." The only other specification you'll typically get is "I'm [name a particular Eastern rite, e.g. Maronite] Catholic" if they're not part of the Latin Church, and they're feeling particularly talkative that day.)

Thanks. Crusadestudent (talk) 05:11, 03 May 2016 (EDT)

Crusadestudent : You need to have a read of Roman Catholic (term) which sets out the actual history and use of "Roman Catholic Church" as your assertions are flawed. It was also decided by the Wikipedia community some years ago that articles with "Roman Catholic" in their name or elsewhere should not have "Roman" removed without discussion and consensus on an article by article basis. Therefore no editor should go on some kind of crusade to unilaterally change uses of "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" or "Roman Catholicism" to "Catholicism". It should also not need pointing out that the terms "Catholic" and "Catholicism" do not just apply to the Roman Catholic Church. Afterwriting (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Therefore no editor should go on some kind of crusade..." Well played, Afterwriting, well played. (Though I have to say, the article you linked to actually reinforces at least some of my assertions, and doesn't disprove the rest.) And just in case it was unclear, I didn't mean to come across as belligerent at any point. Crusadestudent (talk) 06:16 03 May 2016 (EDT) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Repetition

You are right in telling the crusader about WP:BRD etc, only this new editor now got it twice, - please check their talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Assumption of the BVM

You reverted my edit, saying "A capitalised "Assumption" is only used for the name of the doctrine. An uncapitalised "assumption" refers to the the act." I must beg to differ. To take other examples: it's always "the Passion", "the Crucifixion", and "the Resurrection", whether talking about the events or the doctrines. Please revert back to my edit. Crusadestudent (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out instances of other incorrect capitalisations. I will not be reverting back to your incorrect changes. Afterwriting (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You haven't substantiated their being incorrect. You've merely asserted it. Crusadestudent (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you think you've been doing? Afterwriting (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

From MOS: "Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to specific incidents or periods (the Great Flood and the Exodus; but annual flooding and an exodus of refugees)." Thus Assumption, Resurrection, Transfiguration, etc., need to be capitalized. Those are all specific events. They only happened once each, to one person each. Crusadestudent (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Eucharist

Go to any page on the Eucharist on Wikipedia, go to any dictionary, and it's capitalized consistently as both a noun and as an adjective. The "Eucharist" is a proper name, not just another common noun. I know you have a thing for un-capitalizing everything religious in favor of your vision of NPOV, but you're the one in need of finding consensus on this topic before making further changes of this kind. (And as a side note, it really is starting to look like you're just out to get me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadestudent (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The "Eucharist" is a proper name (I never said it wasn't) ~ but "eucharistic" by itself is not. The MoS is clear on this matter regardless of how many pages make the same mistake as yourself. They also need correcting. If you start editing responsibly then you will no longer feel that other editors are just out to get you. It's simply really. And it's your choice. Afterwriting (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

From MOS: "Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to specific incidents or periods (the Great Flood and the Exodus; but annual flooding and an exodus of refugees)." I win on Assumption, Resurrection, etc. Those are all specific events. They only happened once each.

The MOS is silent on the names of the sacraments. Common use should then dictate that both Eucharist and Eucharistic are capitalized. Can you point to a specific section (link would be appreciated) that proves me wrong on this one? Crusadestudent (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Where you're wrong is that Eucharistic *is* proper on its own. The Eucharist is a very specific, properly-named thing. Would you like Wikipedia to only write "christian" and "catholic", too? "Christ" is a title, not a name, so by your logic it probably shouldn't be capitalized as an adj. Worse still, "catholic" is an adj. meaning "universal", DEFINITELY not proper on its own by your logic. Crusadestudent (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Penance (Catholic Church)" move

I saw that you moved the page "Confession (Catholic Church)" to a new page, since it was moved without consensus. Could you move that page back to its original location, "Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church)"? This was its title before I moved it. Your move to a new location confuses things, since the concept of "penance" is broader than merely its sacramental usage within Catholic theological practice. Thanks! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 02:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:CanonLawJunkie: This is all a bit confused. You will see that I actually moved the page to Penance (Catholic Church) after you had moved it here (also without consensus) from Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church) to Confession (Catholic Church). When I then moved it to Penance (Catholic Church) I mistakenly thought that I was moving it back to its previous name. Since then you have moved it back to your preferred name (Confession (Catholic Church)) and then immediately afterwards back again to my name change of Penance (Catholic Church). Which name do you actually prefer? Afterwriting (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

My unasked-for two cents: "Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (Catholic Church)" would be the most complete and accurate title. (See CCC Part II Sec. II Ch. II Art. IV, "The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation" for the Church's view on the sacrament's various names.) This would capture the most essential elements of the sacrament, as well as reflect its most "official" name (note that in the CCC discussion, only "Penance" and "Reconciliation" are capitalized; "conversion", "confession", and "forgiveness" are not). Crusadestudent (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. "Penance" is also something Catholics do separate from the Rite of Reconciliation.Crusadestudent (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hey Afterwriting, enjoy this digital beer. Crusadestudent (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Bishops

No problem, I'll assume you'll make the corrections to the other 240 Bishops on the list... Roberto221 (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good if you made the corrections yourself instead of expecting other editors to clean up such things. Afterwriting (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Which policy, exactly, have the editors of 240+ other pages so consistently misapplied? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 08:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: I'll happily pitch in to the effort to fix the mistake, but I'd like to see the policy first. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 08:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

He's got a point. See the bishops on the List of Catholic bishops of the United States. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 05:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It took me all of last week to make the infoboxes consistent with one another and another couple of days this week to fix the headers BEFORE you started changing the edits. You want to make them consistent, you change them all... Roberto221 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter

It is MOS not to cite/ref in infobox if that information is sourced else were in the article. I summit given edits that changes the correct Anglican Use apparently made up "Ordinariate Use" that it should be sourced in the ibox. Granted that the editor that did make the above edit did not pay attention to the source, it should hopeful, if left, stop other editors from changing to "Ordinariate Use". Spshu (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I cannot agree. This information ought to be included in the body of the article and referenced there. If another editor changes the info box incorrectly then it can be reverted with an edit summary explanation. The Anglican Use article link should also be sufficient. Afterwriting (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So. you intent to edit war over some attempt to stop an edit war? See how you disregarded that it has happen. As you stated in your edit summmary "As per the MoS we don't normally include references in info boxes." (Emphasis mine) So, do you intent to make them look at edit summaries when you don't either? If you are going to be a pain about this then I want "chapter and verse" of the MOS with direct link showing that this is absolute. --Spshu (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is you who are being a "pain" on this issue. Use some common sense and stop attempting to cause ridiculous arguments. Afterwriting (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am using common sense to over ride the MOS to hopefully stop edit warring. Secondly, I gave a reasonable request for a link and quote to that part of the MOS that indicates it (since I can not find it quickly). And you denied as being a ridiculous argument. I did not make up the false term of "Ordinary Use". Either cite the MOS section or I will return it. I gave you a way to possible end the argument and you call me a pain? I give a reasonable cause for leaving the cite there and you just want to disagree. Who isn't using common sense you. Spshu (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are being both offensive and an aggressive bully. Your completely unnecessary addition of a reference in an info box was reverted. You are now required to follow WP:STATUSQUO. I offered you common sense solution and you refused to discuss it in a civil manner. Your arguments are totally erroneous. Afterwriting (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Watch this video.

Watch this video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EEI9URSUBA

I removed picture because stuff which was in that picture was not catholic rosary. Please watch this video I shared here. --Raaaa9 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

That is paranoid nonsense. You will need to come up with much better evidence for your claims than this conspiracy rubbish. The previous versions have been restored. As per Wikipedia policies, if you have been reverted then you are required to follow the proper dispute process and not edit war. Afterwriting (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Which vs. that

I've been following these edits to Enneagram of personality with interest. Afterwriting, I was surprised by your edit summary saying that "which" is more correct than "that" here. To an American, "that" is the only correct word here, and "which" is simply incorrect. It is a restrictive adjective clause, meaning that the clause is necessary to understanding the noun it modifies. For things (not people), only "that" can be used to introduce the clause. "Which" is for non-restrictive (unnecessary to identify the noun) clauses. See [1]. Be sure to click on the red word "Answer". Toward the end, you will see:

• Some people use "which" restrictively, which is more or less okay (and popular among writers of British English) as long as no commas are involved:

Pianos which have a fourth pedal to mute the strings are popular among apartment owners.

However, "more or less okay (and popular among writers of British English)" is far from saying it is "more correct" than "that". Also see [2] and [3].

Since both "that" and "which" can be used in British English for a restrictive adjective clause, and "which" is not used at all for a restrictive clause in the U.S. and thus sounds ungrammatical, I do not understand why "which" is used so often in WP articles and why "that" is not used more often, if only to inject a bit of variety. In articles that use "which" for both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, the word "which" appears overused.  – Corinne (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

black lung disease

You wrote me in May about my capitolizing of this medical condition. I wasn't aware this was wrong and I also didn't know you wrote so pardon my tardiness. I welcome the help. Regards. Clarawolfe (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uniting Church in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you may be mistaken

I refer to this: [4]. Fixed sights are used for aiming weaponry; fixed sees are geographical areas over which bishops are given authority. Remind me again which term you think is more appropriate. Philip Trueman (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Philip Trueman: My apologies. Somehow I mistakenly thought you had restored the problem instead of correcting it. Afterwriting (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Lance Franklin

Hey – I just wanted to pick your brain on why you believe the lead for Lance Franklin shouldn't say Lance "Buddy" Franklin. I did a bit of digging and found that someone else had changed it back at the start of the year, hence the reason why it came as a surprise to me when you changed it again. I'm not entirely sure if your argument, as you presented it, is correct, as Franklin is almost always known by his nickname. Just thought I'd ask – you don't need to aggressive. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason has already been explained numerous times. You don't need to be disruptive. Afterwriting (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It is also simply untrue to claim that Franklin is "almost always known by his nickname". He is frequently known by both names. When people's nicknames have replaced their actual name, such as with Sam Newman and Spike Milligan, then their article name reflects this fact. This article does not do this. [Neither does Franklin's profile on the Sydney Swans' website. Afterwriting (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

AFL Women's

thanks for the review and edits on the Western Bulldogs AFL Women's section. Just so you know, all club's pages are being standardised to capitalise the league's official title. We've done some discussion at WT:AFL if you'd like to jump in. I joined in last week and found it very helpful to talk about the issues associated with the new league with those who will be editing alongside me. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerman2612 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't realise this was the official name of the league. It seems grammatically odd to me. Afterwriting (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ledes & merge tags

There is currently ongoing discussion about the merge, and the claim that these are pseudoscientific practices is present in the body of the articles, thus they are neither POV nor unsourced. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition doctor is a protected title as in PhD philosophy doctorate. There is no institution giving out any official doctorates in naturopathy, and none alleged in those sources.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It may be a "protected title" where you live but it is not so universally. It certainly isn't protected in Australia and apparently not in the United States as well as a web search indicates. Afterwriting (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You are at WP:3RR at naturopathy, please refrain from further reverts, especially when you have no sources to back up your statements. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Afterwriting reported by User:CFCF (Result: ). Thank you. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathy is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 You are being alerted since your name is mentioned in a recent edit warring report about this article. Thank you EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston : I fail to understand how reverting the change of the term "naturopathic doctor" to "naturopathic practitioner" in the Naturopathy article by a clearly biased and aggressively POV-pushing editor with the factually incorrect claim that "there is no such thing as a naturopathic doctor" warrants my being informed of this. Quite bizarre. Afterwriting (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You and the other party both broke WP:3RR on 22 October on Naturopathy. That seemed to be enough reason to issue an ARBPS alert. When wars occur on alt-med articles it is usually due to a clash of POVs. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Hello, I am Lord Laitinen. I noticed you made an edit several months ago, adding what seemed to be new and unnecessary content to the paragraph pertaining to Mary's dogmas professed by the Catholic faithful. Though I have no doubt of your good faith, you don't quite seem to understand Catholic doctrine, which is being summarized on that page. Jesus is not a human person, but a divine person with two natures: one divine and one human. Jesus is not two persons in one, or one being made by combining two persons. The text you added (or restored) makes it sound like Jesus is not God, which is completely false. Once again, I am not accusing you of any wrongdoing, however, I am notifying you that the original wording pertaining the Mother of God dogma has been restored (then reverted by an editor possibly without good will and restored by me again). I agree with the addition/restoration of the explanation of the Immaculate Conception. I found this to be helpful, not harmful. I will also gladly tell you that the wording without "as mother of Jesus" existed long before the heretical modified version. Thank you for your good work, and God bless. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Lord_Laitinen : If you want to start accusing editors of being "heretical" then you need to be very careful. I believe my theological understanding of the the incarnation to be thoroughly orthodox. Yours, however, comes across to me as questionable. If you really think that saying "as the mother of Jesus" Mary is the Mother of God is somehow heretical then your own understanding of the incarnation is very flawed indeed. That is precisely why she is called "Theotokos" / "Mother of God". The title was first given to Mary to assert that the incarnate Jesus was both divine and human (see Hypostatic union). Afterwriting (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Peudoscience

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious_pseudoscience, and refrain from removing such passages in the future. This is an arbitration decision and equivalent to policy. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You are adding the term when it is already included in the appropriate place in the introduction of the article. Perhaps you could be bothered to actually read articles properly in the future instead of indulging your usual obsessive and aggressive unconstructive editing. Afterwriting (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It is also about how visible the term is, and as I mentioned below, it needs to be very visible for it to be "labelled" per the arbitration decision. I removed some repetition, so I hope you're happy now. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to the arbitration decision and the talk page. Labelling something requires it to be prominent, and this is in line with the decision. If you have issues take them up at the arbitration noticeboard or at the very least on the talk page. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have issues with repetition or anything else, please could you raise them, either with me here or on the talk page. They should be easy to solve, and would lessen the risk of engaging in an edit war, with potential policy violations. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Something fishy?? Negative labelling on Chiropractic. A request for clarification. The Banner talk 21:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)