User talk:Elizium23/Archive 6

DR/N
Go ahead and re-file the case. Be specific about what the exact dispute is and what you expect DR/N to help with. Mention the centralized discussion and we can fix the filing later to include the other relevant articles. Use the article that is the actual dispute among the involved editors you list as the article where the dispute is located. Then we can go from there. Please remember that the project guides cannot override a wider community consensus and information must be properly sourced and arguments weighed by use of policy and guidelines and the strength of the individual arguments.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC) (This editor is now Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N)
 * I think I have figured out the way to re-open that case so it can be fixed easier than having you re-file.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I guess I will edit the description of the dispute a little bit? Elizium23 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In looking at the situation, there is no community wide discussion or a project related discussion centralized in any manner. The filing editor is mistaken in assuming that consistency from article to article is required by any consensus discussion. Dealing strictly with the dispute, this is a matter needing to be worked out at the talk page (of each individual article) in some manner, be it an informal request for comment, formal RFC or bold edit. But I do not believe there is an actual dispute here by our definition. Some Catholic subjects have been having some individual disputes and there seems to be a small community of editors that work on these articles. There seems no particular reason to be concerned that consensus is not being worked out in the proper manner on any of the articles linked that I can see.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am frankly surprised that consensus can override policy, but this seems the case. Sorry to have wasted your time. Elizium23 (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't feel that time is wasted. A local consensus cannot override the larger community consensus. WikiProjects have guides for articles under their scope, but each article is only bound by the larger community policy, guidelines and MOS. Use of project style guides is strictly a local consensus decision at each article.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 09:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not about guidelines or style guides. It is about WP:CRYSTAL violations, which is in my understanding policy. I don't understand how 'consensus' can plead to override policy in this way. Editors are coming to articles and putting bishops in office before their installation. It is clear that by Canon Law bishops do not attain their posts upon appointment but on installation. Therefore, inaccurate information is introduced into Wikipedia, probably from an over-reliance on the inaccuracies of the user-generated website, catholic-hierarchy.org. Since no other editor curates this class of articles consistently, I have to start this dispute over, and over, and over, with dozens of editors on hundreds of articles. It has been two years now and it hasn't gotten any better. I'm tired of the edit wars and the empty discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that the recent dispute with muddied the waters and obscured the point I was trying to make. He is talking about including future and unsuccessful bishops in list articles. I am talking about WP:BLP articles and those of dioceses, where speculative future information is being added which makes those articles clearly factually inaccurate and violates WP:CRYSTAL. There are two different sides to the coin. I am sorry if that was not obvious from my preamble in the DRN case. Elizium23 (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Elizium23, if there were some rumour that someone were likely to bishop of somewhere and an editor added that person to the list of bishops I'd totally support you in that person being removed from the list because it would be nothing more than speculation. That is what WP:CRYSTAL is all about. But if the Holy See website made an official announcement that the pope had appointed someone to an episcopal see then I don't see why they can't be listed, even if for one reason or another the appointment failed. It is not speculation that Leo Cushley and Francis Duffy have been appointed. They are notable and almost certain to take possession of their offices, but even if they didn't, they'd still be listed. You criticise catholic-hierarchy.org because it is a user-generated website, yet you used Whispers in the Loggia: The Bishop-elect: A Primer, a user-generated blog page, as a source on Talk:Leo Cushley as why he should have the honorific prefix Most Reverend and not Monsignor. Wikipedia has Template:Catholic-hierarchy, but if you feel there is something wrong with it, then you should discuss it on its talk page. I do realise you do a lot of good work on Wikipedia and sorry if I'm causing any bad feeling. As I just said I'll support you in removing anyone on unverifiable speculation, but I strongly don't see why someone officially appointed shouldn't be listed. Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whispers in the Loggia is a WP:RS due to the press credentials of the author. Your desire to list bishops in a list article is completely different from the desire of other editors to force them into the infobox, succession boxes, categories, and other things before they take office. If a bishop has not taken office in i.e. Bridgeport, then he has no business being in the infobox at Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, that infobox should still read "Sede vacante" to reflect reality accurately. If the bishop of e.g. Oakland is appointed to San Francisco, then until he is installed, he is still the bishop of Oakland, and the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland infobox cannot be updated to Sede vacante until he actually leaves the office. Let me make a simple analogy with US politics. In 2008 George W. Bush was the president. Barack Obama was elected in November, yet he did not take office until his inauguration in January. Knowledge of presidential politics is widespread in the USA and so I doubt there was any campaign to tag Obama as the in-office President of the USA between November and January. This is in sharp contrast to knowledge of episcopal appointments, where everyone seems to think appointment=office, possibly because other entities (like the Church of England) is structed that way. The Catholic Church is not. Let me remind you of the state of the Leo Cushley article before I found it. It was as if Barack Obama had taken office on Wednesday, November 5, 2008. Elizium23 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IMDb has templates associated with it, as well, yet it has been roundly rejected as a WP:RS by the community. Catholic-hierarchy just doesn't have that notoreity yet. Elizium23 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Overlink
I think the links were really necessary. So please pardon me if i make reverts again. Thank you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.156.156 (talk • contribs)
 * Oh no sir, if I find you have reverted again then I will surely report you to administrators for this dispute. You have been warned plenty of times. Elizium23 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dea db  eef  05:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia
I'm new to this Wikipedia editing world and would appreciate your advice with regard to the Hagia Sophia page. For example, in the first sentence of the second paragraph there is no date given for when the Great Church was dedicated to the Logos. This perpetuates the assumption that the first church was dedicated to the Hagia Sophia, when it is more likely that the term Hagia Sophia was not used til the mid fifth century. An easy citation for this is: the Heilbrun Timeline of Art History http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/haso/hd_haso.htm.

In addition since the Great Church was dedicated by a nontrinitarian, it is logical to assume it was not dedicated to the logos at this time.

How would you suggest these two types of information/data are added in order to clarify the inherent non-referenced assumptions in the existing text? Neubauer95476 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Your first fact can easily be inserted in the article and the link you provided given as a citation. It seems to me a reliable source and I would have no objection to this. Your other assertion "it is logical to assume..." is not apparently based on a reliable source, and actually appears to be original research. You would need to document this with a reliable secondary source which you can cite. Logical conclusions are simply not allowed at Wikipedia, no matter how obvious they may seem. Elizium23 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've seen logical conclusions elsewhere, but I take your advice on this one. Another glaring example of an error on this page, is the date for the opening of the Hagia Sophia. In every text except this one, the date is given as December 27, 537. Which to my mind brings into question all references to Janin (1953). How would you recommend this be corrected? Neubauer95476 (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the Iglesia ni Cristo article
Unfortunately, this article is plagued by the same issues that the Church of Scientology and Unification Church articles are, that one or more individuals associated with the organization continue to promote a non-neutral point of view. I agree that there is much sockpuppetry within the editing of this article.--Guiletheme (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed communion
Read open communion; all bodies in the Liberal Catholic Movement practice open communion. 184.158.96.194 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable secondary source. Please read WP:V. The assertion in that article is also unsourced and should be given a citation as well. You need to find a source, like a book or news article, which says that it is practiced by this group and add it to the article. Otherwise it is subject to challenge and removal by any interested editor. Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what? We need to improve Wikipedia, if nobody is going to improve the website, then it has to be shut down; I don't care if it has something to do with religion, sports, science, or whatever. Finding sourcesis one good way to improve Wikipedia. There you have it; this is not a threat, this is serious. 184.158.96.194 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. But perhaps WP:BURDEN would be helpful (and I'm looking at WP:POINT too...) it's not my job to go and find sources for everything someone might add to an article here. Also, in my chosen role here, I am not much of a content creator or copywriter. Other than gnomish edits on occasion, the vast majority of my work is reverting. I do this to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia: if I think that an edit is not constructive I will work to keep it out. I followed policy by reverting you, so it is pointless to complain on my talk page if you don't like it. Post to Talk:Closed communion and gain WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. You will likely find other editors encouraging you to find sources as well. Best of luck to you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But I did fount some references for baptism however for these new denominations on the comparitive summary. 184.158.96.194 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides, don't even BOTHER ME. I have the right to remove templates whenever I improve an article. Go work on Christianity; Thank you. 184.158.96.194 (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We only remove templates when we have fixed the issues to which they relate. The only thing you are doing is converting unordered footnotes into inline citations, and poorly in some cases: I found a few references which did not support the assertion you tied them to. You have not fixed other issues such as notability, linkrot (bare links only) and reliance on primary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * END THE CONVERSION RIGHT HERE; I AM NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH YOU LIKE THIS SO THAT'S IT, CONVERSION'S OVER! 184.158.96.194 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Orthodox is not Catholic
[|Andrew the Apostle] have live in East Europe, on Black See shore, in today's Romania. And this country hold the Orthodox Christian Church, not Orthodox Catholic Church.

Isa = Eesa = Jesus = Christ = Christian

Orthodox Christian Church or Catholic Christian Church

this is the difference. It can't be Orthodox Catholic Church, because is nothing Orthodox about Catholic.

Orthodox and Catholic are the way of following, and are the Extremes. those words, by they meaning, cannot be used in same line to describe One Church.

Digital radio and Analog radio. Is not Digital Analog radio... :)

Same is happening with those who say: Jesus is Jew... :) He is not Jew. He is from one of the 12 tribes of Israel, but not Judah tribe. And Israel in not a Jews state, because Israel is the father of 12 tribes, and 12 tribes is Israel. Judah is only One Tribe. If they call themselves Israel, doesn't mean they are the Israel. They are just Jews, from the tribes of Israel. Jacob, the father of the tribes, called also Israel, is the name of all the tribes, not Jews only. They want to make Israel back, but they kill the other tribes?

People are so blind to understand simple text in the Scripture.

Jesus is the son of Mary which has give Him birth with 'help' from Holy Ghost, right? So why people say He is Jew? because of Joseph blood lineage is He Jew? She never 'slept' with Joseph... If an American woman is pregnant with someone (let's say an Caucasian) is going to give birth in China having a Chinese husband, is the child Chines?

God ordered with His Word that Anna give birth to Mary, so She can give birth to Himself. Most people don't think more then they read. When you find out His Mother blood lineage - Mary, then you will know if He is Jew.

Peace be with you, and be that God enlighten you to see the true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.171.111 (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all Catholics are Roman
I was just wondering why you reverted all of the redirects I changed. Which may have confused people that all Catholics follow the Roman Tradition, as opposed to the 22 other Eastern Traditions. If someone clicks a link in Wikipedia for "Byzantine Catholic" for example, they are not taken to a Church about all Catholics, they are taken to a page about that type of Catholic. Julianhayda (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have already been directed to our article Roman Catholic (term) so you should be aware that your personal interpretation of the term does not coincide with popular usage. Your edits are disruptive and do not have consensus. You have been warned. Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Facts are not based on consensus, I can point to a dozen scholarly articles which state that not all Catholics are Roman; but for the moment I point here:

???
What on earth in your problem? There has been so many false speculations floating around about Saint Joan in America that it's true that people have been influenced to believe that she's a witch and a whore.

I DID improve the article's quality about Saint Joan and you had went ahead and falsely judged a judgement upon it and thus you had erased it under the notion that I had only provided a "general discussion" about Saint Joan. The article about Saint Joan explains the history about her life and what had happened to her. Thus and BECAUSE there are still insults and defamations and degrading and disrespectful and dishonorable things being said and shown about Saint Joan and that and BECAUSE those insults and defamations and degrading and disrespectful and dishonorable things about Saint Joan stem and/or branch back to and FROM the original false accusations against her. It's thus that I had added some additional information about Saint Joan in the "Talk" section about the article about Saint Joan to help people clear up some confusion about some other false accusations that have been induced in to societies around the world about Saint Joan as of the year 2013.

I have a degree in the study and the knowledge about the commandments and the angels and the saints and I had even denoted that about myself before adding the additional information about Saint Joan.

There are people who don't know why Saint Joan has still been falsely accused of being a witch and a whore and the Devil and a mentally disordered young woman because there have been same and other false accusations against and about Saint Joan that have arised in to America since the 13th century and thus, it's indeed an improvement to the article about Saint Joan if people knew about the OTHER fibs that have been said and shown about her that had arised in to America since the year 1431.

Are you going to re-instate my information in the talk section where I had placed it? It's not as if I changed the article itself and if you don't want to co-operate with me, then it's thus and it's that I would like to speak with a manager who's in charge of operating Wikipedia. Kwyllard (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your writing is quite incoherent. I could not discern any particular bid for article improvement in your wall of text posted to the talk page. Moreover, you did not provide a single reliable secondary source which would have helped your case. Your suggestions, whatever they are, currently stand as original research that is not tolerated on Wikipedia. So I would suggest that you read some relevant books and history and scholarship articles on the subject and, quoting them, add them to the article. Otherwise we are not able to accept your contributions here. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Literary Reference to the Archangel Michael
Hello again,

I borrowed a copy of Katherine Kurtz's novel King Kelson's Bride and found the scene in which the Archangel Michael is summoned by name and quoted it, together with the ISBN and page references. I tried to follow the other citations, yet you've removed it again. I don't understand what I've done wrong in my citation format, so please tell me what the problem is so I can fix it. Thank you.

69BookWorM69 (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)69BookWorM69

Flo image
Howdy- Just wanted to say thanks for looking at the image copyvio... I didn't even think about it not being a free-image. Slipped my mind. I feel kinda stupid but I'm glad you noticed. Cheers. PrairieKid (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's no problem, it's an honest mistake. That FUR has been there since December 2012. I'm not sure of the motivation. All I know is that it was bogus, because Courtney is alive and well, and anyone can snap an image of her and make it freely available to us. Elizium23 (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm a little more determined now. Checking Flickr for a free image. Have a good one. PrairieKid (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--LTblb (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Antoni Gaudí, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--LTblb (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Antoni Gaudí. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --LTblb (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Three warnings at a time? Really? For a subject I have attempted to discuss on the talk page which you have not? Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your alleged rebukes: disruptive editing :: no original research policy do not match edits and warning is overreaction
Cite_ " Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Order of the Phoenix (fiction), you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)"
 * Please be a little more polite in wikipedia-space. Your alleged rebukes: disruptive editing :: no original research policy imho do not match my edits (effects and intentions) and your block warning is overreaction. Please consider to give back your "revert-"powers or get more calm, pls.. No offence intended --85.183.56.74 (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (It looks like you are the same person as ). Can you cite a source that connects the Order of the Phoenix with Order (honour)? None was provided in your edit. Elizium23 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Baselios Cleemis
The title "Catholicos" of Baselios Cleemis was not granted by anyone. It was self claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.173.89 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable secondary source to show this. Elizium23 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest Carly Foulkes kerfuffle
There is a new mini edit war in need of opinions at Carly Foulkes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am on Wikibreak (for a couple days now and just announced it today) and I expect to be unwatching this page upon my return. God bless. Elizium23 (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor
As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, " ". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

xkcd
I initially thought you had simply reverted my hyphen in reader-submitted. Then I realized that the swear-censoring plugin on my Firefox made some changes of its own. Oops. Thanks for catching that. I'll disable the plugin on Wikipedia in the future. -Sforzando (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling that is what that was. No worries. Elizium23 (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
--Chris (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:108.29.178.254
They had only received one warning. If they continue edit disruptively, please report back to me or AIV. They seem to have a content concern, not simply pure vandalism. John Reaves 00:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an IP-hopping, edit-warring vandal WP:SPA who has exhibited extreme anti-Semitic tendences. He has been warned and blocked at User talk:69.119.172.23 User talk:61.200.81.168 User talk:108.174.195.211 User talk:74.101.159.110 and User talk:71.167.39.19. He is the reason the page now has WP:Pending changes protection. This is a long-term abuse issue. Elizium23 (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was unaware. I've blocked them. John Reaves 00:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Catching fire edit
You reverted my edit on catching fire when I changed the plot to synopsis, but it makes more sense for it to be the synopsis since the plot is the whole story and the synopsis is the summary of what will happen since the film hasn't been released yet. Calling it synopsis also will help readers since when I first saw it was plot I thought it would have spoilers. (Rhinomantis88 (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC))
 * That's fine. I just thought that "Plot" was more standard across the WikiProject but you have made an excellent point. I think you are right. Elizium23 (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive
Re your comment on removal of the Famous_for_being_famous samples I added: no block-from-editing threat is needed. I dare say this was an exception. Kind regards. Havanafreestone (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I set the warning level too high, but I am curious why such phrasing was chosen for the lines on Ray J and Lauren Conrad, was that kind of commentary and tone necessary in an encyclopedic article? Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, that commentary and tone were not necessary, I got carried away by my laughter while typing. Thanks.Havanafreestone (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

New user for WikiProject United States
Hi, this is not intended to be spam, so I hope you don't interpret it as such. I am a new user on Wikipedia and would like to become more involved in the WikiProject United States. I noticed that you are listed as an active member and was wondering if you could be of assistance? I'm unsure of communication etiquette, but figured I would just ask. Is posting on a user talk page for personal help like this acceptable? And regardless, where/who can I talk to about how to be of assistance to the previously mentioned WikiProject.

I would appreciate any help and thank you so much for your time. Again, apologies if this is poor etiquette.

--ElliotSchmelliot (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your interest. I am not particularly involved in that WikiProject, but I can point you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. This would be the best place for you to post and ask where you can help out. Best of luck. Elizium23 (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Salvation Army UK
I don't understand why you have removed my page edit for the Salvation Army. Which part, specifically, do you require a source for? Are you asking for a source to back up claims that the Salvation Army is involved in Workfare? Alternatively, are you looking for a reliable source for the claim that Workfare does not improve the chances of someone finding work? I provided a source for that claim, which is a report from the UK Department of Work and Pensions. This is a government report. I would really appreciate it if you could be more specifically with what the issue is here. Thanks. Ttosca (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The link you provided was to the Boycott Workfare website, which is not a third-party source. If you have a link to the report of the DWP then that is useful but it is still a primary source; you are not permitted to perform any analysis or commentary that is not found in third-party sources. You will need reliable secondary sources to support all the claims you make in the article. For example, news stories in newspapers or magazines. Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Harassment
If you continue chasing my edits indiscriminately and without any argument, and flooding my discuss page with false accusations, I will accuse to you of Harassment. --LTblb (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Bishop of Rochester
You are misguided about the application of WP:CRYSTAL for the next Bishop of Rochester. WP:CRYSTAL is unambiguous: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. (emphasis mine). It is all but certain that Bishop Salvatore will take up his post in Rochester in January, consequently Wikipedia should include the information. In those discussions that you list someone made the comparison to the President-elect. This one is valid, and of course after the Presidential election Wikipedia would include who is going to be the next President, even though they have not taken office yet. Anything else would be silly. 67.255.123.1 (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is OK to put news of the appointment into the article text, but I take issue with adding Bishops-designate or Bishops-elect to lists of bishops because they have not taken office, have not served, and are not installed yet. Elizium23 (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They are all but certain to be the next bishop, so they should be mentioned. I expect not to be reverted this time, and instead of mindless reverting you could have made a suitable suggestion . 67.255.123.1 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OS family should not further qualify
Unix-like is an OS family. Neither Linux nor Debian are considered families. The template you are modifying has clear instructions about this. Please do not add extraneous information to the OS family field. Details belong in the article, not the infobox. Yworo (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I was not adding it, I was just reverting to the status quo, but now I am aware that was incorrect. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello E. I wanted to let you know that you have been mentioned here Administrators'_ noticeboard/Incidents. Please note that I am doing this as a courtesy to you and not because I agree in any way shape or form with the editor who opened the thread. MarnetteD | Talk 23:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I was wondering when/if would ever bother to do the required notification. Elizium23 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Rezonansowy (talk &bull;&#32; contribs) 23:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enlightment, Liberal and Realism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion. You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate content in The_Chronicles_of_Narnia_(film_series)
Hi. I removed the block from The_Chronicles_of_Narnia_(film_series) because it was an exact duplicate of a block in the prior section (The Silver Chair).

In fact, the whole Future section needs updating now that The Silver Chair is present. I thought at least we should remove the duplicate.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphod90125 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I have undone my edit and retracted the warning. Elizium23 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gabriel
Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. You might want to put a mini-signature of some kind next to the individual comments you're interspersing, otherwise it will be hard for anyone who comes into the discussion later to follow who said what. --Macrakis (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you and I will do so. Elizium23 (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Alice (Avril Lavigne song)
Make sure if non-admin users did vandalism the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.73 (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Talk:Hermione Granger".
Thanks for the edit summary tip. I'll remember to do that in the future. UB65 (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Bearsy10 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

rangeblock, fyi
yes, a /64 is completely reasonable (and performed). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Elizium23. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Crice88 (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Pius IX born OFS
I see you reverted my edit correcting a manifest impossibility - nobody is born a secular Franciscan. I pointed this out in the summary of my edit. It would have been a courtesy to explain what you were doing (by reference to my explanation, that is). Thank you. Ridiculus mus (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am also proposing to edit the second sentence of the second para of the lede to read "Pius IX also conferred the Marian title of Our Lady of Perpetual Help on a famous Byzantine icon from Crete which he entrusted to the Redemptorists in 1866. ". This addresses a number of issues.  First, the grant of the icon and the conferring of the title is nowhere alluded to anywhere else in the article, so it requires a ref.  This I have now supplied.  Second, I have added the date of the grant.  Third I have amended the title to "Our Lady", since there is anyway a redirect from "Our Mother".  Fourth, the sentence, as it currently stands, leaves the main verb "granted the Marian title" dangling.  What he did was confer a title on the image in the icon, and entrust the icon to the Redemptorists.
 * While I am at it, the first sentence of the same para poorly expresses the relationship between the defined dogma and the content of the dogma - the text as it stands implies that the dogma effected what it defined. I propose amending the sentence by deleting the gloss "meaning that Mary was conceived without original sin". The content of the dogma and the dogma's relationship with its content is adequately expressed in the overview section and again in the legacy section. Ridiculus mus (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See now Talk:Pope Pius IX. Thanks Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel's Sex/Gender
Please see Gabriel's Sex/Gender section on Gabriel talk page for more information.

Formal warning
'''Note: I added this section to your talk page to fulfill the Wikipedia policy requirements in-case we cannot agree on a fair comprise and therefore end up having to go through additional options for dispute resolution. Discussion on non-user conduct issues, including article content disputes, should all be listed on the article’s talk page.'''

Please do not remove article content that is currently under dispute, especially when it has already been marked with in-text dispute tags. Removing content that is actively under dispute is disruptive and vandalistic, as it’s removal can be seen as a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The in-text dispute tags are there so people know the content is being disputed on the article’s talk page.

Your interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not the only correct interpretations. If they were, there wouldn’t currently be an active dispute over article content. Moreover, consensus isn't reached just because a few people agree with you. Consensus and Closing discussions state this very clearly.

Additional attempts to remove or revert the article content currently under dispute will be reported on the Edit Warring Noticeboard. Edit warring isn’t necessary so let’s just please avoid it.

If we still cannot reach consensus after the 30-day RfC period has expired, we can always file disputes on the 1. Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, 2. No Original Research Noticeboard, and 3. Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I hope that some compromise can still be reached, but if it can't, at least we still have additional options available.

I’ve done my best to respond to your comments, all I ask is that you provide me with the same common courtesy. Wikipedia’s dispute resolution policy specifically requires discussion for a reason—accusations alone are not the same as discussion. Nothing will ever be resolved with accusations alone. I’m simply asking you to please follow Wikipedia’s dispute resolution policies, including Consensus and Closing discussions. Crice88 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Notice
Hello, This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gabriel’s Sex/Gender. Thank you. Crice88 (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Notice

 * RFCs going badly for you there? Elizium23 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis and the Invisible Hand - is it a reference to Adam Smith?
Hi Elizium23. Thank you for your message.

Do you know if the Pope was referring to some other Invisible Hand, beside that first imagined and articulated by Adam Smith?

Manogor (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not for us to say on Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable secondary source which discusses it, then that can be added, although a long treatment of this topic would probably be better suited to the article Evangelii Gaudium rather than the main Pope Francis article. The main thing we are trying to avoid here is original research and synthesis. Elizium23 (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice job.

 * You're welcome! Merry Christmas! Elizium23 (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

This user wishes you a very Merry Christmas. My friend, you probably don't remember me, but I remember you. User:CHCSPrefect? Anyway. It's good to see you still floating around.

Have a good one. MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 11:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember you. Merry Christmas! Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hello, Elizium23. When you changed Latin Rite into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:
 * A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.
 * Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Latin Rite" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been doing this over quite some time now. Thanks for letting me know. Elizium23 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the immense number of changes that User:‎BD2412 is making at this moment? Are they the result of some discussion?  If not, I think they are seriously out of place.  But it is too late in the day for me to give immediate consideration to the question.  Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not out of place, they are in accordance with policy. A link to a disambiguation page is an error, and the creation of a large number of errors requires an immediate repair effort. bd2412  T 20:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They are out of place, because 99.5% of these dioceses only use the Roman Rite, so a link to Latin liturgical rites gives less information. Also, see Template talk:Infobox diocese. For the non-diocese pages, these links are now totally incorrect, because they referred to Latin Church not the Roman Rite. Almost none of these links should point to Latin liturgical rites. Elizium23 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Roman Rite is a subtopic of Latin liturgical rites; therefore, linking to the latter article is not inherently wrong, and is certainly more informative than a link to a disambiguation page, which is what your effort had yielded. bd2412  T 01:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Latin liturgical rites is wrong when the link was supposed to refer to the Latin Church, and I have 25 other examples of this mistake on my watchlist alone. Before my effort, Latin Rite was a redirect to Latin Church, which means all the links which meant Roman Rite were wrong. So it's a toss-up about who did more damage here. At least I have been steadily working to repair it over several months. Elizium23 (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you get the AutoWikiBrowser, which will allow you to knock out a few thousand such links in an afternoon. In the meantime, if you can provide me with a list or range of articles that need "Latin liturgical rites" replaced with "Roman Rite", I can knock those out tomorrow night. Cheers! bd2412  T 02:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion is continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism Elizium23 (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, SORRY. I had done a tremendous mistake. Please, repair it ASAP Thanks
As I said, I commit a terrible mistake. You will have to apologize me for the inconvenience. I'm quite new on that and even if I try my best, there is always errors we might commit. Certainly was not VANDALIZING

Best

Agustin Bartolome--Agustin Bartolome (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's ok. No worries, no harm done, and I have already corrected it. Thanks for contacting me. Happy editing! Elizium23 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Steven Robson
You will find that, while your diligence in insisting that that bishops do not change see until they are installed may be justified, the candidate nevertheless should "resign any offices he holds so that by devoting himself to prayer and meditation he may prepare for his new ministry." Ceremonial of Bishops No.1130. As such it is wrong to assume that non-episcopal offices are held until installation. Mark.hamid (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also find it bizarre that, given your forthrightness on this matter you allowed Bishop Steven Robson to be described as a "former auxiliary bishop" from 12 December until today but now want to try and split hairs about when he stopped being a chancellor/parish priest. Mark.hamid (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The candidate "should" resign but this does not mean that he did resign. A reliable secondary source would be useful in determining the facts. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope that my latest edit is acceptable to you and others as a compromise, in lieu of WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's a trivial point; we don't know on paper when he did resign. Word on the ground is that he pretty much went straight up to Dundee after being named. Also you'd come across as less of a seagull editor if your edit comments referenced Scottish, rather than English, practice, as the Diocese of Dunkeld is, in fact, the oldest diocese in... Scotland (my reference for that nugget being the word of the good bishop himself from the pulpit yesterday evening). Mark.hamid (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can do with less name-calling, thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTVAND Notice
My apologies for not researching that particular edit, it is because I had already noticed almost every edit from had been vandalism, as evidenced on article DePue High School, and thought it would save time to consider then all as unreliable, and undo them. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like an honest mistake. No worries, I'll remove your notice. Elizium23 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, when dealing with this IP, you should be aware of this: Sockpuppet_investigations/Wicks_Steve. Cheers. --evrik (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Curiouser and curiouser. Elizium23 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be aware 's comment is part of a personal vendetta at having been Blocked for 24 hours, following his previous attempts at intimidation ::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Evrik#Blocked 86.13.182.103 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One cannot hold a vendetta against an anonymous IP. Also, it wasn't 24 hours. --evrik (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You have already received one warning for harassment from, I suggest you let this go. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, that was not a warning; I was explaining the reasoning behind the block since evrik didn't understand what he'd been blocked for. Your own behaviour in this affair has been a far cry from exemplary; were I in your shoes, I would be swift to drop the stick. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  20:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)