User talk:Pbritti/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

János „Kisalagi” Wohlram

Hi,

As requested, I added references to the draft article. Please, check and approve so that the article can be published. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks.

Cheers,

Wgyula Wgyula (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Methodist Texts

I'll ask around and see what I can do, especially considering the VU Amsterdam has quite a good theology department. I'm in no rush to use the sources and can probably find others suitable enough to use. I'll let you know how it goes. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha, Ixtal. If you require excerpts from my copy, I'm more than willing to privately share them with you (which is permitted use, as far as I'm aware). ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Jesuit Founders

The founders were ten. The three names are well documented by both John Padburg and John O'Malley. Please see a detailed founding narrative by John O'Malley "The First Jesuits" pgs. 32-35.

I'll put together a more comprehensive founding narrative based on the "The First Jesuits", and seek more than the two sources if that would be helpful. Cenozar (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cenozar: If you end up with more sourcing, please ping me on the Jesuits talk page rather than my personal talk page! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Metz use

Hello, I was wondering if you know anything about this use in the Catholic Church, I saw it on the wikipedia page "Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites" but have found no other mention/source of it anywhere else. Thanks in advance! RCath (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@RCath: I know exceedingly little about the liturgy of Metz, but I presume that most academic reference to it can be found in regard to its relationship with the Lyonese liturgy. See this article for a little more detail. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Friendly piece of advice

Have a read of WP:CANVASS and WP:AGF. Notifying editors of a discussion on a talk page when done in a non-partisan way is not canvassing. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: Notifying some editors, including ones you have a working relationship with but hasn't edited the page, and not the editor whose editors you want to undo is definitionally partisan. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I would drop the stick. Assume good faith. At worst it looks like the other guy made a mistake. It certainly wasn't done by stealth... you clearly have the page in your watch list. At the moment your responses on the talk page really are at odds with WP:CIVIL Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: You clearly don't understand the discussion nor what occurred, and presume things of other editors. Take your own advice on AGF. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Boyd

Hello. Thank you for removing my mistakes in the article on John Boyd. What is the proper way to inform readers the information expressed is the biographer/subject of Wikipedia article’s opinion? LastMonarchist (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@LastMonarchist: I would encourage you to instead first read WP:FIVEPILLARS and the resources there. Attempting to improve an article by acknowledging deficiencies in sourcing is a fairly complex thing for a new editor, and it requires a proper understanding of Wikipedia's policies towards reliable sourcing and verifiability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for taking up your time. LastMonarchist (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I’ve read through those and have posted to the articles talk page instead. I summed up what I saw as problems. Some of the discussions seemed a bit heated but were from years ago. If possible, could you take a look at my message so I know if I’m violating any rules. LastMonarchist (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

For the passerby: uninvolved editors concurred in minor trout towards above party ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Tel Aviv attack

the attacker used the car as a battering ram to kill passers-by on the sidewalk, whether he didn't shoot or didn't make it in time is not known exactly, only the Tel Aviv police are clear about the exact dynamics. attack happened on the same day as the one that happened last year!! claimed by Hamas! on April 7, 2022. Everything I wrote has reliable news sources. This is a terrorist attack just watch the security video, there is the link! You don't like my expression of coincidence well it's reality. --Peter39c (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Peter39c: Content discussions should take place on the relevant article talk page. Per the manual of style policy MOS:TERRORIST, referring to someone as a "terrorist" outside quotation or very rare circumstances is deprecated. I changed the article name to "attack" from "shooting" because no one besides the perpetrator was shot (per current reporting) and because "attack" encompasses the full range of violent actions from stabbing through bombing. You remain advised that introducing original research as you did in the article is not permitted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It says in Repubblica that Hamas has claimed responsibility. I don't intend to make any edit war, simply tell the reality. Or let's pretend nothing happened. You don't want to discuss coincidences on your page, so let's talk about it on the article talk. Peter39c (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Peter39c: You violated WP:1RR after being explicitly warned about the restriction by another editor on your talk page. Either you will undo your current edits or I'll have to take you to the relevant report page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Bishopcroft

On 25 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bishopcroft, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bishop of Oregon's residence in Portland once had a private chapel, a ballroom, and a wine cellar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bishopcroft. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bishopcroft), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

A much needed clean up

I see you have recently deleted parts of Traditionalist Catholicism. I have just finished cleaning it up further. Years of unsourced statements, FICTREF and BLOG have finally been removed. Feel free to have a look.

Do you see something that is not up to WP's standards in the current version of the article? Veverve (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: Unfortunately, quite a bit. I might end up trying to source the SSPV paragraph (third paragraph, first section of the body). The whole thing is still a bit muddled but that can't be resolved without a full rewrite (I don't have the time right now, but will soon). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

However, deleting most of the content of the article is not the same as rewriting it! --Jahaza (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right. A lot of the stuff that was deleted can be added back as soon as sourcing appears (I'd wager that most of it can be sourced). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jahaza: Well, feel free to use secondary RS and to faithfully state what they say, so that information can be kept. Veverve (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You need to try to create an article and not just delete things. Deleting unsourced material that you could easily source is not an improvement to the encylopedia. You especially need to not delete sourced material. Jahaza (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't use my talk page for this. The article has a talk page for this purpose. That said, unverified material can be deleted, particularly where it relates to living persons. I've not been looking at each edit so I don't know if/where sourced content was deleted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Pbritti: I had not see this section. I have now trimmed and reorganised it. Veverve (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Diocese of the United Kingdom

Hi, I created a page for the ACC Diocese of the United Kingdom. It got taken down for copyright violation - said it was too close of a paraphrase to the history section of the ACC UK webpage. But facts are not copyrightable, and there's only so many ways you can say someone was made a bishop on such and such a date??? The DUK website also, frankly, does provides an objective presentation of the only notable facts to be included in a history. Like, there's nothing left out that needs to be added (which is notable). Anyway, I rewrote the history section (which caused the loss of some facts, but whatever) and posted it as a draft Draft:Diocese of the United Kingdom . Could you take a look at that and see if that's alright? SAWassen (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey @SAWassen: sorry for the belated reply! I've been focused on some other things and missed this. I took some time to look at the draft you made (a good alternative to dealing with the straight-to-mainspace-straight-to-dumpster process I think most everyone experiences at one point or another). The draft has certain deficiencies that are immediately recognizable. Namely, it lacks significant secondary reliable sourcing. The best secondary source (that is, a reference not published by the subject or an organization immediately affiliated with the subject) is this thesis. Unfortunately, a single thesis is generally not sufficient to qualify a topic for WP:GNG. However, WikiProject Christianity has established some norms for notability that generally assume that an episcopal jurisdiction that we can confirm exists and contains multiple populated congregations is automatically notable. I'll go through the draft tomorrow (US time) and see what I can do! I don't think there are any immediate issues that would prevent this from being published. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

ty, but nvm someone published it overnight - I'll see if I can clean it up some more... but thanks for the advice SAWassen (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not appreciate being given pointless tasks

Urselius (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Urselius: If this is about the failed verification and citation needed tags I added to a GA you worked on, those aren't pointless tasks. The information in those passages were not sourced to the citations provided, something of a minimal expectation for GAs. Additionally( the expectation isn't that you alone would have to provide the fixes. In describing them as "pointless tasks" on my talk page, I'm worried about the WP:VERIFIABILITY of the article in general. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Pedals for Progress

I don't think this is ready for mainspace. If anything, it qualifies for WP:G11. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: With the sourcing present, I was going to purge anything that read as promo and add the much need citations. However, considering the sourcing, I felt it passed GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting 05/09/2023

Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 9, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, geography, articles, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX article

Hi! I just wanted to flag that (1) I let myself get way too dragged into this article, and (2) I altered this sentence, which I think you inserted, slightly. I don't think your version is incorrect, but I'm a little wary that it's ambiguous—saying "reported a quail's nest was charred" could, at least from my perspective, imply some exhaustive search that led to "a" (one) charred quail's nest. Since I didn't understand the article to be making that claim, I tried toning it down.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Whoops I just noticed that you didn't actually use that wording when you last inserted the sentence. Nevermind!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: No harm, no fowl. Thanks for the heads up! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Hermann Heuvers

On 5 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hermann Heuvers, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that dying Unit 731 war criminal Shirō Ishii was baptized by Jesuit priest and playwright Hermann Heuvers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hermann Heuvers. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hermann Heuvers), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Book of Common Prayer (1928, United States)

On 5 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Book of Common Prayer (1928, United States), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1928 Book of Common Prayer was adopted by the Episcopal Church in the United States, but the Church of England's 1928 Book of Common Prayer was rejected by Parliament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1928, United States). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Book of Common Prayer (1928, United States)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Book of Common Prayer (1928, England)

On 5 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Book of Common Prayer (1928, England), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1928 Book of Common Prayer was adopted by the Episcopal Church in the United States, but the Church of England's 1928 Book of Common Prayer was rejected by Parliament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1928, United States). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Book of Common Prayer (1928, England)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Rami Malek

I'm not sure where that is, however this second generation identity is a European thing, not really an American phenomenon. In political discourse they keep mentioning first, second, third, fourth, fifth... generations. That's not really a thing in the US. --Esperfulmo (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Esperfulmo: Please comment on article comment first on an article talk page. Additionally, the definition that Wikipedia applies for Egyptian Americans applies to those born abroad in Egypt who immigrated to the U.S., those descended exclusively from Egyptian immigrants, and those who are partially descended from Egyptian immigrants. And, yes, second/third/fourth are definitely things in the U.S. In any case, it doesn’t matter, as sourcing indicates we should appropriately describe Malek as "Egyptian-American": [1], [2]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of Russo-Ukrainian War military equipment

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Russo-Ukrainian War military equipment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of Russo-Ukrainian War military equipment

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Russo-Ukrainian War military equipment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

A-10 issue raised at dispute resolution noticeboard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II Fanccr (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fanccr: I recommend actually clearly explaining what it is you want changed before taking it up at the dispute board. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest you strike your WP:PA at the DeSantis TP.[3] In my 16 years here, no one before has suggested that I am NOTHERE. It is a quite absurd accusation as I fit no part of the definition. Indeed, NOTHERE is a reason for an indef, site-wide ban. Please try to be WP:CIV in future. If you have a question about someone's editing practices, are how they contribute to the project, you are welcome to ask politely on their UTP. Rgds. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

rejection of the article "The (un)Australian"

Hi, Pbritti. I have troubles in understanding the rejection of the abovementioned article. Apart from providing the three reliable, independent sources that are already there (two mainstream press retailers, i.e. The Courier Mail and The Standard (Kenya); and the National Library of Australia), I don't understand what else is needed. I am personally worried because the Standard article has provided some confusion among some circles of opinion that I participate in, with the addition of some tribal taint that may not be positive if the news item is not referenced/identified as satirical in a free, universal, reliable knowledge source as Wikipedia is. Thanks in advance. Diotime (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Diotime: The sources you mention here might themselves be considered reliable in a general sense, but don't approach the standards established at WP:GNG. For example: significant coverage is only provided in The Courier Mail (just listing something and providing a short description like this source don't count) and even then it is only for a single news item (see WP:1E). The Standard's article doesn't count towards notability because 1.) it isn't about The (un)Australian in any real sense, 2.) the manner in which it is used is prohibited original research, and 3.) a news org keeping up an obviously fake article is not exactly a good sign that they are a reliable source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Point taken, I'll try to dig further sources equivalent to The Courier Mail.

(as a side note, The Standard is one of the major press retailers in East Africa, but one should be aware of the more restricted inherent capacities of operators in low-income countries due to surrounding circumstances, in order not to be accused of post-colonialist attitudes; I won't do it, but just that you are aware of the sensitivities this may awaken) Diotime (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Diotime: Best of luck finding sources; I'm optimistic that you can. As to the matter of The Standard, I appreciate your sensitivity on that; in this case, the use of an inherently unreliable article in a primary source way is already precluded. You might be encouraged by the oft-cited essay Wikipedia:Systemic bias (a great standard when considering sourcing from outside the West) and WikiProject Countering systemic bias (a team you might want to join). If you want an expedited review once you feel you've completed the draft to a point when it can be published, ping me here and I'll gladly review it. Thanks for your hard work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Book of Common Prayer (1559)

On 8 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Book of Common Prayer (1559), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that to prevent bishops from opposing the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer, reformers had the entire papalist party arrested during a debate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1559). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Book of Common Prayer (1559)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

On 28 May 2023 you added

Jugge was joined by John Cawood, who had held the position under Mary and was eventually by Elizabeth.

'eventually' what or what 'eventually'? Shenme (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shenme: Please use article talk pages for this kinda thing but in this case the missing word is "reinstated". Thanks for finding the mistake; I'll take care of it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts in expanding Wikipedia's coverage on the Book of Common Prayer! Ltwin (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ltwin: This means the world to me, as with the 1559 BCP article I worked hard to match the caliber of work you put out in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, 1549, and 1552 articles. Your work is an inspiration and I hope that someday soon we could even have a featured topic for the English prayer books! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti, thank you for the complement. I also think that Anglican history and theology (well Christian theology/history) topics in general on Wikipedia need much better coverage, and I'm delighted that we have dedicated editors who are making a difference. I consider you one of them. Ltwin (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

LGBT Ukraine reversions.

I was trying to reuse the citations from else where in the article when giving the 5 key take aways for human rights watchers. However, it is very hard to do that when someone reverts your article after you publish it and before you can add the citations. I was simplifying the take aways. Not everyone has time to read the entire article and tease out the intricacies. There seems to be a bias in the article which blames others for the laws, history and culture of Ukraine. Globally we share a history of being heterometric through time. No one country is to blame for it, what is important is what is the status now and how strong are the protections. Please stop reverting the information. It is a disservice to the community to keep removing this content before I can add the citations and references. Maybe you have a tip or could help? 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@142.189.112.124: You cited Wikipedia and added other unsourced information. Check out WP:FIVEPILLARS if you're confused about any part of the Wikipedia process or policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)