User talk:Elizium23

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

Lord's Prayer[edit]

Hello Elizium23. I have reverted your change here because the source linked to in the article very clearly does not include the lines that I removed. They were added by an anonymous editor on 16 October 2016 without changing any of the sources. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I took another look at the source, and it appears the lines do appear in a footnote. I apologize for the confusion. However, I still don't think we should restore the lines, since the source doesn't see fit to include them as part of its base text. Perhaps at most, we could include a footnote in a similar fashion to the source. Mz7 (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I apologize because I am typically vigilant about anons coming to add/delete/change the prose and make it go out of whack from the source material, and I had not realized that an anon had made the change that you were merely reverting. I do think there may be merit to including it, in italics or parentheses or as a note, yes. Elizium23 (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your change of NARAL Pro-Choice America[edit]

Your edit of NARAL Pro-Choice America included characterizing a position of the organization as "pro-abortion". That is obviously not something that most members of the organization would accept as being an accurate or neutral description. I suspect that you knew, when making that edit, that it does not represent a consensus wording that would be acceptable for Wikipedia. It therefore seems to be tenditious editing. Please don't do that. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
No one involved in that discussion has supported that wording, except perhaps you, but thank you for pointing me to it. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I am unaware of any guideline or policy which binds us to using terms which "most members of the organization would accept as being an accurate and neutral description". We are beholden to Wikipedia policy only, not that of the organizations which we document herein. Elizium23 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll agree with that much. If we're talking about some fringe group, we might describe it in a way that its members would disagree with. But I don't think that is the situation for NARAL. There is a clear difference between advocating the decriminalization of abortion and the hypothetical notion that abortion is somehow desirable, as would seem to be implied by the term "pro-abortion". It is not really a subtle point. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Then you will appreciate my object of having parity for both sides of the debate by using a term that does not disparage the goals and missions of either camp. Elizium23 (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your further comments. It's a very tough topic, and I'm not sure a perfect terminology exists that would be universally considered unbiased and adequately descriptive as well as adequately concise. To me, the term "pro-abortion" is a bit of a "third rail", since I don't know of anyone who would say they actually like abortion, but I will try to understand that not everyone sees the terminology in the same way. —BarrelProof (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts[edit]

Are you going to post a reason for deleting relevant production information? Are you relying on the Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)#Country of origin thread for your rationale? If so, I suggest you think again. That thread starts with people saying there is no clear information from one of the institutes (the BFI is a cast iron source for this sort of thing); the remainder of the thread is given over to the language variant. Fair enough to remove any country from the opening line, but it is extremely questionable to mislead readers in the basic information in the infobox. - The Bounder (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I am going by the consensus which has consistently reverted the addition, including @TropicAces:
I can see that the Talk page arrives at a slightly different opinion. Perhaps that conversation needs to be un-derailed and rekindled in order to better form consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I personally I am fine with including the United States, but technically only production company involved is purely British, so by its very definition the film is simply a British film, despite Warner Bros being a distributor. TropicAces (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Sorting by one letter instead of entire word[edit]

Hi. I just replied to your query on my talk page. Eagle4000 (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I just replied to your reply. Eagle4000 (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

José Sánchez del Río[edit]

Hi, Elizium23: I don't understand why did you revert my changes in the article of José Sánchez del Río. I quoted the only official document ( in which is affirmed that his feast is celebrated on November 20. Where is it said that his memory is on February 10? I am looking for a newer official document, but in the meanwhile I don't think that one can guess something like this in Wikipedia because "it sounds like it should be so". --Castaliensis (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

His feast day is cited here and here and here as February 10. It stands to reason that his feast should be different since he was canonized individually apart from the companion group in which he was beatified. Your link dates only from his beatification and does not cover his canonization. Elizium23 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

But then you should put a new section inside the arthicle discussing about the feast. "Some people and Catholic groups say this because..." You cannot put as an "official" date something that is a guess. In the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church the only authority is for the Calendary the Holy See. Look, for example, in the case of St. Theresa of Calcutta: they said explicitly the new date. --Castaliensis (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Kirill page[edit]

Thanks for changing the article body but in the process You erroneously changed a quote (in a source tag, not the article body)KevinCuddeback (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that, thanks for catching it. Elizium23 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Thanks for reminding me! If i do have problems regarding editing page i will ask you, please help me. Thanks Elizium23 Baracudas44 (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)