Jump to content

User talk:Elizium23/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Oriental Orthodoxy

Уважаемый Elizium23! Я предпочитаю общение на родном русском языке.Моё уточнение позволяет убрать путаницу, которая возникает в результате английского варианта определения восточных церквей - ORTODOX и ORIENTAL.В русскоязычной статье Википедии данное разделение - Древне-восточные церкви и Православные церкви - позволяет чётко различать эти группы церквей.поэтому использование мной слова "Древние" считаю обоснованным и позволяющим читателям различать эти церкви как в вопросах догматики, так и в общей характеристике - До-Халкедонские/Халкедонские церкви.Надеюсь, что электронный перевод позволит вам понять разницу в данном определении. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sargis-Serge (talk • contribs)

Привет. Спасибо за сообщение. Я боюсь, что на английской Википедии мы должны общаться на английском языке, потому что я не понимаю, на других языках. Здесь мы требуем, чтобы редакторы используют термины, опубликованные в надежных вторичных источников. Оригинальное исследование также запрещено. Распространенное название для восточного православия "Oriental Orthodoxy", а не "Ancient". Я вернулся ваши изменения. Спасибо за сотрудничество.
Greetings. Thank you for your message. I am afraid that on the English Wikipedia we must communicate in English because I do not understand other languages. Here we require that editors use the terms published in reliable secondary sources. Original research is also prohibited. The common name for Oriental Orthodoxy is "Oriental Orthodoxy", not "Ancient". I have reverted your edit. Thank you for your cooperation. Elizium23 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Elizium23! The definition of "Orthodox Church" and "Ancient Orthodox Church" exists among the Russian-speaking theologians who likewise define groups of churches that recognize various Christological formula. The definition of "Ancient" helps determine the recognition of decisions of the first three ecumenical Councils. In this situation, I think it appropriate for the English-speaking reader, such a definition.I recommend also to get acquainted with Russian-language Wikipedia article.Sargis-Serge (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I apologize but I am wholly unfamiliar with Russian culture and terminology. In English, the distinction is made between the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and other bodies such as the Assyrian Church of the East. I am not aware that "Ancient" has any meaning when attached to a Church in the English language. If you can provide reliable secondary sources to document this Russian terminology, it can certainly be discussed in the article, but we are not able to change the term wholesale because "Oriental Orthodoxy" is the common and preferred term in the English language, and this is the Wikipedia in that language. Keep in mind that we must also maintain a neutral point of view and we cannot favor a Russian viewpoint as it would tend to be anti-Oriental. Elizium23 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Elizium23, for your gracious words on the Neutral point of view noticeboard 3 days ago, just before my "More Concerns" entry when I entered the fray. I confess I have just seen it for the first time. I was so focused on trying to re-establish some order. Thanks also for your invitations to contribute. It's been rare in my experience on Project Christianity, but making good contact is part of why I'm there. After seven months I still feel like an absolute newbie when it comes to knowing how to participate in the WP community. That's hard to learn when you're mostly alone. I just hope that some of what I've tried to contribute has proved useful from your perspective. I find sharing the same viewpoint with others means a whole lot less than just being able to talk to them. Thanks again! Evensteven (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and while you're a fairly new editor around here, I have been noticing you for some time now and meaning to thank you for your useful and constructive contributions, your eagerness to help, and your civility. It is so important that we at least pretend to get along when hammering out a consensus, and I know that even I am guilty of using words and phrasing that tends to intimidate or scare people out of participating, but I really do try to be gentle and welcoming, and I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention because I believe the more we encourage collaboration and collegial discussion the richer the project will be. en.wiki has built quite a formidable bureaucracy that must be navigated if we expect to get anything done, and that makes for a steep learning curve and our fair share of pitfalls in the form of policies that can trip us up. All areas of the project are in desparate need of good editors who are willing to keep up and work together. So thanks for joining our ranks and I hope to see you often in the time to come. Elizium23 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That's very nice indeed of you to say. And I too have noticed the gentle and welcoming character of your interactions. I can come across as very forceful without intending to, so I'm always uneasy about intimidating others too. But I try daily to take my cue from Romans 12:18: "If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men." Meaning everyone, of course. The hardest times come when it is not possible, because not everything depends on me, but my own behavior still depends on me anyway, Lord have mercy. I'm going to look at Project Editor Retention; I certainly share your belief in why you're there. I'm more aware all the time of that bureaucracy - even made a general observation today (actually, 2 observations) here. And policies! I really got hammered by those after the first article edit I ever made, deletion of a POV in the form of "for political purposes". It felt really good though, when I made it stick. I've been beat on before by others at least as expert as any I've seen here. And I don't really care about status or WP brownie points. So what do I have to lose? Anything good that happens is in the plus column. There is no other column for me, unless I cause something to go in that other column for somebody else. I expect to be around, sometimes more, sometimes less actively. I hope (and anticipate) we'll keep running into each other. Cheers! Evensteven (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page

If you had actually bothered to look at the Haniwa page, you would have seen that 203.163.103.7 has been repeatedly and inexplicably ripping out sourced references from the Haniwa article- namely, that the material they are made of is a clay-based ceramic called terra cotta. I tried reasoning with him, I tried including explicit links as to how terra cotta is clay-based, but the user has long since refused to discuss, instead wordlessly ripping the sourced reference from the page. I would urge you, in the future, to please look a little deeper into what you observe on Wikipedia's edits- erasing references pieces of an article with no explanation at all IS vandalism. Furthermore, he's been doing this a lot- for example, erasing references to porcelain toilets from the porcelain article with a sockpuppet IP, making subtle word vandalisms to the mexican ceramics article, and generally causing a mess. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF. You are currently involved in a content dispute with this editor. His last two edits to Haniwa removed a dubious reference that is not a WP:RS and replaced it with four very good sources. I do not understand how you can call this adding of content vandalism. I have had previous run-ins with this editor and while he is belligerent and opinionated he is not a vandal. His first edit to Haniwa was December 10, and I do not see any "ripping out sourced references", he is adding content. He likewise needs to stop calling you a vandal, and if you have proof that he is a sockpuppet then I strongly urge you to bring it to an open investigation at WP:SPI; if you do not have proof then please do stop personally attacking him in edit summaries. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"Head of the church" discussion

Hi. You've probably seen, but I changed the proposal once again (not something I wanted to do, but I couldn't let the earlier one stand). At any rate, I can't foresee any way that it would be necessary to touch it again. Since I'm new to dealing with a matter at this level of forum, would you like to hazard a guess as to how long we should wait for further comment before declaring it decided? Evensteven (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I would wait at least a week, and up to two. Threads older than 14 days are archived, so if the thread dies for that period of time, it can be considered resolved in that forum, provided there is a clear consensus. Since there are multiple proposals you might end up going to a straw poll or something to determine where support lies. Normally you want an uninvolved editor to determine consensus and close, but informally, if the outcome is clear, you could probably get away with that yourself. I hope that helps. Elizium23 (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It does; many thanks. Evensteven (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I hesitate to post too many messages on others' talk pages, lest I become a pest, and I'm not sure what the WP conventions are on it. Let me know if I bother you, please? I have not encountered silence before in a discussion. My own reaction is to regard it simply as silence; to start interpreting it I regard as improper use of imagination - mindreading actually - I don't go there. But I also don't know the WP conventions on how it is treated if a discussion ends in silence. I would think that "succeeds due to lack of opposition" and "fails due to lack of support" would be equally erroneous, and "closed unresolved" would be reasonable. But I don't think like others, with enough frequency that I find it hard to know sometimes what kinds of interpretations others will have. What would be the WP norm for this scenario? And while we're at it - I know Johnbod is a highly experienced Wikipedian, but he is also only one editor. What are WP community norms regarding the dispensing and taking of advice? He clearly wants me to stop pursuing this issue, but I don't feel obligated just because he has opinions and more edits. There are just no community cues to go on. How does silence enter in? Thanks much! Evensteven (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You aren't bothering me in the least, I appreciate your willingness to listen to advice. I would say that you've come around to a difficult problem in the middle of the fray here. I would say that in this particular case, the current widely gained consensus, achieved in an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2013#Papal article consistency, is that "head of the Catholic Church" was acceptable verbiage. Now it must be taken into account that this discussion was at WT:CATHOLIC and predisposed the results to a pro-Catholic Church bias. But it will be difficult for us to attract even more interested editors to yet another discussion in order to sway the existing consensus in another direction. Keep in mind that per WP:CANVASS there are some ways of canvassing editors which are prohibited for good reason. I can suggest a few things at this point. Decide now if you want to keep the discussion at WP:NPOVN or if you want to go back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Choosing a fourth venue would seem to violate WP:FORUMSHOP. Then read WP:RFC for how to open discussion with an RFC, which is absolutely the best way to attract editors from across the wiki. You may also want to contact in a neutral fashion a limited number of participants who were in the WT:CATHOLIC discussion. Now this may result in many more eyes coming to read the discussion, but keep in mind that they may soon glaze over when they see how much there is already, and they are not so interested in jumping into the fray. Allow the RFC to run until either it expires or a clear consensus emerges. If a clear consensus emerges then act on it. If no consensus is apparent then someone neutral will again need to step in and close the discussion by making a determination about its conclusion. It may well be inconclusive and in that case the status quo would still apply and you have lost here. It is sad to say but sometimes the community does not perceive the same policy violations an individual sees and is unwilling to correct them. Elizium23 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I'll study RFC. I think I'll opt to stay at NPOVN. And I'll also get a bit of rest.
I did indeed walk into the middle of a tough one, and a heated battle. I think you are saying here that the bottom line for the community, that underscores this discussion, is the RFC. If so, that explains to me why Johnbod said "don't try running this one"; it wasn't a warning exactly, but rather a claim that the matter had already been settled. And that's what still is really confusing. The formulation that includes "head of the Catholic Church" does not appear once in the three preceding discussions referenced by the RFC, nor does it appear even once in the RFC points or discussion itself. The only RFC mentions are in the application of "Pope", which are not at issue in this discussion. The "head of the Catholic Church" phrase first appears in the "Move to close (2)" of the RFC, observing "There is consensus (no opposition)". First, is it possible for there to be a consensus without any discussion, not even any mention of the wording? But you were there. Can you say how that consensus was achieved? I just don't get it. And that's one of the reasons I've gone on as long as I have, refusing to accept it as consensus.
Reading Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias has helped me understand some of the practical difficulties of dealing with the fact that WP will never be perfect. And while I'm not here to lose, neither am I here to win. I'm here to do what I can, and that's enough. You see, I'm not particularly "results oriented"; in fact, I rather hate that phrase. I find that often, how one does something is more significant than what one does. Evensteven (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It occurs to me now that I may be putting you on the spot with my questions in the second paragraph. Feel free not to respond to them if they put you in any COI position with regards to the neutrality discussion currently underway. I was just looking for anything that might clear up my confusion about process, not trying to interfere in it. Perhaps it would be better to find an uninvolved party to ask those questions of? Evensteven (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, one thing about WP:CONSENSUS is that it is usually achieved without any discussion, simply by editing and reverting. The fact that "head of the Catholic Church" was deployed to a large number of papal articles without significant argument against, indicates a tacit consensus in favor of it. Sometimes, per WP:BOLD and elaborated by WP:BRD, it is worth flying a trial balloon by making an edit to see if it will be reverted, then go back to discussion. But when we're talking about a large volume of articles like this, it's best for uniformity to discuss controversial changes first, so that they can then be implemented universally without worrying about edit wars on multiple fronts.
What may be beneficial for you to ask more questions to uninvolved, knowledgeable editors might be to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE. It's a good forum for asking general questions about Wikipedia and how to edit and how to navigate all the processes. Elizium23 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh thanks, that makes sense. The teahouse is a chat room, though, right? I'm usually unable to write at conversational speed, so that's a difficult to impossible medium for me.
Aha! I keep going over things to see if I've missed anything, and just noticed another detail. The "move to close (2)" at the bottom of the RFC I mentioned had appeared to me to be identical with the closure text box (at the top of the RFC), but I see now they are very slightly different. The significant thing is that they are dated 69 hours apart. So even though the move to close was the first time the "head of the Catholic Church" text appeared anywhere, the move to close is not the closure itself; that came after 69 hours of awaiting additional discussion, hence consensus by lack of opposition also. Please let me know if I got that wrong. Evensteven (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No, the Teahouse is an ordinary on-wiki forum, with some chrome to make it friendly for newcomers to participate. There are also all kinds of WP:IRC channels, which are live chat and what you may be thinking of. Elizium23 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, excellent. I must have got stuck on a wrong idea when I first got here. Information overload, you know. Say, many thanks again! All this is most helpful. Evensteven (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On break

I need to free up some free time, so Wikipedia is down to the bottom of my priorities. I will still pop in according to notifications and WatchListBot, but I won't be obsessively watching my watchlist, so feel free to violate WP:CRYSTAL all you like. Elizium23 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Move to close at NPOVN

The topic whose discussion you contributed to here seeks comment on its proposed resolution with consensus. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antoni Gaudí, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (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) 09:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:Link rot as long as there is no archiveurl is O.K. to remove them. Tagging them will just confuse our readers, and not everyone is reading fine print.--Mishae (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I must be missing something. In which section does it say it is OK to remove them? Elizium23 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the section but I talked with another user previously diff. Maybe I didn't got the meaning of the conversation, but his mentioning that if there are no archiveurl you did nothing wrong, in my opinion implies that no harm was made. And plus, I put citation needed instead so that the users would know on what to add. Otherwise, as I mentioned earlier, not everyone reads the fine print, and everyone can get confused if there is a ton of dead links.--Mishae (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but that does not make any sense. It is not helpful to remove dead links when it is still possible to use the information therein to search or otherwise identify the referenced article. In this particular case it was easy enough to plug in the URL to web.archive.org and recover an archived copy, and repair the reference. If it had been removed then there would be no evidence a citation ever existed, other than grovelling through the history. Elizium23 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
So, O.K. I will add that archive.org what will I get in return? Like, show me an example, please. O.K. got the point check my Brian Bonsall article where one of the dead links was found. I think I am getting a hang of it.--Mishae (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Did I do it right with this article? Daylin Leach.--Mishae (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good! Elizium23 (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Not over here. Wonder what's wrong, can you be of any help please?--Mishae (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Some of the references in the {{reflist}} have no "name=" parameter. They need to look like <ref name="foo"> in order to be there. Make up and add names to all of them and the errors should go away. Elizium23 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
OK I tried everything. Question which particular refs? There are 119 in total.--Mishae (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
They were the only ones without name parameters. They were unused and causing another error so I just removed them entirely. Elizium23 (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I am still shocked though.--Mishae (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:CensoredScribe

<sigh>. I'm not sure there's any hope there, they've completely descended into a they're right and everyone else is obviously wrong and can't see it attitude. Canterbury Tail talk 01:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Montevideo

(in Portuguese) Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the same website, http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bstbe.html, he was appointed 11 days ago and has not been installed. He is not bishop of the diocese until his installation. Elizium23 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Então é bom corrigir o verbete sebre ele.Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Please communicate in English on the English Wikipedia. And make sure to observe all policies, such as WP:CRYSTAL, which prevents the portrayal of future events as current ones. Elizium23 (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Churches without bishops

Hi, Elizium23! As an aside to your discussion with "D.D. Patristics", there actually are some Eastern Catholic churches so small as to not include any bishops of their own at present: namely, the Russian Catholic Church and the Byelorussian Catholic Church, both documented at CNEWA. Best wishes. --Bistropha (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, an important detail which I have missed. Thank you for filling me in. Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception/Postmodern Interpretations

Please excuse me, I'm new here. And I also want to preface these questions by underscoring the fact that I hope you will understand my tone as respectful and not read antagonism into my words. Such are the limitations of communication via text. With that said: you commented that the scholarship I cited to support my contribution to the Immaculate Conception page was questionable and that my contribution was out of place. Let me respond to each of these objections with a number of questions and suggestions. First, I note that the 'scholarship' or writing of these individuals passes muster for inclusion on the page:

  • 1. Paul Cavendish (whose bibliography is non-existent)
  • 2. Marion Habig (whose bibliography is ample but is focused on Saint Francis)
  • 3. Francis X. Weiser (whose writings seem to have been more liturgical & pastoral than academic....which is fine by me, by the way)

and organizations such as

  • 4. The Mariological Society of America (whose website links to Payday loans)

Why is it that these individuals are suitable for inclusion and the scholarship/writings of individuals such as Rob Bell, Peter Rollins, G.B. Caird, Ethelbert Stauffer, and J. Massynberde Ford are not admissable?

Perhaps we can leave J. Massyngberde Ford out as a marginal figure--I would grant you that: despite Ford's exquisite scholarly introduction and commentary on the Anchor Bible's translation of Revelations, Ford is not particularly well known or much studied. The same cannot be said of the other figures I quoted--they are well-known, much-studied, thinkers and authors with academic & ecclesiastical credentials. Since Wikipedia is a non-denominational, intrinsically neutral resource I see no argument for the exclusion of the viewpoints of these individuals. So what are your grounds for excluding their contributions to the conversation?

When you say that the "postmodern interpretations" section is out of place, do you mean that it should be moved to some other position on the page? If so where do you think it should be positioned on the page? It doesn't seem to really belong under other churches although perhaps it could be added to the protestant section. Except G.B. Caird was an Anglican.BruuceSpriingsteen (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you bring it up on Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus as the topic is wholly unsuitable for the Immaculate Conception. Elizium23 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Felix Manalo

My bad, I mistakenly thought I was reverting the addition of contentious material, apologies! (it's early in the morning here) Zambelo; talk 00:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Elizium23 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Vin Nicholls

Obviously we are not going to let that contentious claim from Pavement Magazine in without proper referencing but even if proper referencing is provided is the biog of a charity patron the place to post criticism of the charity itself? I don't want to get into a tiresome edit-wat over this so I was wondering about your opinion on this as you seem to have more experience than me. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Pius IX

I intended to take it out, because it was duplicate material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrobertolson (talk • contribs) 00:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries help explain your intent, I suggest using them more often. Elizium23 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Dominus vobiscum. :) matthewrobertolson (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
That's okay! Happy editing. Elizium23 (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Why do You revert my editing of an article Catholic Church? Catholic Church is not the same as Roman Catholic Church:

Roman Catholic Church + Maronite Church + Coptic Catholic Church + ... = Catholic Church

I hope that English Wikipedia don't give bad information. Šárka Praha (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The latest discussion is at Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 53#Not all Catholics are Roman. If you will notice there are fifty-three full archives of discussion, many of which contain this issue, and consensus has been formed for the lede as it is currently. This issue is also explained at length in Roman Catholic (term). The bottom line is that no one usage is universal, correct, or accepted. Elizium23 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk: JFK jnr

Reply to your comment is on my talk page. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for tidying after the angry unregistered user undoing all my edits. Mezigue (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! And just remember, wikihounding is the sincerest form of flattery! Elizium23 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Elizium23, you're right. I've moved this information to Baptism. I won't go into detail about the bishop lead process of annotation, it's in the article anyway. 12:35, 22 March 2014 (AEST) Erfmufn (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)(talk)

Appropriate

You applied this to the page of User Lambocar, who seems to be a new editor. The edit was to Cologne Cathedral. I don't think that this was the right template:

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Cologne Cathedral, you may be blocked from editing.

This person probably had no intention of being disruptive, or of vandalising the article in any way. There was certainly no intention to "introduce incorrect information". They probably intended to introduce more precise information, and obviously hadn't noticed that it was a direct quotation.
Could you please not use that template, unless you are sure that it is indeed vandalism.
The change could spring from a desire to emphasise that the building represented the "Catholic Church" specifically, as a matter of pride. Or it could conversely have come from a notion, prevalent among some conservative Protestants, that the Roman Catholic Church has strayed and no longer represents Christianity. Either way, the change would be unnecessary, even if it wasn't in quote marks. But I don't think vandalism was intended.
Amandajm (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
No, actually I believe it was quite justified. If you look at the history of Lambocar's edits, which I did when determining which template to use, you will see that he changed facts before, here, here, and here, plus an extremely dubious edit here. Considering that in the brief editing history of this user, the only other two edits were to remove large chunks of the Tchaikovsky article without explanation, it would seem that this vandalism-only account only has one too few warnings as of now. Elizium23 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't look like he was trying to Vandalize this article, only write it a bit more specific. here If you check the history of Christianity, a long time ago you weren't allowed to work on the seventh day of the week (Saturday). Now a days, instead of the seventh day of the week, it is the first day of the week, each still seven days apart. I do agree about the other articles though, he shouldn't have really touched them. VladDroid256 (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Evensteven's talk page.

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Evensteven's talk page. Evensteven (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Lloydbaltazar?

Is it possible that banned user Lloydbaltazar/LoveforMary/etc. has a new incarnation as LimosaCorel, alternately logging in as such, and logging out to edit as IP 2606:6000:xxx? The style and interests seem the same as before. It's a pity that History2007 has retired. To refresh your memory, see User talk:LoveforMary. Esoglou (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I almost filed an SPI on this, but I am short on evidence. This incarnation seems to like Marian apparitions from Spain, while the others worked in the Philippines. The behavior seems similar, though. What diffs would you suggest to prove WP:DUCK similarity? Elizium23 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's much too late to even think of the matter on my return here tonight. Perhaps tomorrow I can have a try. Esoglou (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK, I found some good evidence. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lloydbaltazar is filed. Keep a watch on it if you're interested. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi there, I'm replying to the request for edit summary you left on my page. I'm afraid I didn't realize that was conventionally desired so I apologize. I read the edit summary page you provided and have now edited my preferences to prompt me for an edit summary. I don't see that it can be modified now though, is there a manner I can do this that you are aware of that is not mentioned on the page? Thank you. StefanijaSili (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, edit summaries are immutable once the edit has been submitted. Don't worry about the past ones. If you really feel that an edit needs a summary or correction, there are two things you can do. Make a dummy edit and supply an edit summary, or leave a note on the talk page. Thanks for your previous discussion on Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit dispute with Laurel Lodged

With respect to Category: Roman Catholic Church.

Consider yourself the mediator. I'll abide by whatever you decide. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to resolve this. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit dispute Roman Catholicism in Scotland

Thanks for your earlier contribution. Could you please look into this one-sentence Original Research accusation. As with the above request, I will abide whatever you decide regarding this one sentence edit conflict. Grsd (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. I am waiting for Mutt Lunker (talk · contribs) to weigh in by articulating his objection. It is not sufficient to communicate in edit summaries. Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks , hope to get closure soon on this sentence Grsd (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

WP Catholicism in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Catholicism for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

I think a word of congratulations and encouragement is due to you for getting T. to drop his aggressiveness. If a punitive block had been imposed, the period of the block might have expired already. The aim of any such sanction has been more than achieved. Esoglou (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert vandalism

Hi-I reverted vandalism to your talk page. I hope there is no problems. We Wikipedians have to look out for one another especially vandalism done to our user pages. I hope you are well-thank you-RFD (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Not a fansite

If you click the link for the citation, then click "Home" it takes you to this page, which identifies it as a fan page. An "official" fan page is not the same as her official website. Anyone can set up a fan page and call it "official". 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And I happen to know for a fact that Melissa set up that page herself. Elizium23 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly DOES say "Welcome to the Official Melissa Joan Hart Fan Page". And what you "know for a fact" doesn't mean diddly-squat on Wikipedia. You've been around here long enough to know that an editor's personal opinion is meaningless and that reliable sources are necessary. Now, if you would be so kind as to produce evidence besides your opinion that the website is officially sanctioned by Melissa Joan Hart. Otherwise, I will proceed to remove the source as unreliable. Thank you. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, the word "Official" should give you some clue. It's official. Also, at the bottom, the page says "Created by Melissa Joan Hart". It is also hard to miss that all around the site she posts as herself, and administered the site from its founding until its demise. Elizium23 (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
First, be advised that issuing false warnings on user's talk pages is a basis for sanctions. If you continue this nonsense, we will be discussing this at WP:ANI. Don't let my use of an IP address give you a false sense of security about running roughshod over Wikipedia policies. I have been editing Wikipedia for nine years. And let me repeat myself: anyone -- ANYONE -- can create a website and call it "official". You have provide no evidence -- NO EVIDENCE -- that MJH sanctions the website. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes I have. Click the link at the bottom. "Created by Melissa Joan Hart". This links to her own profile as site administrator. Elizium23 (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
So if it's on the internet and it says "official" it's always true, right? If you believe that, I have some prime beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. When I had dinner with Melissa and her husband last week, we were talking about the fact that there are so many posers these days who try to pretend that their website is "official". 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Melissa Joan Hart 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. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


Information icon Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 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. Thank you. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, now isn't it? Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
No, it's a more experienced editor telling one who seems oblivious to Wikipedia policies to watch his step. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, in that case then I would remind you of WP:V policy and ask you to cite a reliable source which proves you have more than 14 days and 250 edits under your belt. You can do that, of course? Elizium23 (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:V again, if you've ever read it in the first place. It applies to articles, not how many edits someone has. Continue to push this issue beyond reason, and you'll find out how much I know about Wikipedia. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the threats are supposed to do to me. I'm not afraid of you by any measure. You're the one arguing against policy in this matter so I'd suggest you yourself have another read of them and come back when you have a leg to stand on. Elizium23 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it's not a threat. It's a promise. I'll be more than happy to thrash this out at WP:ANI if that's the where you want to take this. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to take this anywhere your heart desires. As you don't have a leg to stand on, I'm not worried by your threats and/or promises. Elizium23 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
When you fail to get substantial support for your irrational argument on the MJH talk page, I'll restore the article to the way it's supposed to be. If you continue to revert, we'll continue this at WP:ANI. So for now, I'm biding my time and will no longer pander to you here. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

RSN

You changed my header. Create your own section if you want another header. Change mine again and I'll see you at WP:ANI. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to go there. You seem to be itching to do so. I will remind you to try and stay WP:CIVIL in your own dealings with me, instead of bringing up coarse langauge and commenting on me rather than the content. It will help your case, whatever that is, to be free of blame yourself. Elizium23 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Very well, I won't refer to Elizium as "you". An editor who goes by Elizium changed a header. Now please refrain from commenting on me. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Do me a favor. Stay off my talk page from now on. Talking to you is not productive, so I prefer to do it in public forums where there is scrutiny and less temptation for you to be uncivil. Elizium23 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"pro-life", Silent No More

I'm sorry about the scare quotes. I thought they had been introduced by Cath 220's edit, missing that some of them were older than that.

But I can't agree that "pro-life" is NPOV in the way "anti-abortion" is. Someone not familiar with the terminology used would have no idea what "pro-life" (or indeed "pro-choice") mean, and given that many American "pro-life" people are pro-capital-punishment, it pretty clearly doesn't mean what it says. "Anti-abortion", on the other hand, seems fine to me, describing a position that is opposed to abortion. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Anti-abortion" is only used by outsiders to describe the movement and poorly describes its aims. Someone who doesn't know what "pro-life" means can certainly click on a wikilink to find out - that is the whole point of Wikipedia, yes? Elizium23 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Most people are outside the movement, so I don't see the problem there; on the face of it, a term from people outside the movement is far more likely to be neutral. I think it describes its aims excellently; the movement is anti abortion. It could hardly be more neatly described.
No, I don't think the whole point of Wikipedia is to use loaded propaganda terms to encourage people to do more work to find out what they mean. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
One of the things commonly permitted by Wikipedia is to allow movements and organizations to self-identify. It seems to me that insisting on "anti-abortion" is to tilt things out of neutrality by stripping the ability of the pro-life movement to self-identify. I realize I am spitting into the wind here because the fight is already lost. "Pro-life" redirects to Anti-abortion movements, while "pro-choice" stands on its own, as well as Abortion-rights movements. It's obvious how widespread WP:CONSENSUS feels across the project. Elizium23 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is true. Of course their self-identification should be noted, but Anti-abortion movements (for example) mentions the (largely American, another reason I think it should be avoided) term "pro-life" prominently. However, I don't think their self-identification should be trusted - most movements and organisations tend to think they're the best thing since sliced bread, because they're not in a position to make a neutral assessment. (I also think "pro-choice" is a bit of meaningless warm-fluffy terminology and would avoid it in favour of "pro abortion rights".)
However, it is polite of you to accept that the consensus is what it is. In view of that, I suggest the following. Revert to "anti-abortion". Revert the lead wording changes by Cath 220 ("men and women, who had had experiences of abortion, could offer and gain support when they started the Silent No More Awareness Campaign" both has spurious commas and doesn't say what it is meant to). Edit the second paragraph a bit ("various abortion testimonies are given. These testimonies are about an individual's personal experience with abortion." is rather repetitive). Insert pro-life before "ministry" in the lead, since they would so self-identify. Move this discussion to the article talk page since, on reflection it belongs there. What do you think? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that all sounds fine to me. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keith Harper (lawyer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (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) 08:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Archdiocese of Liverpool

Hi Elizium83. I refer to your edits on this page concerning initially 'Animate Youth Ministries' and in a re-edit, formation of an 'Outreach' paragraph/new section.

As regards the Animate entry and such recent changes, I need to inform you that first of all, as a practising Catholic member of the Archdiocese of Liverpool, recently reading the Wiki page on the Archdiocese I immediately noticed that the information contained reference 'Animate' was well out of date. At the Archdiocesan Lourdes Pilgrimage Preparation Meeting on Saturday, June 7th, I encountered the 'Sarah' mentioned in your mail, who is a Team Leader in 'Animate', the Archdiocesan youth section ( and who are of integral and invaluable assistance to the Annual Archdiocesan Liverpool Lourdes Pilgrimage ). I mentioned to her that the Wiki entry on the Liverpool Archdiocese page was out of date and consequently that it would be of great help to update their entry with currently accurate information (irrespective of whoever had made it in the first place !). I explained that anyone can edit Wiki and therefore I presume she (or another member of Animate staff) registered as Animate Youth Ministries and updated the 'Animate' information on the page. If anyone is 'guilty' of causing 'problems' on the page it is me! I did an external link to to the normal 'Animate' Website that they'd mentioned. Having said that, the 'nutshell' summation of Wiki 'External Links' - is that "they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article" and I fail to see how this has been breached in the general context of 'The Archdiocese of Liverpool' page.

So therefore I don't think it is necessary to reprove a brand new contributor, nor to ask for a citation when they themselves are dealing with schools and if anyone will know the number of pupils dealt with - they will !

I then noted that the whole complexion of this area had been altered by generating a new 'Outreach' section. Whilst to a certain extent the LAMP project (the acroynm for which seems to have disappeared) at a stretch could be considered 'Outreach', in that it is reaching out the Latin Americans; they are still Latin Americans of the Roman Catholic faith. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the definition of 'Outreach' as "The extent or length of reaching out" As this applies to the Catholic education and fostering of the faith of the Catholic Youth of the Archdiocese of Liverpool, this is completely INTERNAL and NOT EXTERNAL - and therefore the term 'Outreach' is inapplicable in this context.

In the light of the foregoing, I then contend that a certain amount of reversion is in order and consequently am pursuing that Paul Gaskell (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC) (PS I couldn't find your message on my 'Talk' page - I had to 'dig' around....)

I have made another edit to the page in question. I suggest that further discussion be made on the article talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary form

Perhaps I should explain my view of the use of "the extraordinary form" and of "an extraordinary form". I think the definite article should be used only when the discourse is clearly only about the two authorized forms, as in the later adjustment of the text we discussed.

There is today only one ordinary form, which is therefore "the" ordinary form. There is only one authorized extraordinary form, which in contexts that concern authorized forms alone, but not elsewhere, can be called "the" extraordinary form. Other extraordinary forms exist, used by those who reject even the 1962 Missal, not to speak of those who reject even Pius XII's alterations of the Triduum Sacrum texts.

Pope Benedict XVI stated that the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal was never juridically abrogated. Neither were the pre-1962 editions. Celebration of Mass with any pre-1970 edition is a form of Mass of the Roman Rite, an extraordinary form of it, whether authorized or non-authorized. Since there are several, it is inexact to speak of any one of them as the one and only extraordinary form - except, as I said, when quite clearly speaking of the two authorized forms.

There are many contexts where that is not clear. But perhaps we can always adjust the context to make it clear. Esoglou (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Keith Harper (lawyer)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Settle down, tiger

This may well contain a personal attack, but don't go and presume that it was restored "in bad faith". Thank you. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Archdiocese of Cologne

Cardinal Woelki is the new Archbishop of Cologne and does NOT remain Archbishop of Berlin. Search for Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki at Gcatholic.org Don't dare say that he is not Archbishop of Cologne until he is installed or until he receives the pallium. Once appointed, the prelate is ALREADY the leader of the (Arch)Diocese and the installment is to take full control. If not already bishop, then he is (arch)bishop-elect. For that, I will reverse your reverse act.

Regards, Aa75253

Please read the previous discussions which are linked at the top of my own talk page. You will need to provide evidence (reliable secondary sources, of which gcatholic.org is not) which indicate Woelki has taken possession of the diocese. That means he has "shown the apostolic letter in the same diocese to the college of consultors in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who records the event" and taken possession which usually takes place in a liturgical installation. This has not occurred yet and he is not considered Archbishop of Cologne until that time. Elizium23 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


How about catholic-hierarchy.org? http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dkoln.html and http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bwoel.html It exactly sites his position in Cologne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa75253 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Has no installation date yet. If you will notice when he was appointed to Berlin, he was installed nearly two months later. The same timespan will apply now. You can expect his installation and canonical possession in early September. Elizium23 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings my friend

You seem to be of the mind that some of my edits are of a fanciful and deluded nature but i say to you most assuredly that my edits are correct, in some cases i can only give the book title but in others i have sourced correctly, anyway its not such a big deal, if i can find the information digitally i will show you the source beforehand--Twominds (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Church

I have reported your hostile and aggressive behavior on the Administrators noticeboard. 129.133.125.225 (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Where's the snark button?

I thought it was right next to the "thank" button... Sorry, I think I hit the thank by accident. ;) Jim1138 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raymond Burke. 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) 09:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church

Again, I'm perfectly willing to put in about as many sourced caveats as you want in here and you surely have sources to bring to bare, but the closing admin made several fair points.[1] Among them: why do we list Simon Magus since there was no Papacy back then to declare him excommunicated as such? We do so because that is what our sources say. It is ever thus. Wikipedians are much like the scribes Jesus half-heartedly complained about: we go on WP:V not WP:TRUTH. I wouldn't mind working on a project based on canon law and the new Catechism. No calumny! No detraction! (Perhaps, as a result, no Kardashians? A heavenly delight!) But to quote a famous Protestant: For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. -- Kendrick7talk 06:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

And yet, the source you cherry-picked to bolster your assertion has no idea what excommunication actually is ("Pope Francis kicks Mafia out of church!") and you miraculously found one of the very few sources that didn't quote the Vatican Press Office which issued a clarification. We report what RELIABLE sources say, not cherry-picked ones. Elizium23 (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I cherry picked nothing. I saw a source and I added it to the project. We should endeavor to report all points of view which are reflected in reliable sources per WP:YESPOV. Let us add and not subtract from the embodiment of human knowledge per WP:PRESERVE. Our readers can decide the truth for themselves. Have faith! -- Kendrick7talk 06:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not a point of view, it's an unreliable source getting the facts wrong. The facts are clearly explained by news sources which say, I quote, "Pope Francis said the Mafia are excommunicated" (as opposed to "Pope Francis excommunicated the Mafia") and include the Vatican spokesman's explanation of what really happened. When we find an unreliable source that doesn't even know what excommunication is, we regard it as an outlier and discard it in favor of sources which explain the facts. Elizium23 (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Instead of discarding, we should rather endeavor to own it and explain the debate. How many people on Twitter declared last month that the Pope excommunicated the mafia? How many people, like you, felt that was almost but not quite true? I believe we have a serious obligation here to bring our sources together to report on this matter exactly because you think it's contentious. It's a sacred obligation to our readers/users . -- Kendrick7talk 07:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
How is it explaining the debate to add inappropriate categories to articles? How is it explaining the debate to use an unreliable source and make an untrue assertion instead of documenting what happened by reporting from reliable sources? If it is so important to you ("sacred obligation", I have no such thing) to document this occurrence, then use the prose in 'Ndrangheta or Pope Francis to explain what happened as I suggest. Don't use categories, or articles with limited scope, as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to push your side of the story. Elizium23 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why choose to cause offense?

I just spent half an hour redoing my edits you blanked. Here's a lesson in the English language that you apparently need:

  • An edit summary incorrectly marked as "minor" is inaccurate, not "deceptive"
  • "user has been warned" = editor has been notified

It's not intelligent to go around deliberately winding people up. And also, it doesn't make you look important. Thanks zzz (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear friend @Signedzzz:, thank you for beginning to use descriptive edit summaries, and thank you for ceasing to mark all your edits as minor. Elizium23 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Dear Elizium23, thank you for your efforts to ensure that the article about the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption, Córdoba meets WP:NPOV. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 03:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elizium23/Archive_7&oldid=1140632562"