User talk:Elizium23/Archive 13

DS notice
Just FYI, getting in a habit of calling other editors names, like "bigoted", in style discussions does not end well. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , your suggestion is bigoted. I didn't call you any names. Elizium23 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Doubling down has a tendency to make the not-good result come faster.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account
I noticed you reverted an edit made by User:General_Jakerz so I looked at that person's edits, and it seems like that may be a single purpose account that is doing the same edit to other pages. Thought I should let you know... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/General_Jakerz Ihaveadreamagain 16:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Christ as a title
Hi I just made what I contend(of course)is a good faith edit. But my smartphone is small and my ability to focus not so good. It doesnt look quite right. could you have a look? thanks!Rich (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Coincidences
You will have noticed coincidences between the first log-in dates, the general style and the central interest of two recent user names. Still more significant is the peculiar signature as a separate paragraph with leading spaces, spaces that EdJohnston has now removed from one of the names: the same signature style was used by the other name in the past. However, the puppeteer may now have given up, so that there is no need to do anything. For my part, I have never asked for a check-user examination and I don't want to. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I have been too lazy to file SPIs. Also, I have been meaning to suggest to you that perhaps the current discussion would benefit from WP:DNFTT. Elizium23 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But I think he is no mere troll aiming to annoy, as some do, but is quite sincere and recognizes the weaknesses of his arguments in support of the greater dignity of his beloved church, when they are pointed out. He does not annoy me in any way, and I would prefer if you did not use the information I thought it was my duty to pass on. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the same as Rrrij, blocked indefinitely on 1 March, shortly before the first appearances of the two new names that I mentioned here and that seem to concentrate on another of the churches that are collectively/alternatively called Malankara Church? I'm sorry that he seems to have gone completely non responsive. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Casadelrioexpress vandalism
In the future, just report the vandal at WP:AIV. AIV reports are usually handled quickly. Page protection is only necessary when pages are being targeted by multiple users or variety of IP addresses, or for long-term frequent vandalism. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Bishop-elect Mulloy
Do we even want to keep his page? I created it because he was appointed as bishop of Duluth, but now that he's not.... Roberto221 (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply
I mean, you could’ve just taken the source I provided in the vast majority of my edit summaries (hit save before I remembered to add it for two) and put it in the article, which I was planning to do today as I made those edits very late at night. But I guess I’ll just have to readd the cats when I add the source to the page. Rusted AutoParts 13:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Auxiliary Bishop
Sorry to impose but I need your voice again on this one:

Articles for deletion/Jeffrey S. Grob

Roberto221 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"originally promulgated in"
I leave it to you to judge whether it is appropriate to say that "the Tridentine Mass" (rather than the successive editions of the Tridentine Missal) was "originally promulgated" in 1570. For my part, I tend to think that it was promulgated once for all in 1570. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Baritone
Good call on adding the tags; I looked to see if there were any good sources, and didn't come up with anything definitive; I added a note on the talk page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No reliable sources?
How on Earth did my edit on List of people who have been considered deities not have reliable sources? All I did was restore it. The section restored had plenty reliable citations, I'm not the one who is removing it without reason. 147.147.150.87 (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which source says Hitler is/was worshipped as a god? Elizium23 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It refers more to the cult of personality like the others in that section (hence why Hitler was originally in the self-deification section), however the notes do refer to Savitri Devi's strange esoteric Hitler worship, as well as Nazi efforts to remove religion as a force in Germany. If we're going to be strict in who counts as a deity, then shouldn't people like Jim Jones and Joseph Kony also be removed from the page? There are plenty people on the page who don't even have any sources. 147.147.150.87 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sources should be demanded for all entries, and the scope should be evaluated. The entries you mention don't belong there either. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my edits
Hi Elizium23, I am sorry for my edits. But the good news I am avoiding disruptive editing. Also, I am trying to link Donald Trump's 2020 campaign election on Samaire Armstrong's article. As long I don't vandalize or disruptive edits edi I will be fine. But IP user 38.111.57.194 from Boston, Massachusetts did vandalize and made disruptive edits. I was trving edit carefully and too many IP edits vandalize the same articles. So, once again I apologize to you and too many IP edits vandalize the same article and I was trying to edit carefully. I hope you will accept my apology. Thanks for your time. 2001:569:74D2:A800:51DF:CA3D:A73D:4C6F (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see you are acting in good faith. I mistakenly reverted your edit because it seemed a little off, and a second edit got caught in the process. No need to apologize. You're fine. Happy editing. Elizium23 (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Punnathra Dionysius III
Hi, You have reverted a previous correction which was made me in Punnathra Dionysius III. Since he is a Malankara Metropolitan who was the supreme head of the undivided malankara church. I dont think its neutral to present him as the head of Malankara Orthodox Church only. Please atleast clarify in the talk page, thanks Abin jv (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverend
Hi, Elizium23. I just thought that, given the topic of this short section, and the specific wording of "Religious leaders" and "religious figures" within it, that it was of value – and fair to his legacy – to specifically include that King was a Reverend. I'm not arguing forcefully, just wanted to at least recheck with you. Jmg38 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , MOS:HON says honorifics are to be avoided in these cases. Elizium23 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Your recent editing history at David Reardon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You appear to already be aware of the discretionary sanctions covering pages related to abortion, based on a prior warning earlier this year; these sanctions suggest that you should be more careful about behaviors like edit-warring on pages in this topic area. MastCell Talk 05:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

More edits on Barrett
I would appreciate it if you would take a look at this edit. I toned it down, but I suspect there'll be some pushback. I'm fine if it's completely removed. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Question
Hello, I recently noticed you reverted what I perceived to be a grammatical error in the List of Christian denominations article. I would love to see secondary input as to why. Thanks! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , sure.
 * The original phrase was The Latin, or Western, Church, is the largest and most widely known, which was incorrect because the comma after "Church" separated it from the verb.
 * The phrase as you modified it was The Latin, or Western Church, is the largest and most widely known where you removed the wrong comma. Now, not only was "Church" separated from the verb, but "or Western" was no longer alone seen to be modifying "Latin". The commas there were parenthetical.
 * The phrase as I corrected it is The Latin, or Western, Church is the largest and most widely known where the commas stand as parenthetical: they could be replaced thus: The Latin (or Western) Church is the largest and most widely known and a comma after Church makes no sense either as a rhythmic pause or a grammatical separation. Elizium23 (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

How to define a reliable source of media?
Hi there,

How are you doing? I am new to wiki page editting. I referred to a source on Gnews but it is removed for the sake of reliability. No offense, just to discuss a definition of reliable source of media. A quick question, is it ok to cite a source from CNN when it is called as fake news by the president?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newchinafederal (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Face masks question
This is not a request for medical advice. --Viennese Waltz 07:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Snort
Okay, it is totally your fault that I snorted my coffee out through my nose and all over the coffee table when I read this comment of yours. Mathglot (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's my favorite WP:SPI template since long before this. I hope you didn't damage your keyboard. Elizium23 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Neocatechumenal Way
, I just wanted to apologize for marking your edit as an act of vandalism (that's how I felt at the moment, given the discussion we had; I have also felt beaten up by the stuff you've posted on my talk page and I've got a little defensive). Given your last edit I see that you are honest, and I also appreciate correcting some of my other edits. I'm travelling now and I don't have time for deeper fixes. For time being, I'm providing some links for a failed verification marked by you: http://cardinalseansblog.org/2019/12/20/advent-masses-and-gatherings/ http://cardinalseansblog.org/2019/08/02/remembering-cardinal-ortega-of-cuba/ http://cardinalseansblog.org/2013/04/05/christ-is-risen-5/ (unfortunately, Card. O'Malley seems to be the only bishop who makes public all the events he attends). Do you think those would be valid references? Pahario (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the 2013 source is the only one that has hope, and I would say it is a weak source, being that it is self-published, but this kind of source is acceptable for limited claims, and I would say this is OK. Elizium23 (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

RCRC
Hi Elizium23,

With respect to this edit: I would have thought that WP:ABOUTSELF covered most of the information you removed.

All the best, JBL (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , nope. Elizium23 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a much less constructive response than I was expecting, so let me try again: your edit summary is obviously wrong, and an organization's own webpages are clearly permissible sources for basic data about the organization (like year of founding, or current leadership). If you believe the organization is not notable (a defensible position), you should send it to AfD. --JBL (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not my edit summary. Elizium23 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what that's supposed to mean. You made an edit; I linked it above; I further commented on the edit summary you included with it. --JBL (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , consensus says differently. Elizium23 (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ... and the evidence for this is a two-person discussion involving different kind of content on a different article in which one person removed it and the other objected? Have you read WP:ABOUTSELF yet, or noticed that it's part of the policy WP:V (the highest kind of encyclopedia-wide consensus)?
 * I am really puzzled because my lingering recollection of you is as a competent editor (albeit with a very different worldview from my own). --JBL (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

1991
sources for what? --FPP (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Becciu Scandal
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial... sure but Becciu scandal is real, and Pope Francis is victim like the whole Catholic church. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/world/europe/Cardinal-Becciu-Fired.html Please try to document yourself the section simply said that the Pope kicked Becciu out.--Peter39c (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC) It's certainly not gossip to steal 200 million euros.--Peter39c (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

About the Venial Sin Page
Hello! I'm a new editor so I understand my work may be a bit redundant at times and I appreciate the comment, but I truly feel as if elaborating more on the specifics of grave/mortal versus venial sin is important. At the very least, the "grave" matters should be elaborated on. The link to mortal sin helps define the difference of the sins, though the use of "grave matter" throughout is not explained and to one unfamiliar it seems as if it is subjective. I think an edit briefly describing what exactly makes something a "grave" matter is needed for clarity, which I felt I included with my introduction of a new source. If you still disagree with my previous edit and find it redundant, I would like to try and make another contribution but far more brief as a compromise. Again, thank you for your comment. Ramsabeoulve (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to go forward with my more brief contribution. If you still disagree with it after, I would love to talk it out. Ramsabeoulve (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje
Hello I have been hoping that you would "cut this article down to the sourced essentials." as you suggested on the talk page. The article is truly a mess right now. Please come do that. I would be happy to rebuild with you by researching references etc. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Templating A Regular
I don’t understand why you thought it was necessary to template a regular despite you being aware of WP:DTR. That is just condescending & you know that. Celestina007 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I go by WP:TTR because I believe that templates are a neutral and uniform method of communicating mistakes to other editors, regardless of their level of experience. Elizium23 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Factual errors in the article Syro Malankara Catholic Church
I have seen that you have reverted the edits that I have made in the above mentioned article. But slong with the action you have dragged in serious factual errors which are historically untrue. 1. The Syro Malabar Church didn't emerged out of the Malankara Church as you have mentioned. Malankara Church and Syro Malabar Church are two different branches of the India- Ecclesiastical province of the Church of the East which are in schism since Coonan Cross Oath. 2. The article mentions about 44 out of 69 churches, which is a blunder. Historically, the church had split as 32: 84 churches on each side.

I haven't reverted these because I wanted to know from where you got all these wrong information. If someone in Kerala state read this article, I think they will get fed up of Wikepedia, as the current Syro Malabar Church has 2.3 million parishioners only in the state while the Malankara Church denominations only number 2 million even when taken all together. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It is disgusting and indeed a derogatory action that you have done. Calling a church head by his vernacular colloquial name and linking the name cunningly to the original name. It is a matter of shame for me for having been stroke for no good reason. Shame on you. This is not welcomed of Wikepedia. Where did Baselios Cardinal Cleemis used the term ' Cleemis thottunkal'. Give respect atleast. Some radicals among different church factions usually call each others heads derogatory or colloquial names. I just want to know whether this is the method used by Wikepedia too. If so, this is undoubtedly biased. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Mitt Romney -- November 2020
Regarding your comment, I made my edit to correct a redundancy. This was what was originally written:

"Following Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris's victory over Trump on November 7, Romney was the first Republican senator to extend his congratulations to president- and vice president-elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris."

I edited it to:

"Following Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris's victory over Trump on November 7, Romney was the first Republican senator to extend his congratulations to the president- and vice president-elect."

Harris and Biden's name didn't need to be mentioned twice in that same sentence. I'm sorry I didn't provide a justification for the edit.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelkia1101 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , noted, reverted. Thanks for the heads up! Elizium23 (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

students as expatriates
We have long put the Rhodes scholars by nationality categories under the various x nationality expatriates in Britain categories. Thus there is a long recognition that students count as expatriates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Kristen Bell's a soprano
You made a mistake by not adding a reliable source on Kristen Bell's voice type and deleted it. Sophiam122 (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I found the source that Kristen Bell is a soprano. Sophiam122 (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe
Hi, I have the source about Robert Mugabe being stripped (anullment) of his Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the order of the Bath (GCB): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/25/zimbabwe.foreignpolicy1 Jibco (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank You
Just Thank you, for instruct me. EldhoseTalk 16:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Archiving obsolete links.
Hello Elizium23, thank you for archiving the obsolete link I had removed from the Patriarchate of the East Indies. That was a legitimate link before, but has now been taken by a porn website. I did an external links search to remove the links and accidentally removed it's archived links from some pages as well. I don't know how to add archived links, can you please add them to some 15 pages? The pages can be found on top of my recent contributions page Special:Contributions/AVSmalnad77. AVSmalnad77 (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not really have the expertise to do that. is capable of archiving URLs, but to have it work on the pages you've already modified, I would need to revert them all, and I am reluctant to do that, even for a few moments. Elizium23 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply . I just found a way to archive the links, will add it myself. I removed the (non archived) link from some Wikipedia archives too. It has been tagged as "new user modifying archives". Will I be in trouble for that? I am thinking to add the archived link to archived pages just to be safe.AVSmalnad77 (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Malankara Metropolitans - Discussions
Drawing your attention to this discussion: Talk:List of Malankara Metropolitans. Thanks -John C. (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Bishops
I need to discuss with you offline. Send me a email to "roberto221@earthlink.net". It'll put you in my spam folder the first time, but once you're in my address book, it'll go through afterwards.

Roberto221 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , sent. Check your spam. Elizium23 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

1975
I apologize for my recent. Matt Campbell (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, be more careful. You simply cannot go adding unsourced content to these articles because it is now absolutely required. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for excepting my apology! Matt Campbell (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Elisium24
, I thought you might want to know that there's a new user who seems to have copied your user account name for potentially malicious purposes, see 's contributions. Mugsalot (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
The source submitted by User : Ibrahim John, does not explicitly support his claim. Does wikipedia allow placing source/references that does not support a view? Zoticus777 (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
I found that you have marked copyright violation for citing a reference in the page Liturgical calendar of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church just for citing the reference to the official calendar published by the Church. Kindly note that neither citing a published document or writing about the centuries-old customs and tradition followed by a community does not lead to copyright violation. Also, the church or any organization does not hold the copyright for the centuries-old tradition followed by Christianity. You have to substantiate the claim with proof and facts See Copying text from other sources for more information. Antojpr (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You have marked the page Qaita for speedy deletion suggesting copyright violation and the web link you provided in my talk page as the source of content is non-existent currently. Kindly note that the description existed in the erstwhile webpage was in the spiritual perspective of season Qaita and none of the descriptions there do not match with the description in the page Qaita. You have to substantiate the claim with proof and facts See Copying text from other sources for more information.Antojpr (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
There was nothing wrong about what I did. I said that he was a notable person and every other persons mentioned were unsourced. If you ever see someone adding a person to a page and that editor says that it's a notable person, then follow these 3 steps: 1. If you see that someone has been added to the page, check out his/her Wikipedia page. 2. Check out what notable things that person has made. 3. Even if you don't think it is necessary for that person to be on the page, find a source to prove that he/she deserves to be shown on the page.

If an editor thinks that a person with a Wikipedia article deserves to be shown in a page, it's okay. Just, give them a break. Even if it's unsourced, please try to understand why they have done that instead of blaming them. That hurts people when you do that and you hurt me as well. TheNoteWriter (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

1991
Please see Independence Day of Ukraine. My edit was to restore content (a revert), not an addition.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  17:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , per WP:ONUS you need to furnish a source. Elizium23 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I am okay with your Theodore McCarrick tweaks
I consider Wikipedia to be a team effort and not a man show. Thank you.InsulinRS (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion re said vs claimed
We are advised to use neutral language to describe statements. That’s a guideline rather than a rule. You might consider lawsuits an exception. The plaintiffs make claims and their opponents respond. We are reporting on the back-and-forth of contending viewpoints. I have in mind the lawsuit seeking damages from the Holy See re McCarrick. It’s a chance to vary our prose a bit. We should seize it. Lawyers argue, assert, counter, dispute, etc. Covering the statements of witnesses is more sensitive, but I think we are on safe ground with opposing parties. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , why do we have to restart this conversation here on my user talk page? This is about article content. Elizium23 (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical Latin
I am curious to know what was 'not constructive' about my edit to the "Church Latin kana" section. The wording is awkward and the kana out of order. Thanks. TheLanguageMan (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

stop reverting my edit
stop reverting my edit. ArekSmith (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Lego Star Wars: The Video Game is not source
Lego Star Wars: The Video Game is not soused you cant block me. ArekSmith (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits
Can you tell me the reason why you reverted my edits even after i added a citation???????? The lady writer (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you reverted my edits even after i added citations??
Stop reverting my edits The lady writer (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Amy Lee
I am NOT adding unsourced material, STOP REVERTING MY EDITS!!! Your OWN sources corroborate my changes!!! I received a message from a user named C.Fred telling me to message him with proof of my claims and I did. You can see it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:C.Fred#Amy_Lee_%22vocal_range%22_%28follow-up%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannis Targontsidis (talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is no A2 in the video you provided as "source". Stop adding music theory stuff if you are not a musician yourself. The lowest note she has sung is a C3 in With or Without You.

Please do not reverse MY edits. I am a musician. If you are a musician yourself, it is like saying her E6 is not a part of her range when it is her capability... that would not make sense right? Her A2 is of most accuracy and you are more than welcomed to speak to a vocal coach or any person that can confirm this as a part of her range. Thank you! Resist Fallen (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
 Merry Christmas and Happy New year   Hello! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous 2021 on the behalf of Christmas task force of WikiProject Holidays.

Happy holidays!
 * Wishing you a joyful Christmas and a happy New year. We would like to use this occasion for giving thanks for editors like you for your works on editing, maintaining and expanding this encyclopedia. May the glorious message of peace and love fill you with joy during this wonderful season.

You can do!
 * Improve and assess the articles listed in Category:Christmas and its subpages. (list of categories)
 * Feel free to add  to the Wikiproject banners WikiProject Holidays or WikiProject Christianity in the articles related to Christmas. This will help to automatically place it into Category:Christmas task force articles.
 * Tag articles under the scope of our project.
 * Recruit interested editors to the project.
 * Collect categories, resource links, and templates.
 * Feel free to develop missing articles related to this topic - some of them can be found at WikiProject Holidays/Christmas task force/Reference sources articles list.
 * Bring former featured articles and good articles back to their status.
 * Visit WikiProject Holidays/Christmas task force/Article alerts page for recent changes on project.
 * Feel free to participate in the process of revival of task force.

--- Recent...
 * Featured article


 * Trading Places- a 1983 American comedy film directed by John Landis and written by Timothy Harris and Herschel Weingrod.
 * Featured article candidate


 * Die Hard-a 1988 American action film directed by John McTiernan and written by Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza.
 * Good Article


 * Home Alone-a 1990 American Christmas family comedy film directed by Chris Columbus.
 * DYK

---
 * One Voice at Christmas-a 2016 Christmas album by the Welsh singer Aled Jones and produced by Classic FM.

-- "Christmas is not a time nor a season, but a state of mind. To cherish peace and goodwill, to be plenteous in mercy, is to have the real spirit of Christmas!" -Calvin Coolidge -- --- Discuss this newsletter

Questions

Unsubscribe (WikiProject Holidays)

Unsubscribe (WikiProject Christianity) --- Sent by (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Holidays, WikiProject Christianity and their related projects. © Copyleft 2020 Wikiproject Holidays

WikiProject Christianity

Christmas task force

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

White hat
Hi Elizium23,

Your support was very, very important to me. Now I feel so good, just happy :-) Thank you so much. Marry Christmas :-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! My edits to the a cappella page were erased for it being 'promotional material', but I am not part of, never have been part of, or am in any way related to an a cappella group, so I was wondering what happened? This was my first time making an edit, so maybe my language wasn't as neutral as it could have been, but it was not my intent to seem as though I was promoting anything. ChironGrey (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your feedback; It was very helpful! In regards to the external link, there was no Wikipedia page for the group so I wasn't sure what to do and so linked their website, which was down to my lack of understanding on how this site works, not a promotion - although I can see that this very much would not be clear. In regards to the second point - thank you for letting me know about this, do you know if a professional vocal coaches analysis would be a reliable secondary sourse? Thank you for taking the time to inform me about this (it's all very new to me). ChironGrey (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, and yes that helps, thank you. I'll look into that and see if I can find anything reliably published. ChironGrey (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Canging my edits
I have now added citations on the Little Satan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranazad (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits on "slurs"
Seeing as I can not reply on my talk page I have come to yours. Nigger is used in a negative context majority of the time by both black and white communities so it is not comparable. Negro would be a better example, a name chosen as the preferred reference by the people it represents but it has fallen out of fashion in more modern times whereas Yid is still current, was chosen as the preferred designation by the people it represents (in this context) and is used in a negative way by a very small minority in a very small area in a very small field. Sionso (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , please provide reliable secondary sources to prove this. I have shown you four. Elizium23 (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I read the reliable secondary sources page and it doesn't cover the articles you linked... Sionso (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey
The source uses the word "luxurious baths", I think I should add then "" between the word luxurious, this not my own commentary or my own personal analysis .Eliko007 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the note. Eliko007 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Zara Kay "defamation" accusation
Hello, there's nothing defamatory about what I wrote. You don't have the authority to ban me from editing based on a pointless accusation. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwalchmai100 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ava Max
The warning you issued for Edit Warring is incorrect. I reverted the page to include sourced content after the other user reverted my edit. I see that you have reverted my edits, which were sourced - and reverted back to the unsourced version of the content regarding the DOB of the user. Could you please provide a source for the DOB, as I had done? There is an exemption for edit warring under for unsourced content in BLPs. An archived myspace account is not a valid source. Thank you. ~RAM (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

List of canonically crowned images
I just dropped a rangeblock on that California IP. I'm wondering if that article should be protected--but there's a bunch more articles that they work on. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , could it be our old friend, ? Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Why?
Tagging someone's page is against policy! Matt Campbell (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well i went Here, just like you said. Matt Campbell (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Canadian rapists
Could you provide the official list of Canadian rapists, please? I could not find any such list with Storheim in it. Also, could I ask you do not restore dead and empty links and BLP issues without an official confirmation provided? Please, provide working links only and official sources regarding BLP. Thank you. OrthodoxLuna (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)OrthodoxLuna

Saint Peter
Elizium, Happy new year, and God bless you. Wikipedia is not "a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raimundo P B Henriques (talk • contribs) 11:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Raimundo P B Henriques, almost anyone, yes, and you did! But your additions were not submitted with reliable secondary sources, as Elizium and indicated. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Need two additional eyes
Hi, thanks for the report regarding P. B. Kipland – can you keep an eye on the situation and add a short message on my talk page if my warning didn't help? I have a feeling there's an edit upcoming that needs attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken Elizium23 (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OpenMoji-color_1F644.svg
 * Thanks a lot. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
Do STOP this childish edit-warring. As I have explained to you multiple times, what I am doing is consistent with the pages as set up. If you wish to reject these edits, either delete ALL the other similar edits on the page or add the references yourself. To do the former would clearly be an act of vandalism - and the corollary of that is blindingly obvious. Rcb1 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)rcb1
 * , you are an editor of 13 years. We are asking you to comply with a fundamental policy. Your abusive and dismissive and combative responses are not helping your case. I will continue reverting edits that do not comply with policy, and then it will be off to WP:ANI for a referendum. Elizium23 (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of your high-handed attitude, to the point that I am considering giving up on Wikipedia. When you talk about "we", you mean "I", for no one else is asking me to change what I am doing. Nor would they because, as you have made no attempt to deny, my edits are consistent with the way that the pages are formatted, irrespective of the seeming obsession with "policy" you mention.

I am going to stop adding births, however valid the edits clearly are, as I cannot summon the will to persist with this fatuous debate with you every time I make an edit.

I cannot begin to understand why you have chosen to delete just my edits and not the many hundreds of essentially other identical edits, unless you are pursuing a personal vendetta. I wish to have no further contact with you and I will make no further response to you messages. Now leave me alone! ````rcb1 Rcb1 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)rcb1

Please have alook
Hello! Could you have a look at the page Spiritus Domini I recently created? Thanks. Veverve (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Harassing "warning"
I'm not in a mood for that nonsense. Don't. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Misusing the disruptive editing warning template
That was a misuse of a disruptive editing template as I was editing in good faith. Of course I'm not going to like receiving unnecessary warnings in minor addition to list pages. I would have like if you personally contacted me instead of reverting. Usually if person's death or birth is cited on their individual article, You don't have to cite their death, especially if it is a person who died over 30 years ago. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I will continue to revert and warn you, but the next step will be WP:ANI if you don't feel like citing your sources properly. Elizium23 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Elizium23, But you reverting me when I put one of many sources in my edit summary is abusing reverting. And when use that policy WP:ONUS that is generally referring to citing on the biographical article itself as the sourced information is presented there, see Frank Church where sources are already presented. Disruptive Editing from the policy is defined as :"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." My edit was improving the article. Us wikipedians are generally supposed to talk to one another about issues than revert and argue as that is disruptive editing to the project in of itself. And threatening me by saying that you will take it to ANI is a red flag, We have to stay WP:COOL to cooperate. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wilton Gregory
Your recent editing history at Wilton Daniel Gregory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. X4n6 (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page
You are advised to stay off my talk page. Especially, if all you can contribute is a ridiculous tag attempting to intimidate me with your incorrect interpretation of MOS. Seriously? Feel free to RfC my edits, but if you persist in this harassment, I suggest you prepare yourself for ANI. X4n6 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , sure dude, whatever you say, harrassment, yeah cool. Elizium23 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI RE: WILTON GREGORY
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--X4n6 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Jake Angeli
I really didn't want to touch that article because it's such a hot issue for some people, but your removal of sources "per talk" when there was no consensus or even anyone else agreeing with your view, was too much for me. Now that I'm involved, let's try to work together to make sure that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are applied the same way there as they are everywhere else. Mo Billings (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Elizium23 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need to seek some WP:DR, such as the RSN or a 3O. Elizium23 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no need for that. We just disagree about what the policies say. I think we can work it out on the talk page. I'm sure other editors will offer opinions and we can all talk it out. Mo Billings (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Endymiona19...
...Just did a sixth edit-war on Catholic Church and abortion and is also edit warring on Religion and abortion. David notMD (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you can report her to WP:3RRN Elizium23 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I will. David notMD (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"per talk"
When I see someone write "per talk" in an edit summary, I assume what that means is that there was a discussion on the talk page and the edit represents the consensus. Twice now I have seen you use "per talk" in edit summaries when there was no consensus. In the case of your edit to Siegfried & Roy, no one had even replied to your comment on the talk page. That doesn't seem like a very collaborative way of doing things to me. Mo Billings (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , "per talk" just means that we have a long explanation for the edit and the edit summary is not sufficient to explain it. Rather than cram a rationale into the summary, we refer to the talk page where discussion or at least a comment has described the action in detail. Elizium23 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's what you mean, I suggest you say "see talk" not "per talk" and link to the talk page discussion. But really, you should be waiting for consensus to make changes being discussed. Mo Billings (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? I waited over 48 hours. I considered it an uncontroversial change. I followed WP:BRD. Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't follow WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted, and then there's a talk page discussion to reach consensus. You didn't do that. You just reverted me. Your edit comment was "I don't wait for consensus when I see something against policy, I change it". I don't see anything against policy, but you can enlighten me on the talk page if I have missed it. Mo Billings (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is your problem with me, precisely? How come we've never met and now I'm seeing you on disparate articles? Why don't you just wait for other people to chime in? You've been told how this works on Talk:Jake Angeli but you keep misquoting policy (after falsely accusing me of doing so) so I'd appreciate it if you could use a little more care around here. Elizium23 (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you used a little more care around here, especially in seeking consensus with other editors. Mo Billings (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert over on Abortion in the United States.
It made all the difference in the world for me. I had had a sorry encounter some weeks ago with Binksternet on the Black Lives Matter talk page, which I had moved on from. On the Abortion in the United States page today it became apparent to me that he had not moved on and was following me around looking for an opportunity for a little more harassment. See it on my talk page. I was feeling crappy over the need to defend against that guy again. I was about to revert him myself while asking if someone other than him could review my edits instead. But, I saw you got to it first. It lifted my spirits tremendously. So, thanks! 142.105.159.178 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic presidents of the United States has been nominated for deletion
Category:Roman Catholic presidents of the United States has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Spam links
Why have you removed all of my edits? These are NOT SPAM. Please take the time to look at the website I am linking to. I stumbled across the website a while ago and think what they are doing for artists is great. They are OFFICIAL music credits. Other links which remain on artist pages have not been removed and they share similar data, however, the data is not verified. I also found news articles on their site of which I referenced and again, you removed! --MusicFan81 (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of edit in European colonization of the Americas
Could you explain why you reverted my edit in this page? The information you added back is laughably incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.254.35 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was sourced, and looked like common vandalism. I was wrong, I'm sorry. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thanks for the reply! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.254.35 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)