User talk:Elizium23/Archive 4

A guess
A guess is but a guess .... A smile but a sigh... History2007 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude or dudette that organizes this page
You r aweosme!!! Rock yuyou make the world terrific, just saying... Farfaraway269269 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA Enrollment
Hey, ! There's an unfilled student application for the CVUA and I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking them on as your student - thanks in advance! Theo polisme  :) 11:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like he was taken just after you posted that. Better luck next time. Elizium23 (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Albertus Magnus
Please explain why you reverted my edit. It is always incorrect to use Death date and related templates for dates that are not in the Gregorian calendar. If there was some other problem with my edit, please explain. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Upon closer examination, I see that I wrote the month incorrectly; I fixed it.

Silent No More Awareness
Hi - I'm fairly new here and I was wondering why you marked Silent No More as violating copyright information? I believe you cited two links as being under copyright infringement - I was just listing those as references as they both mention Silent No More, I didn't copy or copy/paste anything from these articles, so I'm a little confused. I was getting some help initially when the article was first submitted, at first they declined it and had me rewrite it from a more neutral point of view and they gave me more articles to use as references. Any help would be great! I'm just trying to understand why this is being flagged. Cath 220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't know what happened there. I must have done it for some reason but there is no obvious copyright infringement on that article as it stands now. I have removed the copyvio warning. Elizium23 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I know you're just trying to do your job, I was just confused!! Thanks again! :)(talk) (Cath 220 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

September 2012
Hello. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Jennifer Love Hewitt. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to say......
Thank you for joining WikiProject Catalonia -Willrocks10 (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Elizium23 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Up for a student?
See this thread - up for the challenge? Cheers! Theo polisme  16:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:
Hi, Elizium. I was already convinced and was looking for the user to offer some reason for action to be delayed. They did not, so action was taken. I completely understand your position; I've been there many times. Stale disruption brought to light by shiney, fresh unconstructive edits. To me, the edits were not in the realm of the explainable. I could be wrong...that's the beauty of the unblock template. Thanks for all your help,  Tide  rolls  02:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you, Elzium23 for helping me with that Bonnie Wright edit. I have a question though, how do you post a picture up on an article?

Haleemah Shah (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC) 
 * You need to own the copyright to the image. Then you license it under a Creative Commons license such as CC-BY-SA, or Public Domain. You cannot just grab an image from the net and use it on Wikipedia. This is considered a copyright violation, and it is serious legal business. Please stop. Elizium23 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Elizium, many thanks for bringing the Christ article move to everyone's attention. I replied and seconded History2007 at Requests for page protection - a quicker way of restoring this move. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Admin Nyttend reversed it, you can close the move by copying the
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. down to the end. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson
Um, seriously I did nothing wrong. No need for a warning please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.68.211 (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What source says that her sister is older? Another editor says she is a twin sister. The sources in the article say neither. Elizium23 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's source that proves her sister is older, in a article that was written back in November 2010 it says, "Kelly Clarkson celebrated her sister Alyssa’s 35th birthday in a large group at Moon in the Palms." Kelly (who was born in 1982) was 28 back in November 2010 and Kelly just turned 30 back in April. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/nov/15/strip-scribbles-jessica-lowndes-celebrates-her-22n/
 * Honestly, I am not one to write down false information like some people so if it wasn't true I wouldn't have wrote it. Please can you get rid of my warning. That's all I ask. Have a great day :)174.111.68.211  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.68.211 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added the source and I will remove the warning, but next time, please include the source as an inline reference - see WP:Citing sources. The burden of proof and providing citations is on the person who adds the material. Elizium23 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) ~174.111.68.211|174.111.68.211

Scarlett Johansson
My apologies for removing a category without writing an edit summary to inform other you and other editors. I removed that category (Category:American people of Danish descent) because I noticed that "Category:American musicians of Danish descent" is clearly a parent category of "Category:American people of Danish descent". Its unnecessary to have a child category when a parent category already designates it. Magellan Maestro (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I have retracted my warning with apologies. Elizium23 (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

CVUA
Hi. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved with Counter-Vandalism, and may  still  be. The Academy project has been restructured, placing responsibility for it on the trainers themselves and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is still interested in remaining as active trainers.

In future, there will be no clerking or coordination, so If you are still active and can respond to requests from  students within around 48 hours, you need do nothing until a new student contacts you on your talk page. Nevertheless, if your status changes, please update your entry on the table of active trainers at the new  WP:CVUA page. If you no longer have sufficient time to commit to the CV training project, that's fine, but please remove your name from the active list. While on your travels however, should you come across users who are having a hard time with their reverts, don't hesitate to send them a link to the CVUA. Thanks, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, and you're welcome! Elizium23 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

American citizen
She's an American citizen. Plus, she's acting on American television. It's American soft power all the way. Not spam at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude the druid
I noticed that you informed this "idiot" that he was risking being blocked. I think that people who write such terms as this one did onto the St Christopher article should be automatically blocked-end of story. To write such a derogotory term should incur an immediate expulsion. Many thanks Markdarrly (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree; I gave him a third-level warning right away because those were his first and only edits with that account. I suspect it to be a vandalism-only account, and I would go directly to AIV if I found him making any other unconstructive edits. Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox kids
Thanks, man! I've let Lady Lotus know as well! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Elizium23 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman
You ruled that they were UN, however the changes I made were not. Instead of Grace of Monaco redirecting toGrace Kelly page, it now goes to Grace of Monaco the film. Please check before you undo things.

-Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The link you gave was for the incorrect name and the article did not stay there. The article is currently at Grace of Monaco (film) but there is some question as to whether it should be moved again. Please do not update the link until the article has a stable name. Elizium23 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, you clearly have it in for me. Nice one, Sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

International Talk Like a Pirate Day
Hi Elizium23. You are currently engaged in an edit war at International Talk Like a Pirate Day, for which you have requested full protection of the page. Since there are only two of you involved in this edit war, I'd prefer to avoid locking the page down in favour of getting you to discuss the issue on the talkpage. Please don't continue to revert the IP editor until a consensus has been achieved there. Thanks, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Eastern Catholic" is not a denomination
Please see my comment under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Christianity#.22Eastern_Catholic.22_is_not_a_denomination. I thank you, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Jacqueline Wheldon
Hello Elizium23 I recently tried to add my mother's name to the list of people with bi polar disorder, and gave my own unpublished MA thesis as the source. You have removed this citation, presumably because the thesis is unpublished. It is however available to scholars and on the shelves of the library at the University of Buckingham. So far as I know, there is no other source for this information. My mother died in 1993. She has a wikipedia entry which mentions her condition. Is it possible to use that as an appropriate reference? All help gratefully received Wynn Wheldon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.4.61 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, please read WP:Identifying reliable sources for help on what kinds of sources Wikipedia will accept. We require that sources be verifiable, that doesn't mean that it has to be accessible on the Internet, or free of charge, but that someone with access can double-check it. You might find help on the noticeboard for reliable sources if you post there. However, I would strongly discourage you from editing in this area. I have posted a template to your user talk page. Please read Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy in order to see why we discourage this kind of editing. There are a lot of problems with the article Jacqueline Wheldon. I am currently editing and tagging it in an attempt to rectify some of those problems. But the bottom line is that Wikipedia articles can't be used as reliable sources, since anyone can edit them, and it would create a circular reference that would be meaningless. I hope this helps. Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your note
Hello Elizium23. Many thanks for your note and the link to the page where you are tracking this pest. I have added it to my watchlist and will add any IPs that I come across to the list. Cheers! MarnetteD | Talk 00:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for helping out. Elizium23 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrator
Hi-you would be an excellent administrator. Many thanks for your edits-RFD (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Template talk:Christianity#.22Eastern_Catholic.22_is_not_a_denomination". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 23:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Some customized (customised) warnings, at User talk:61.23.51.246. Thank you.  Theo polisme  15:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Catholics, liturgical calendars, and suchlike
First, I do get the impression that you might, maybe, be a bit repetitive when you point out that there are Eastern Catholic churches. Generally, I think most of the people who deal with Christianity and Catholicism know that. A link to the the Eastern Catholic page might not be out of line, but there probably isn't the need to do much beyond that. Second point. I am in the process of trying to get together information on the various extant liturgical calendars out there. I tend to believe that anything included in the "main" liturgical calendar of any major group, like the churches of the Anglican Communion or the Eastern Catholic churches, probably deserves at least a "High" importance rating for the WikiProject Saints. But it would help a lot if we had information on what is included in the various extant calendars. I found a Maronite calendar, which I have included in the list I'm getting together on my computer, but I think it would be really useful if we had information on the other churches, which I have more trouble finding. I'd also love to see the material on the various national calendars of the Catholic Church as well, but am not doing that much better finding them right now. If you could, that would be more than welcome. Lastly, I wonder if you might agree with me that Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) might be better broken up into separate articles for the ELCA and LCMS calendars. Personally, I tend to think that a list which includes only the ELCA and LCMS but purports to be "Lutheran" is at least a bit misleading. It seems to indicate that those two groups, basically, "define" Lutheranism, which they don't even in the United States. If you agree, maybe we should propose splitting the article. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your ideal sources for liturgical calendars are published books. The official missals, Liturgy of the Hours, and what is known in Latin as the Ordo will document the calendars. The tricky part is that they will all be adapted. Each Church has a general calendar. Major religious institutes have their own calendars. Geographical areas have their own calendars. The Ordo at my parish is adapted for my ecclesiastical province. The adaptations are usually of two varieties. They may add celebrations to what's already there, and they may promote the rank of a celebration to something higher. I will start looking for resources online. I found the Byzantine-Ruthenian Calendar for the USA. I will ask some forum-goers too. I will let you know what I find. I agree with your evaluation of the Lutheran calendar. There is a lot of divergence there, and your rationale makes sense. Let's go for it. Elizium23 (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, I tend to agree that the "global" calendars for several churches, like the Syriac Orthodox Church, might not be particularly easy to find. I did find the North American calendar for that group, but not any sort of "global" one. Right now, I've gotten together only a few more calendars than we already have articles for, with an indication as to what calendars include them. The list, including the names of calendars, runs around 160 pages. Without the calendars, it should be a lot shorter. And I'll propose the split probably later, I'm about ready to turn in tonight myself. John Carter (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

LCahill
You might like to know and may even find it useful to know that most edits by LCahill are without logging in. He uses his log-in name mainly for starting new articles, immediately after which he logs out before continuing. Esoglou (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch - thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Interview for Wikimedia blog?
Hi Elizium23,

My name is Alice Roberts and I'm a communications intern with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. We have a feature on the Foundation blog to profile the Wikipedians behind WikiProjects such as WikiProject Saints.

We'd love to do a short interview with you by email to discuss your work with WikiProject Saints. Please let me know if you think you'd be interested! You can reach me at: aroberts@wikimedia.org.

Thanks,

Aroberts (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Lauren Ambrose
Hello Elizium23. I have made this account in order to reply to your message to me the other day about Lauren Ambrose's wiki page. I have a great source, infact, I am in contact with the family. If you have concerns, write to me! Thankyou. Yasda (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Yasda. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I am afraid that we can't accept your word on this. Have a look at our policy on reliable secondary sources. We must draw our information from a published secondary or primary source. In this field, it usually means that we need a news article; these are frequently published and available on the Internet as a link. If you provided a link to coverage of the birth, I could help you document it. The second thing that is important is that the information be documented in the body of the article as well as the infobox. It is important that the infobox data be just a summary of what we've already written in the body. If we mention that Ambrose has one child from 2007 but the infobox says "2" then readers will assume the Wikipedia editors have failed and that there is some discrepancy. The information needs to stay out of the article until it can be documented adequately. As it is a biography of a living person we have certain high standards to follow regarding the way information is included and presented in these articles. Thank you for understanding. Please follow the links I have provided for more information. Enjoy. Elizium23 (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Attacking people for editing
If you do not think Category:American actresses should exist, you are more than welcome to nominate it for deletion. Going around trying to intimadate people for using it and yelling "sexist" is not the way to do so. There are ways to nominate categories for deletion, and that is the way to do such. This is especially true when articles involved are already in Category:American female singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments to you were civil and a feeble attempt to be conciliatory, so I take the warning with due respect. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Latin Rite and Latin rites
I have no objection to your edit on Liturgical Latinisation, although I do question your statement that "Latin Church" is "the precise, official term from Canon Law. Take, for instance, canon 1015 §2: "If not impeded by a just cause, the proper bishop is to ordain his own subjects personally; without an apostolic indult, however, he cannot ordain licitly a subject of an Eastern rite."  When I say "question", I do not mean that it is something I would enter into a serious argument about.  Esoglou (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How about a casual argument? :) Let me explain that passage to you. You may know that bishops belong to a Church, not to a Rite, so if a Latin Church bishop has jurisdiction over the Roman Rite, he also has jursdiction over i.e. the Mozarabic Rite (see Toledo Cathedral for an example I found by a quick check.) Keep in mind Can. 1) The canons of this Code concern only the latin Church. A Latin bishop may licitly ordain members of the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites, because they are all members of the same Church. On the other hand, the Eastern rites all belong to Eastern Churches. Therefore, Canon Law here uniformly refers to "Rite" so that it is understood that Latin bishops do have the authority in all Western Rites which all happen to belong in the Latin Church. Elizium23 (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we move this discussion to WT:CATHOLIC where I have started a consensus-building thread already? Elizium23 (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't raised the question publicly, I would not have responded. But now I have - publicly.  Here I will now also respond by commenting that there is no such thing as a member of the Mozarabic, the Ambrosian or any other liturgical rite, and that the Latin bishop of Milan has no jurisdiction over the Mozarabic Rite (a liturgical rite), not the Latin bishop of Toledo over the Ambrosian Rite (a liturgical rite), although both these liturgical rites are used within the Latin Church or "rite", as the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and that of Saint Basil are both used within the Byzantine Church or "rite", with the difference that these two liturgies are used throughout the Byzantine Church or "rite" without being limited to certain geographical areas.  Esoglou (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you said you wouldn't care to argue about it, so we won't. Sorry if I am annoying you or making more work for you. Elizium23 (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A question
...has been asked by a checkuser in the case you filed here. An answer either way would be good as that would help give direction on the case. Cheers, — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

IPs used by a single logging-out editor
Some IPs used in the last two years (not a complete list), which may or may not be of use or interest:
 * November 2012: 86.43.175.143; (86.43.174.87)
 * October 2012: 86.45.11.224
 * September-October 2012: 86.40.23.70
 * September 2012: 86.45.36.26
 * August 2012: 86.43.162.217; 86.45.10.161; 86.45.9.116
 * July 2012: 86.40.19.43
 * June-July 2012: 86.43.172.29
 * June 2012: 86.45.4.96
 * May-June 2012: 86.45.8.80
 * April 2012: 86.45.1.80; 86.43.169.113
 * February 2012: 86.40.31.57
 * January 2012; 86.45.12.89
 * December 2011: 87.83.216.34
 * September 2011: 86.43.170.244
 * August 2011: 86.43.166.48; 86.43.172.155; 86.43.174.168; 86.40.17.170
 * July 2011: 86.45.11.206
 * June 2011: 86.45.14.55
 * January 2011: 86.40.26.235
 * December 2010: 94.6.62.236; 86.43.175.240

-- Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Rubén Darío Salazar Gómez
Hola Elizium23!

Que bien que hablas español, sobre el articulo titulado "Jesús Salazar Gómez" esta mal, pues su verdadero nombres es Rubén Darío Salazar Gómez, ese error proviene de catholic-hierarchy.org en donde aparece como "Archbishop Jesús Rubén Salazar Gómez", aca pongo varios articulos de prensa que verifican su nombre completo ,, , ,. No se porque en la pagina de la arquidiócesis de Bogotá omiten el segundo nombre (Darío). Saludos --201.232.139.99 (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gracias por la nota. Esto es cierto, y he corregido el artículo. Elizium23 (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mira, catholic-hierarchy.org ya corrigió el error . Saludos --201.232.139.99 (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Message for Elizium23 changes made to an article, International Society for Krishna Consciousness
Please place back as the information was difficult to source and write. I shall place the references but I need the writing as it were since it took me 3 hours to write. I created a profile just to talk with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrsnaWolf. (talk • contribs) 01:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to place it back yourself, if you can provide references. All the text is easily available in the article history. Please also try not to create redlinks, as you did with by converting 'Hindu scriptures' to 'Indian scriptures', and also do not remove references without a good reason. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. I am messaging you because you are a member of WikiProject_Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tidying up
After all the discussions at the Jesus talk page, I think this] will most likely be my last edit of substance regarding historicity. I think I have now added sources for almost all issues I can think of, or find. The 1 Thessalonians 2:14 item was the last missing piece I think. I will gradually slow down now, and given that you are younger, brighter and more energetic your help in watching these other pages will also be appreciated; Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus are pretty complete now, and pretty stable. Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Christ and Mara Bar-Serapion on Jesus are also in good shape, and fully sourced. They are essential historicity elements that have now been cleaned up, but will need attention for sure. Funnily enough Richard Carrier's blog once referred to the Josephus on Jesus page as a valid source.... Go figure.

I think one of the most fun items was explaining that a person born in 1380 could not have manufactured a document that was used in 1374. That was fun. So, anyway, I think this will hopefully be the last page I have to build - but it was necessary for this, a page that may also need long term attention. But now, it is done. After Christmas I will really be slowing down. I know this has sounded like the "next good by forever concert" that many people sell tickets for, but in all cases, there is a last good by forever concert. Anyway, Merry Christmas in advance. History2007 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Broadway Hoaxer?
Take a look at the edits of User:116.124.69.188 to Wicked (musical). Although it's a domain that the BH has never used, the edit certainly seems similar, as is ignoring my post om their talk page. The IP geolocates to South Korea, I think I remember reading something about socks using an anonymizer from there. What do you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say yes. The BH is also obsessed by Legally Blonde which in my mind, definitively links the two. Elizium23 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

...
Merry Christmas! History2007 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

...
Thanks for explaining the method of linking to me! Merry Christmas! Dhpage (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

CVU
Hello I'm Cawhee! Recently I have become interested in paroling and fighting vandalism. I have installed Twinkle and have been using it to patrol. However, I feel it would be a good idea to take a course on using the tool to see what I'm missing and better me as a user fighting vandalism. --Cawhee (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Help - updating Priscilla
Sorry - I'm learning as I go. The information is in the public domain, there is no single identifiable source, but it is correct. Some of the other tour sections (e.g. Brazilian and US tour) have no cited source either - so I felt my edits would be ok. The information has been gathered from various commercial sites - including the producers' page and the various ticket sales databases. Not sure how I'd include these non-static sources. How do I cite multiple sources and non-static sources? Perfectsix (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's ok, we are just having some ongoing problems with another user who consistently adds hoaxes without any source - see Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer. You can easily cite multiple sources, just put each one in between tags. See cite web and its brethren for information on how to format references well. As for a dynamic source, it depends on whether you will get a useful URL that another user can use to reproduce the page. If you can't, you may want to archive it, or alternatively, just describe it as well as possible in a citation. The key is to prove the information is verifiable by someone later. Elizium23 (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'm not the hoaxer, but I can see why you'd want to keep him/her at bay. I've reverted your undo and added a source for the production company which should verify the existence of the tour and the start date/venue at least. Perfectsix (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So far, so good. I should mention that when secondary sources become available, they should be preferred over the current ones, which are considered primary sources. Secondary sources in this case would typically be published newspaper or magazine articles. Elizium23 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Katherine Heigl
Response to your message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniteen (talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I don't know if this is how I'm supposed to contact you. I just wanted to respond to this: Hello, I'm Elizium23. Your recent edit to the page Katherine Heigl appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it again to something else maybe. I changed it because I am pretty sure the sentence is grammatically incorrect.

"In 1986, her older brother Jason died of injuries suffered in a car accident, after being thrown from the back of a pickup truck while out for lunch with some of his high school classmates. Following his death, the family decided to donate his organs.[13] Heigl was unnerved by this at the time, and later became a strong proponent of organ donation, working as a spokesperson for Donate Life America.[14]"

"unnerved" is a negative word, so if you keep it it means she was disheartened or discouraged by her parents' decision to donate her brothers' organs. Yet afterwards she became a supporter of the cause, so this is positive. The sentence is thus illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniteen (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know if this is how I'm supposed to contact you. I just wanted to respond to this: Hello, I'm Elizium23. Your recent edit to the page Katherine Heigl appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it again to something else maybe. I changed it because I am pretty sure the sentence is grammatically incorrect.

"In 1986, her older brother Jason died of injuries suffered in a car accident, after being thrown from the back of a pickup truck while out for lunch with some of his high school classmates. Following his death, the family decided to donate his organs.[13] Heigl was unnerved by this at the time, and later became a strong proponent of organ donation, working as a spokesperson for Donate Life America.[14]"

"unnerved" is a negative word, so if you keep it it means she was disheartened or discouraged by her parents' decision to donate her brothers' organs. Yet afterwards she became a supporter of the cause, so this is positive. The sentence is thus illogical. Happy New Year.Miniteen (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is the fact that Wikipedia reports what we find in reliable secondary sources. "Unnerved" is exactly the word used by the article used as a reference here. Therefore in order to maintain conformity with the cited source, I have reverted you again, but I have changed the sentence slightly so that its context makes more sense. She was indeed unnerved by it at the time, but her attitude changed later and she became a proponent of donation. Thank you for your attention. Elizium23 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Prepare to be ref'd in the face (I'm With You (song))
Jinx. You reverted that edit right before I could. And replied with nearly the exact edit summary. :hifive: lol  ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk  ]:[ Contribs  ] ~  02:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I get it
I understand that there are some important rules and guidelines to article-building here that I don't seem to like... but use your head! Don't you think that the song "I'm With You" has at least a few traces of soft-rock and alternative?

Anyway, I see you've reverted my edit, and I will find references and put it back up when I do accordingly, but honestly, people have dignity behind their edits, and for you to completely disregard this is disregarding them as humans altogether

24.98.218.120 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)24.98.218.120
 * Precisely. Calling another editor "some aspie" is actually a personal attack against the dignity of people, and is never tolerated here at Wikipedia. The rest of your assertion ("use your head! ...") is original research and likewise not permitted. At Wikipedia, while we do use our heads, we do not use our own opinions, no matter how well-founded, as the basis for facts in articles. We instead report on reliable secondary sources. This is in keeping with the principle of verifiability. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes ok!
Yes ok i'm sorry, with the photos how come they need to have all of that stuff, if you can find it in google search then cant it be used? And all of wikipedias rules are a bit strict dont you think? Thevoicehelper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevoicehelper (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bishop
How many sources do you need to believe that Bernard Leahy is the next Bishop of Limerick? It is no crystal bol. The Banner talk 00:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He has not yet taken canonical possession of the diocese. When he is ordained and installed then you can call him Bishop of Limerick. Until then, he is bishop-elect, still a priest, not yet ordained bishop. There is already information about his appointment in that article, and it is sourced adequately. Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at WT:CATHOLIC regarding this issue for all Catholic bishop and diocese articles. Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is just a discussion, no policy whatsoever...
 * But instead of slapping useless templates on someones talkpage (what you did twice, I've noticed), you could have taken the time to explain the issue. Now it was lazily and aggressively template slapping. Ow, and remove the other elected-but-never-ordained bishop from the list... The Banner talk 13:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. Elizium23 (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it not be nicer for someone to get a message on his talkpage like "Hey, dude! I have reverted your addition to Bishop of Limerick. Reason is that we only add them to the list when the new bishop is ordained." Not half as aggressive as the template, it explains the case and it does not contain the nonsense of WP:Crystal. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I will consider that next time. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Latin Rite question
Hello, I was surprised by your comment that there is no such thing as "THE Latin Rite". It is quite common to refer to a diocese as being of "the Latin Rite" rather than "the Latin Church" ~ as in this example on the Vatican website and also more generally as in the following in this Vatican document: "To enhance the efficacy of their apostolate, Religious and associations of the Latin Rite working in Eastern countries or among Eastern faithful are earnestly counseled to found houses or even provinces of the Eastern rite, as far as this can be done." Is there some distinction between Latin Rite and Latin Church that you are making which I am missing? Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems by the evidence that this is an official and accepted way of referring to the Latin Church. However, I would say that this continued usage and the more widespread colloquial use of the term only serve to contribute to a marked confusion between Church and Rite. I have witnessed many people use the term "Latin Rite" when referring to the actual Roman Rite liturgical patrimony or forms of the Mass. If one person using the term means Church, and the other means Rite, what good is the term at all? It is an amorphous, ambiguous thing whose meaning depends entirely on context. It is impossible to define precisely when it is a portmanteau of two official names, applied haphazardly to both of them. I did a Google search on the exact phrase, "Latin Rite Mass". Of course there are many hits. http://catholicism.about.com/od/worship/g/Trad_Latin_Mass.htm and http://the-american-catholic.com/tag/extraordinary-form-of-the-latin-rite-mass/ among them. To make matters worse, many similar hits refer to the "Tridentine Rite Mass" of which no such thing exists. Benedict XVI was extremely clear in his document that there is one Roman Rite in two main forms, Extraordinary and Ordinary. Whereas a traditional Latin Rite such as the Dominican can be properly called a Rite, the two main Masses in use are Forms of the same Roman Rite. So there is not only confusion vis à vis Church vs. Rite, there is confusion about Rite vs. Form vs. Use; and frankly these are somewhat fluid terms in much the same way that linguists can argue what is a dialect and what is not.
 * The Church in her foundational documents gives us official terms for Latin Church and Roman Rite. These are found respectively in the Code of Canon Law and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. It is indisputable that the Church uses the term "Latin Rite" in official documents, but I have not seen her issue a formal definition, and I believe I have seen her use it not only to refer to the Church, but to the family of Rites, so our interpretation of the term thus used is subjective based on context and unfortunately original research.
 * I do not have a good solution going forward. I suppose I am a one-man crusade when I ask for precisely defined words to be preferred on Wikipedia. I will surely lose this battle as I have lost trying to advocate for Eastern Catholic Churches equality. Oh well. Elizium23 (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)