User talk:Elizium23/Archive 2

Thanks :)
Hey, Just wanted to say Thanks for helping resolve the issue over the "Jessie" article.

I simply did not understand where that guy was coming from in the fact that, that particular video was unreliable, since it came from the stars own mouth. Oh well. I don't know. Anyway, thanks for that anyway, much appriciated! :D XDebby (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Why did you accuse me of not reading the discussion? I agreed with you that the self-published sources should not be used. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry that you feel I accused you. But the comment you removed was exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. I know I am right that the sources shouldn't be used. It's just that I feel rather alone in that pointless discussion on Talk:The Dating Guy and I was trying to gather some backup against those guys. I ended up posting to three different notice boards. Retracting my rude comment now. Elizium23 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Hogwarts staff. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ''The edit you reverted was completely and entirely good faith. At worst, it was a test edit. You very bluntly called it vandalism, which it was not. Vandalism, by definition, is in bad faith, and this edit was in good faith. I agree with the revision, but Twinkle has a button you can use to revert a good faith edit rather than violating Wikipedia policy and calling it vandalism.'' Nat682 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you doing, hitting me with a third-level warning? And a bogus one, at that. As you can see from this editor's contributions, he was on a four-article vandalism spree. He was clearly acting in bad faith, the contents of the one edit at Hogwarts staff notwithstanding. In fact, I guarantee that he knew it was wrong, because at 00:27, I placed a warning template on his User Talk page for vandalism on Severus Snape. Seven minutes later, having seen the warning, he edited Hogwarts staff in bad faith. Please retract your warning. Elizium23 (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Similar articles
Hi i have discussed it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Rosoft

the article will be made more encyclopedic as it goes along thanks. UrduChat (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * List of German expressions in English is encyclopedic because it is about expressions, not individual words. List of English words of French origin is similar to your article and in fact it is slated for transfer to Wiktionary, but apparently it has too many revisions to undergo the automatic process. As for your article, List of Urdu words and their origin, please leave the dictdef template in place. You should not remove maintenance templates placed in good faith by other editors. You need to add encyclopedic value now, not later, for this article to be included in the English Wikipedia. I suggest reading articles such as List of French words of Germanic origin and Arabic influence on the Spanish language for examples of good encyclopedic articles on words. Elizium23 (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Variants
I meant British (Commonwealth) and American English. I suggested the change on the talk page. 31.96.113.39 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to your message
Hi Elizium23, I have replied to your message in My Talk.

Would you please review the article for me? Thanks GordonD (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your fast reply and the edits. Can you Accept the article and I will continue to add to it as I obtain new information. I am in the process of checking copyright on an aerial postcard photo of the school from 1960 and I intend to add that to the article. Thanks. GordonD (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
avs5221(t&#124;c) 13:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Lizzie McGuire. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia

Silvershrek
Oh yeah? All I did was ask "are you deaf?" HOW does that constitute,as you put it.."attacking someone?" IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED previously,that the "full given names of the characters are trivial!" Yet,I undo that twice,and I GET YELLED AT BY ANOTHER ADMIN WITH A NAPOLEON COMPLEX,because I ask a question,and someone whines about it to an admin,like a baby,rather than discuss the matter with me directly! Silvershrek (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Silvershrek

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Emma Watson
RE: changing spelling from one version of international English to another, I'm sorry. I had never seen "instalment" before and wasn't aware it was British English, and my computer printed a red squiggly line under it on the edit page, which lead me to believe it was really misspelled. Sorry. :) -Mike Payne (T &bull; C) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Vow of obedience
You took me by surprise on this one with your comment-what about the obedience a diocesan priest owes to his bishop? And I was under the impression that all Latin-rite priests took simple vows of chastity?Lyricmac (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Diocesan priests do not make vows, they make promises. Promises of obedience and celibacy. Elizium23 (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Collective salvation AFD
Would you consider changing your opinion at Articles for deletion/Collective salvation? The article has been completely rewritten and the AFD nominator has withdrawn his nomination. Most of the editors who !voted on this AFD think the article topic is encyclopedic and that the problem was the POV pushing anti-liberation theology focus of the original version. If you change your vote, it will be easier to get an admin to close this AFD as a "speedy keep". (see here)--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done so. Thanks for reminding me. Elizium23 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Corapi
If you want to believe what this man claims, that's fine. Please use reliable, neutral third party sources when sourcing your article. Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please adhere to a neutral point of view in your edits and summaries. Let me remind you that nobody owns articles on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, pot, the kettle called...I'm kidding. Just remember that NPOV goes both ways.  I understand what you mean, especially on the last part about the priesthood.  However, Corapi has not "announced intentions", he's flat-out saying that he resigned.  See if you can tidy that up, maybe adding a clarification that he "can't resign" as a priest is ordained for life.  It's kind of like people married in the church who get divorced and remarry.  Church says they can't but they do it anyway.  Should we edit check all wiki articles on those who were married in the church and were divorced civilly and now remarried by adding, "but in the eyes of the Church they are still married to..."?   See what I mean?  I'm not trying to browbeat you and I'll work with you on this, I just want it to be accurate.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Soy sauce
Your message at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:61.23.51.246&redirect=no appears bizarre. I will deal with it step by step.

1) I did not "remove content", I corrected incorrect content. This product is not, and has never been, called "Soya sauce". I asked you to post a picture of it being called such from any supermarket or restaurant, and you have not.

2) Please refrain from using the word "vandalise" except in cases of vandalism, which this is not. If you like, I could actually vandalise this page to show you the difference? I'll refrain for now, though.

3) I lol'd at "anti-British POV". PROTIP: before accusing someone of having an "anti-British POV", it would behoove you to check that they are not British first. You didn't, I am, and now you look silly. I don't have an "anti-British POV", I have an anti-incorrectness POV.

Now, show me a picture of a bottle (any bottle, from any maker, I'm not picky) of soy sauce labelled "soya sauce" (no reverting to Photoshop though!) and I'll be happy to put the reference back in. Until then, it stays out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.23.51.246 (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me Google that for you. Soya sauce Soya sauce Soya sauce Elizium23 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Soya sauce Soya sauce Soya sauce Soya sauce Elizium23 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Disney Role Call
-- Groovy Sandwich  00:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Manual of style
I can understand this revert - though it was not against wikipedia rules - but this comment goes to far (typical for inexperienced users). Here you can find beautiful example of n-dashes with spaces around. This style you can find in numerous featured articles (for instance Angkor Wat). There is no consensus in that case and look to the printed books. You should learn more about wikipedia rules, especially about the fifth pillar. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have used an edit summary to explain your intent and I would have been less likely to mistake your edit for incompetence. Elizium23 (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. Let us forget about this. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Permission
I can obtain that email for you that was sent from the director to me... Is that what you want? I can have him send an email to wikipedia but please include the address. Thanks.

The Defender of Orthodoxy


 * P.S.: I was interested in being a member of the Eastern Orthodox project section of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Defender of Orthodoxy (talk • contribs) 0:12, 8 August 2011


 * No, I am an ordinary editor and I have no power to verify copyright assignments. The people that need to be contacted are at permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Read the article I linked to you and it will explain it. They need to receive an email from the copyright holder, the web site owner. Merely posting on your talk page or offering to forward an email that you got isn't considered proof.
 * To add yourself to the EO WikiProject, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, find the "Participants" box, click "edit" and add yourself in a similar manner at the end of the list. It is very helpful if you watchlist the same page, because people often post items of interest to the associated discussion page. Elizium23 (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Holy Spirit in Christianity
Hello Elizium23,

I’m wondered if you can carefully reconsider removal of “Holy Spirit according to Apostle Paul” post. First of all, every denomination of Christianity adheres to their own interpretation of the Scripture, “combining published sources (e.g. Bible) in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say”. This does not prevent them from publishing their denominational views based on “our group believes” ground, rather than on the only reliable Source.

Please note that the section, you censored in, is called “Holy Spirit in Christianity”, not “Holy Spirit in Catholics”; elementary tolerance and common sense would prevent me from editing or posting in the denomination category which is not my own. Second, the article, you deleted, does actually describe views of Apostle Paul as he was taught directly by the Holy Spirit and fellow Apostles. There is sufficient evidence in the Bible that Holy Spirit enters inside of a person (when the person is ready). There is sufficient explanation, what makes the person ready to receive the Holy Spirit... what can cause the person to lose this gift of God.

Therefore, I advice you repent and revert removal of the article. Would you still consider it unacceptable, please indicate exactly where and what portion(s) you are ready to argue about (even perhaps outside of wikipedia).

It is written that in the later days “all things shall be restored” (as it has been in the beginning).

God bless,

Itiswritten98 (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Carly Foulkes image
Did you read the text of the article and how she is associated with pink and white summer dresses?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm reverting edit!24.168.121.43 (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NFCC item 10c. Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. FUR added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Saviour Machine
I just removed the tag. I agree with your comments on the talk page considering Legend III:II. We should wait to add anything until we know more about the situation. Thanks for the heads-up. Friginator (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Emma Stone
Hi :) ! I saw you removed my edit saying "stale gossip" well it's not only gossip, it's a fact. Look here there are recent pictures http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2030440/Emma-Stone-Andrew-Garfield-enjoy-romantic-evening-Jim-Carrey-message.html?ito=feeds-newsxml. This website and US Magazine may not be the best reliable sources but what they say appears to be true. Are looking for a real statement from them or for a better website? I'd say for a lot of people's love life here on Wikipedia the sources mentioned aren't based on their own statements. Or do you think this kind of information should never appear in one's page? Sofffie7 (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not information relevant to her career as an actress, and Stone is a person who dates several people in a year. If we undertook the task of reporting every time Emma Stone was found dating someone new, her 'Personal Life' biography would grow in disproportion to her noteworthy career. Other editors have removed reports from her love life before, and if you are really interested in introducing this kind of thing to the article, it is best starting the discussion at Talk:Emma Stone. Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning The Dating Guy Sources
You recently reversed my edit on The Dating Guy's page about Controversy. Citing that forums were not an acceptable source. However, the Policy does read: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Since Sohmer, the alleging party, primarily communicates through RSS feeds and his own forum site, this is the only access he have directly to him via mass media. I would respectfully wish you to consider this distinction and reposting the topic. If there are any other issues with it, please let me know so we can work something out. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZetsuXIII (talk • contribs) 11:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Least I Could Do. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why I am seeking dispute resolution rather than disrupt those articles further. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Elizium23, your behavior regarding Least I Could Do and The Dating Guy has been unacceptable and a complaint has now been filed against you at WP:ANI for violations of WP:BITE, WP:BEAR, WP:CANVAS, deliberately filing false allegations of vandalism at WP:AIV, tendentious editing, and inappropriate refusal to behave in a collegial manner in talkpage discussions. HAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.109.127.141 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that! By the way, you may want to post in the correct place for the proper attention. Elizium23 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It gives me no pleasure to do this but your tendentious behavior, including Wikihounding behavior, has to cease. Please do not take the situation lightly. You would do well to apologize to the users at Talk: The Dating Guy as well as to user KSEVWatch for your untoward and trollish behavior and take a step back from the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.109.127.141 (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with the previous editor. I find your false accusations on my talk page to be self-serving harrassment. Please stay off my talk page. Agent 86 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also noted that your edit summary on my talk page solely consists of the statement, "WP:OUTING". I have no idea where you got the idea that I posted any editor's personal information. Given that I know nothing about you other than your user name, it is quite impossible to post your personal info. I consider this another false accussation. Agent 86 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those edits were to remove FaheyUSMC's attempt to post personal information about me. As you can see, they have been removed by administrators who supported me in the dispute. I did not remove any of your comments, nor did I intend to accuse you in this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then please be more clear in your edit summaries; moreover, the "warning" posted by you remains unwarranted, as I complied with policy as set out on the article's talk page. Agent 86 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

semi-protection
In the context of this nonsense, your talk page has already been vandalized. I've semi-protected this page. Please let me know if you'd like this reversed. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

vaheen
Hi, I sorry I do no understand your report comment? I think vaheen is beautiful and better then rat? no? thank you for time and place revert to back to vaheen DB9 (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Barcelona
Thanks Elizium for incorrectly identifying me as the 'culprit' in changes to this site. I may or may not be the person you are thinking of who made alterations to the Barcelona site which—thanks to people like you—sounds more like a badly-written tourist brochure than the city I know so well. Obviously Barcelona's city council has a vested interest in muffling any information on the urbe's serious pollution problems. It just seems a pity you are willing to play along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.62.175.35 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The disadvantage of distributed discussion...
... sometimes important points can be made in places where they are less likely to be seen, and therefore attention must be drawn to them.

An even bigger disadvantage is that sometimes, important parts of the discussion can get deleted. DS (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At this juncture, I politely ask that you resume participating in the discussion at talk:Least I Could Do. Thank you. DS (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much more I can say after meticulously outlining all policy-related arguments against this crap, but I will gladly maintain a conversation there about it for as long as my opponents remain WP:CIVIL... Elizium23 (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette
While I understand you wanting to be sure on "American Christians" part, but she is a member of a United Methodist Church, which is a form of American Christianity. So, I think that is safe to be readded. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know full well that she is Christian, but usually before a category is added, the fact must at least be supported in the article, and preferably with a reliable source to back it up, and I saw neither. Elizium23 (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I obviously didn't read the article well enough, because right there it says that she is a member of the Methodist Church, with a source. Sorry! Elizium23 (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) I have done the same thing before. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Emma Watson
Can you give me a pointer to the statement she made on her website about the worms? :)   Seriously, I thought that was a very nice explanation you gave.  Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * She didn't say any such thing, I just picked her at random for the example... Elizium23 (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

LICD
Please note that I have modified the article such that everyone should be satisfied. Let's move on and do something more productive now. DS (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly welcome the chance to move on. Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the message you sent me
Hello.

Thanks for the message, but is it possible to get some clarification? I don't understand what I did wrong or how I used different styles? I simply added the spouse and children and family of Draco Malfoy like the page of Harry Potter for example. Why exactly was it removed? What were the different "styles" that I used?

Thanks, Letsgetglam (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. I had assumed there was previous discussion of it, but there's not, so I opened a new thread at Talk:Draco_Malfoy. Let's go there and figure it out. Elizium23 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you missed this
Please see here. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ownership/Stewardship
Thank you for retracting the addition to my talk page. As I'm sure you know, there is a difference between ownership and stewardship (WP:OAS). Someone keeping an watchful eye on non-contructive edits of stable articles is not "taking ownership." As the Bewitched television show has been very popular these past 50 years, there are many people who may want to put in their 2 cents and perspective on the article, but not necessarily many people with something constructive to add to it.


 * "Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership.."

Sorry if it seems like I'm beating a dead horse, but I have been inappropriately accused of taking "ownership" of the article before and want to clarify my perspective on the matter. Njsustain (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Drmies/Roman Catholic?
Good point: the two articles you added are recent favorites. One wonders what the connection is, or how that editor selects the articles to target. They certainly don't go for the big ones. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a mystery to me. Sometimes I wonder how the other guys find him so often. I probably have less than 1% of WikiProject Catholicism watchlisted. Elizium23 (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken has some sort of radar, methinks. I'm inquiring into a filter that might block some of it; maybe that will cut down on it a bit. Thanks for your help! (And they can be blocked on sight, as far as I'm concerned: if I'm not around, a quick note at ANI might work as fast as AIV.) Drmies (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter
Are you from England? VegetaSaiyan (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Re. Underline The Sky
I'm in the band please read the page before you assume vandalism. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.38.57 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to believe you if a single reliable source backed up your claims. As it is, your "official web site" does not exist, the old official site says nothing about a name change, and the category of "Plywood" was just ridiculous. You have a Conflict of Interest on this article, please do not edit it. Elizium23 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Raven Symone
Hello Elizium, Thank YOu for replying. If {helpme} isn't for use on article pages, what do I use? 2nd, the film history isi still messed up. One chart is within another chart. Thanks! 173.79.75.65 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The filmography tables look fine to me. Perhaps you need to clear your cache and reload. Try shift-control-R to reload the page fresh. Instead of helpme you should just put a note on the article's talk page. In this case, that is Talk:Raven-Symoné. At the top click "New section", write in a subject for the section name, and put your message there. If the article is semi-protected or fully protected so that you can't edit it, you can use the formal edit semi-protected or edit protected template to make a request. Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review for Antoni Gaudí
I've completed the GA review for the Antoni Gaudí article. It's on hold pending changes. There's a fair bit of polishing I can help with, and I've sent a request out for a copy edit to help with polishing the prose (looks great over all, but some of the translation could be smoother). But your help would be appreciated, especially in inserting references where none are provided. I think by the time we're done with this process, it will be ready for an FA review and hopefully front page coverage as Today's Featured Article. Thanks for your hard work in getting this level-4 vital article looking so good. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I will do what I can. Elizium23 (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaudi
Elizium - it looks like we're editing this article simultaneously right now. I have archived all the urls and got the "edit conflict" message when I tried to save it. So please don't do the url archiving part. When you're done with updating the harvard ref formatting, I'll come in and add the new url info. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will drop you a message when it's ready. Elizium23 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message on my talk page. I didn't intend to cut all of that dialogue out of the talk page - I don't know how it happened, but my computer keyboard has been dying the past week so it must have been a slipped key somewhere that selected and deleted all that text. If there's a way to recover it, we should try. Do you want to give it a shot? Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Leo XIII - my edits
First of all, that was an obsolete tag which has not been of any use for a considerable time, and second, I also corrected a bit of text. It, therefore, was a completely normal edit. I would ask you not to react to normal edits the way you did. It could be considered inappropriate and arrogant and as if you had nothing better to do on the Wikipedia than complain about other people's edits. --Krawunsel (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you determined it was "obsolete". An editor has requested verifiability of an asserted fact in an article. These requests do not expire, as far as I am aware, unless you can point me to the policy which governs that. The normal thing to do with a challenged assertion that is this old, without a citation provided, would be to challenge and remove it from the article. Instead, you claim to correct it - how do you know the facts in this matter? Have you read a news article which reported the facts? Perhaps you would be so kind as to actually provide the citation requested in that case. Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not kidding
I am serious pal, I watched the episode that Zatanna appeared in and she is voiced by Lacey Chabert. Didn't you watch it?96.240.94.62 (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, can you find a reliable source for it? I can't see anything in Google. Was she credited in the episode? Elizium23 (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Lhb1239 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

invitation
--nijil (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

UBUNTU OPERATING SYSTEM
You can't be serious. You could accuse me of vandalism, but you'd be lying to yourself and others. If you have a problem with what I write, please address the writing. Otherwise people might misinterpret your accusations as bullying. There are no shortcuts in life. It's users like you that make me hate wikipedia! And I mean that in the nicest possible way. AwesomeMachine (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:TPO. It is considered impolite to edit others' talk page comments, even for grammar and spelling. I know you were well-intentioned in changing just one letter, but it's not acceptable. Elizium23 (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Barcelona
I'm editing the content of Barcelona very well.Since this article was created I ever edited the content qualit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnau Poveda Mira (talk • contribs) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not doing a disruptive editing. I only edit very well Barcelona. I edit in other languages this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnau Poveda Mira (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editor
The IP editor is not blocked for being a sockpuppet of a blocked user. He might still be misbehaving. Or it might be another user, I dunno. DS (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re copyright
I appreciate you responding however:

You cut out the other 95% of the article, which is emphatically /not/ taken from any of the sources you cite. Since all of the sources you cite have the same copy, you should have checked whether this was released as on authorized blurb by the PR team. If that's not acceptable, then, yes, a copyright violation has occured: for 3 sentences, not the whole article!

You didn't edit the talk page at all to show what and why you've changed (since effectively blanking an article deserves that, at least), and you didn't justify why you didn't remove the intro text-by your logic it too deserves a copyright check!

Your actions are heavy handed at best, but reflect poorly on commitment to quality, given that the template does not cite 2 of the 3 sources you claim are the owners.

The correct template to use is copy-paste, since it accurately refers to what's happened here: someone's lifted a paragraph from these sites, and it should be replaced.

Thegeneralguy (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Correction: use the copy-vio for just the Plot section. Replacing the entire article is imprecise and wrong. Thegeneralguy (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't cut out the other 95% of the article: using a bare copyvio template can do that, but as usual, I used  at the end of the template to enable viewing of the rest of the article. And none of the clerks at WP:Copyright problems have complained before about my template usage, so your idea is new to me. And yes, I probably should have used the talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The documentation for copy-paste implies that it should be used instead of blanking the copyrighted text. It says: If you have strong reason to believe that the source material is copyrighted, please instead follow the procedure at Copyright problems. That is where it advises to use copyvio. I probably should have just reverted/removed the offending paragraph instead, because it was a recent addition. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Lizzie McGuire
Okay. It just I try to identify which TV show should fall to the feminist catagory, that's all. Please don't block me.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You should really seek consensus and find reliable sources that support your assertions before you go adding categories to 15 articles at a time. I had to clean up ten of them and the mentions of feminism in the other five are tenuous at best. Elizium23 (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it just that I am still new at this "catagory" thing. I just created Category:Television series set in the Yuan Dynasty and Category:Television series set in the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms with no apparent problems, so I guess I got carry away.  Plus, I am a fan of feminist fiction, either movies or television series. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. It looks like you started small and there is possibly less scrutiny on Chinese television series than on more popular American ones. I hope your category survives deletion, because I believe it is useful, especially if you can get some with sources. Elizium23 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that there are alot of TV series around the world which has feminism theme. However, many have failed to identify it.  I only can categorize what I'm sure of but the rest would hopefully up to the users.  By the way, I assumes that you read A Weaver on the Horizon while you clean up what I've contributed.  What do you think on the summary I've wrote, is it understandable?  I ask because I typically has issues with grammer  --NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Melissa Scott

 * I did include proper sources. Here are a few examples:


 * http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4508933
 * http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/holytestament/melissa.html
 * http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/05/pastor-melissa-scott-porn-star/
 * http://mathgeneration.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/pastor-melissa-scott-i-love-this-story/
 * http://www.barbiebridgesvod.com/studio/5/Barbie-Bridges-Ent-/?ct=2059
 * http://www.glamourfantasy.com/preview/barbibridges.html
 * http://www.anorak.co.uk/209326/news/us-evengelist-melissa-scott-was-porn-star-barbie-bridges.html/
 * http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Melissa_Pastore


 * 序名三「Jyonasan」 Talk Stalk  03:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not provide those on Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor) and that is the page for which I issued a warning. Elizium23 (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * angelfire.com: user-generated content, never a reliable source. patheos.com: a blog, not a reliable source (see WP:SPS). wordpress.com: also a blog. barbiebridgesvod.com: Possibly a primary source. Not sure what it proves to include that one. glamourfantasy.com: same as barbiebridgesvod.com. anorak.co.uk: another blog. chemistrydaily.com: A Chemistry Encyclopedia is not reliable for biographical information about anyone. See my reply on Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor) to continue this conversation. Elizium23 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR
I hope you don't mind, but I've made some changes to the 3RR report you made, expanding it, but retaining essentially the same information. I've also changed the diff for the 3RR warning. The diff you included was actually a repost, by another editor, of the warning made by me earlier, after Lhb1239 had deleted the warning. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am (TV series)
Thanks very much for your work on the Pan Am article. I hate being involved in such a lengthy, repetitive talk-page thread over a minor point, and I kind of wonder if I could have done something differently at the outset of the discussion that would have defused things. In any event I was glad when you stepped in to confirm my understanding of the WP:OR policy. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's apparent from the lack of outside participation that a lot of people don't want to get involved in something so trivial and obvious. I have watchlisted the article from when I found out the show existed, because I am interested in it. So I have concentrating on improving the article and upholding Wikipedia policies throughout. I also appreciate your participation in the conversation, no matter how lengthy and repetitive it was. Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series
I stated clearly on my edit summary, and on the talk page, why what you are doing is original synthesis. Nowhere in your cites is there any mention of Harry Potter, so the connection to Harry Potter is synthesis. This content has be removed three times now. Please stop edit warring, revert your edits, and bring your case to the talk page. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would ask the same of you, for I have provided citations, many from the very same article, which support precisely the statements made in that section. Elizium23 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see that. What relevance has these statements to Harry Potter?  What reliable source connects them? Please read Wikipedia policy on original synthesis. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Catchphrases In British culture
These are probably notable quotes and not catchphrases. They were not spoken by Douglas Adams and the do not identify him. Please improve them or delete them. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫ ( talk  ) 03:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * You're welcome! Thanks for the improvements to the article. You are doing a great job. Elizium23 (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette
Hiya, I am not really understanding this revert. What I did was just take out the redirect the previous user made. My link went directly to the section. Why did you revert that? -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 17:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The main reason I reverted it is because it removed the sortname template which is essential for sortable tables such as filmographies - see WP:FILMOGRAPHY. I did not notice that it was a redirect. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN about why links to redirects do not necessarily need to be "fixed" - but in this case, it would be possible to make the link direct without removing sortname. Elizium23 (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. I actually thought the sortname template was just for sorting categories at the bottom of the page, to be honest.  Which is another reason I was confused why it was used by the previous user.  But, it's cool, we all got it worked out, the right link used, and everyone is happy. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 18:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas
History2007 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

AIV
 Tide  rolls  20:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Elizium. Please understand that I wasn't trying to put you on the spot with my question at AI/V.  I sincerely wanted your opinion on the IP's edit.  I had checked some of their previous edits and they seemed helpful.  That's one of the reasons that the "final warning" must be recent, and the warnings are suggested to be given in a specified order.  I do appreciate your efforts and hope we can count on your help with the many tasks that require attention here.  Regards  Tide  rolls  21:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand completely. Thanks for letting me know. Elizium23 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Carly Foulkes's sisters
Since you have previously gotten involved in discussions regarding Miss Foulkes, you may want to comment at Talk:Carly_Foulkes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User ~Ryan Mckenzie~
Hi, I was just curious as to why you gave the above user a final warning right off the bat for what appeared to be three good faith edits. The user has been warned before, but not in over a year. The edits may not have been great, but they were not disruptive or vandalism. We have plenty of templates that would show the errors of the edits without a threat to block. Beach drifter (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replaced it with a level 1 warning and a note in the edit summary. Sorry about that. Elizium23 (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

At32296
Wow, this is way different than WikiAnswers. I'm not too sure why I was warned for "overlinking". The other occupations were linked, so I felt that I wouldn't hurt to link the other two. Could you explain your reasoning for warning and reverting my changes? I know it is not a big deal, but I would just like to make sure I know for future reference.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by At32296 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline is at WP:OVERLINK, have a read of it. In part, it states, Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value. Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, Avoid linking plain English words. In general, you can ask yourself whether the term will be understood by casual readers not familiar with the music industry. Arguably, we don't need to link 'guitarist' either. But this is how the article has been for some time. If you feel these terms should be linked, post a note to Talk:Joan Jett and try to gain consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not too familiar with posting on other users' talk pages, so I hope I am putting this in the right section. It's not really that big of a deal to me, and I'm sure that is the case for you also. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by At32296 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Voyage of the Dawn Treader GA
Seeing as you have been a frequent contributor to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, i feel i should inform i've nominated it for GA status. RAP (talk) 18:22 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you for letting me know. Elizium23 (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI: an unusual IP
Hi, I saw that you had to revert this IP. He is not going to go away that easily. Look at his talk page. He has been blocked a few times and keeps coming back. They all geolocate to the same place and is hard to figure him out but usually non-constructive. If he shows up, can just mention him on the puppet list as in Sockpuppet_investigations/Lloydbaltazar, the initially blocked user. History2007 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I already have some of the relevant pages watchlisted and I noticed your SPI. I will keep an eye out for more. Elizium23 (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dumbledore's Army
Regarding this edit - her fate may have been sealed in the film, but in the books it is left ambiguous. That's what I'm referring to. Question - When there are divergences between book & film, which takes precedence - which do we consider to be canonical? Hm, one to ponder. a_man_alone (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry
Won't happen again. Mr. Brogers and I just recently had a very heated discussion together on a very complicated issue regarding an episode list. I thought he was following me for a minute there since he just happened to respond on that user's page as I did just a short while ago regarding their insight on the matter. - Jabrona - 04:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception of Saint John the Baptist
Well, now we have Immaculate Conception of Saint John the Baptist. Now we are getting incorrect info all over the place.... Do you want to correct it, or Afd it? History2007 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My first instinct is usually to tag the heck out of it... it is largely unreferenced. The most glaring problem to me was the claim about Orthodox belief... how did the Orthodox believe in this if they do not have the doctrine of Original Sin? Otherwise it is kind of new to me. The source provided is Catholic Encyclopedia article on the IC, and the section on John the Baptist seems to mostly deal with the feast day rather than any popular piety. Elizium23 (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is just totally untrue and not supported by the Cath encyclopedia ref. I did Articles for deletion/Immaculate Conception of Saint John the Baptist anyway. History2007 (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
This other user been harrassing me for not adding edit summaries. Simple request is enough, but if he keeps doing this, please block him out at least from my talk page.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator, just another concerned editor who happens to be watching your talk page. In the interest of peace, if you intend to keep editing these same articles, you may want to consider using edit summaries, they really do help us distinguish the constructive from the disruptive. Anyway, he will not get far with administrators since you do not appear to be editing disruptively. Nobody is reverting your edits and this indicates acceptance by consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I don't know what to do with him, he keeps harrassing me like a high school kid, and treating Wikipedia as in high school.  He really feels like he needs to grow up.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Elizium, I suggest you educate yourself a bit more thoroughly before you declare that Neobatfreak is not being disruptive. There is a long history of problems and multiple editors who have tried to get him to follow a variety of standard procedures. Many of his edits have had to be reverted in long strings, and on many pages. And I'm not a male, but a female, who left High School behind 35 years ago and who works very hard on Wikipedia, writing and copy-editing and restructuring pages, bringing some up to GA and helping with FA status articles. I am not in the habit of making frivolous complaints, nor am I impatient. If I'm making strong requests that a user shape up, it's because that user really is causing problems. I appreciate your desire to help, and starting with encouraging this user to follow the most elementary procedures would be a good place to start. Thank you.--TEHodson 20:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am following WP:AGF. Elizium23 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you make ample use of warnings to this user if his edits are so objectionable. It is the policy of Wikipedia administrators to require adequate warnings before a block can be issued. It would be a better use of your time to issue warnings about actionable offenses when you see them, rather than to complain about something that is not actionable. The use of Twinkle or Huggle is recommended for ease of use. Note that the template message for edit summaries Uw-editsummary is classified as a "notification" rather than a warning. Elizium23 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I and others have indeed made ample use of warnings, requests, outright begging, all to no avail. It's very seldom actionable behavior that drives content editors crazy--it's the exhaustion created by having to undo or re-do things by "editors" who don't know what the word means. In this case there is abundant energy and enthusiasm coupled with both the steadfast refusal to follow even the most basic, recognized-as-important procedures and either oblivion to consequences, or disinterest in them. Some of us work very hard here and get really tired of wasting time cleaning up messes or trying to interpret or disentangle other people's half-baked attempts at editing (not to mention the common persecution complex they develop when corrected). It is a systemic problem here, and one which drives away many good editors. Mostly I am patient. Today, I was not. --TEHodson 23:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Xkcd edit
Elizium23, the edit I made to the xkcd article is evidently true by inspection. Erase it or don't.

You rules lawyers have basically destroyed Wikipedia as a collaborative effort. I have edited articles within my area of expertise to find them reverted because my edits "changed the meaning of the original." Yes they did: the original was wrong.

I'm waiting for some bright boy to start demanding citations to prove that citations exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.98.229 (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II
Hi Elizium, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in doing a peer review, or if you had any comments? -- Marek. 69  talk  16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church
It says in the article that Richard Williamson is a Holocaust denier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.41.192 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does not. Elizium23 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Williamson was found guilty of Holocaust denial in Germany in 2010 and fined about $14,000. He has previously denied the existence of gas chambers and the murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.

I put an article that says this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.41.192 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because it can be sourced doesn't mean it belongs in every article. It gives the impression that the Holocaust denial contributed to the excommunication, which isn't the case. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * People need to know it about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.41.192 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * His article is linked, so people concerned may click the link and follow it to read about the controversy. Nothing is hidden in his article. But nowhere does it say that he himself is a "denier". Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Pretty much. (Well, it does say that he's a Holocaust denier, but.) There are lots of things that could be said about him, but if they can't be connected, through sources, to the excommunication, they don't belong on that page. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does not. It comments on his actions and says he has denied various things, but it does not label him "Holocaust denier". It does label some other people as such. Elizium23 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP's source said he was convicted of Holocaust denial, so I assumed the article said it as well. That'll teach me to skim! He was convicted of it but it's not in the article! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No wait, it is, but not in the section I was looking at. *fail* –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, the article says he was convicted of "incitement" but the cited source makes it clear that the conviction was for Holocaust denial. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)