User talk:Elizium23/Archive 8

Removal of Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera as prefect of the Congregation for the Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments
Article with said info can be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/pope-removes-key-benedict-xvi-protege-25164244 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.190.150 (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I linked the RFC on your talk page. I have many helpful links at the top of my own talk page. Please read them before introducing incorrect information in articles. Elizium23 (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Masioka (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm glad to see this is moving forward. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Two suggestions
Some thoughts for your consideration:

1. When you want to explain on a Talk page what the rules are for a bishop's appointment/transfer/timing, you might be better off doing so in plain English. A few clear declarative sentences. Most editors, I think, react negatively the moment they see that huge block of text, especially italic and bold italic text. That formatting doesn't emphasize your point. It just inhibits readability. I know you include citations, and you should, but tell us you are linking to Canon Law. Not just bare URLs. It might improve the responses you get.

2. If you are at odds with another editor, it seems harsh to use the disputed tag, which begins with this blanket statement:
 * This article's factual accuracy is disputed.

The editors, often many editors, who have contributed to an entry deserve more respect than that. The guideline says "Articles for which much of the factual accuracy is actively disputed should have a Disputed warning place at the top". You use that tag when you dispute one small subset of an article's content. The issue may show up in the entry at several points (infobox, lede), but it's really just one issue, no? Wouldn't two or three carefully placed tags suffice to alert the reader to what info is disputed? Without tag-bombing, of course.

Same point for "crystal" and "inaccuracy". You'd be better off -- and Wikipedia readers would be better off -- if you pinpointed your objections. When I came, for example, to Rainer Woelki the other day, I at first had no idea what the problems were. Imagine what the non-editor Wikipedia reader thought. And you didn't return promptly to remove those tags following his installation.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as for (1), I get pretty blue in the face trying to explain it myself. I'd rather have the WP:RS speak for themselves. At least it seemed to convince you. I have a lot of people to convince, as you might guess from the number of discussions I have linked at the top of my user talk page, this issue gets rehashed every. single. time. there is a new episcopal appointment in the Church. Nonetheless you have good advise so I will certainly consider it. As for (2) it is good advice and I will take it in advisement. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Before I Go To Sleep
The information is not incorrect; the total gross of $3,503,000 is dated as of 14th Sept. As you can see from the below in 'foreign' section of the page on BoxOfficeMojo, it's current gross in the United Kingdom alone already outstrips this figure, standing at $4.1m.

Count the figures together of the grossing countries on BoxOfficeMojo, which is dated as of 21st Sept (not 14th), and the figure is actually $5,095,592.

94.2.101.203 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have retracted the warning and reverted myself. Thank you for pointing it out. Elizium23 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Dioceses
It seems you've misunderstood the point of my edits. The problem with your wording is that it describes the dioceses as being 'in England', which is simply wrong – they both cover substantial areas outside of England. Any reader will interpret your wording on the Province of Southwark as that province covering areas in England only. 85.166.79.218 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that referring to them as "in England" only means that they are headquartered there, and is not typically taken as meaning that they are exclusively in that territory. It seems to me that all these articles already have quite adequate descriptions of the territories they cover outside of England and your addition of verbiage to them makes them tedious and redundant. That's just my personal view, though. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In an encyclopaedia, accuracy trumps style. Good luck phrasing the lede of 'Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth' in a way that at the same time is accurate and avoids mentioning the Channel Islands three times.
 * I'm surprised to learn that there are people who would understand 'this is a diocese in England' to mean 'this is a diocese at least partly in England' rather than 'this is a diocese entirely within England'. I do believe the latter interpretation is much more common, and at any rate, it is clearly common enough to warrant my wording. 85.166.79.218 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ayuda
Hola Elizium23!

Como usted habla español y esta interesado en los artículos de la Iglesia Católica, solicito tu ayuda. Estoy haciendo los escudos de armas de los obispos católicos, ahora estoy enfocado en los prelados estadounidenses y es por eso que escribo. Necesito imágenes o información de los emblemas de los arzobispos Roger Schwietz,y Joseph Naumann, y me preguntaba, si por favor usted se podría comunicar con las respectivas arquidiócesis y solicitar información de los escudos, yo no hablo ingles, por lo cual no podría tener una comunicación fluida, tendría que usar un traductor en linea, los cuales no son muy precisos que digamos. Del arzobispo Naumann solo encontré esta pequeña imagen de su escudo, no logro identificar el elemento que se encuentra entre la cruz amarilla y la escuadra blanca, si tan solo tuviera la descripción heráldica o una imagen de mejor resolución saldría de sudas.

Mira el armorial (álbum) de los escudos de los obispos de norte América, la mayoría los hice yo.

Por cierto, ¿me podrías por favor decir que es lo que dice este mensaje que me dejaron en mi discusión? no entiendo nada, uso dos traductores y el texto traducido no tiene sentido, solo se que tiene que ver el el lema en latín de mis escudos.

Gracias por la atencion prestada, saludos.

--SajoR (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Frank Pavone
I'm puzzled at your second warning. Would you rather a template remain on the page than that the page be edited to address the template's concern? That's not what templates are for, and as a longtime editor, you should know better than that - templates are not to be used as badges of shame, but as incitement to improve the article. (And I could have sworn there was a WP shortcut for badge of shame, but I don't know where it is.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have replied on Talk:Frank Pavone Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

help
could you right me an 8th grade report on spain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.247.130 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you haven't learned how to spell simple words like that by 8th grade, I am not sure how I could help you at all. But, no, I won't. Elizium23 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Elizium23: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

User talk:John Paul Parks
Hello Elizium23, I came across an edit by this user on the article Eh, where the user made an unsourced claim that seemed to be from original synthesis. Upon visiting this user's talk page, I discovered that they have a long history of these sorts of edits, and that the last message there was a warning by you for them to stop.

The edit that they made on 'Eh' was small, and I would have otherwise overlooked it, but I thought that you might be interested in knowing that this user continues to violate important wikipedia guidelines. They have made some other edits in the last few days as well, but I couldn't tell just from looking at them if these were also violations. I am a new user, so I don't feel confident in my judgment of his other edits.

I hope that this is helpful and not just nit-picking! --Sennsationalist (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the heads-up. Yes, I believe it is time to haul this user in for disciplinary action. I believe I'll file at WP:ANI when I get a chance. Elizium23 (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for your time! --Sennsationalist (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit on Paschal Greeting
Elizium,

I'm writing in regard to my removal and your restoration of a section on language translations for the Paschal Greeting. I removed Klingon and Dothraki because they are made up languages for television shows. Klingon is the language of the warrior aliens in "Star Trek" and Dothraki is a made up language for fictional warriors in the book series and HBO television series "Game of Thrones". Including these fake languages is not in keeping with the reverence associated with the Paschal Greeting, Christ is risen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.15.130 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what reverence has to do with it. This is Wikipedia, a secular encyclopedia. As long as the translations are verifiable then they stay in. Elizium23 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the thanks on the npov page...
You're a lot more experienced than I am here. What can I do to get some more neutral editors participating? The problems with the page at issue become pretty glaring once you read the sources, but so far there's been a bunch of participation by friends of the "other side" who appear to share an agenda.

Djcheburashka (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice boards are a good start. You can follow the steps in WP:DR. Unfortunately, sometimes the more contentious a topic is, the more neutral editors want to stay far away. And obscure topics double the chances of this. Elizium23 (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to follow the WP:DR directions. Unfortunately, the other editor does not feel bound by the rules. After starting the POV discussion, the other editor declared that there was a consensus within hours, and repeatedly removed the POV template. She's been cited for abusing templates before. This time it results in protection for the page. She also works closely with two other editors, on each others' pages, which creates an impression of broader involvement.

I don't see any indication that she's ever attempted to work toward compromise or consensus on anything, ever. She appears to be coordinating with the other editors off the site.

As I'm going through her prior edits to see additional problems, I see a host of issues with a similar pattern. The editor misstates a set of sources. When someone tries to fix it, she and her group then pile-on, claiming in a conclusory fashion that the new participant is ignoring facts and sources, that the new participant must be a biased political operative trying to advance an agenda, and declaring any edits but their own to be vandalism or disruptive. In most cases, though, the outside editor was correct; she was misstating sources, and altering the text of articles to advance what is apparently a personal political agenda. I'm not sure how to get involvement by someone actually neutral. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

November 14, 2014 - List of people with bipolar disorder page edit
Hello this is jarvis9251, thank you for your talk message regarding my edit to the List of people with bipolar disorder page. I understand that my reference does not link to any related article. The reason for this is that I am adding myself. I am self disclosing that as a member of the band Scissorfight, I have bipolar. I was not sure of the best way to list this in the reference section, so if you can think of a better way to list as reference, that would be very helpful. From my understanding this does not fall under the unacceptable self-published sources guidelines. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional coments you may have. Thank you. --Jarvis9251 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, this list is limited to people who are themselves notable by Wikipedia standards. In general, we take this to mean that a Wikipedia article for the subject exists. Secondly, a credible diagnosis of bipolar needs to be asserted in a reliable secondary source. So if you were interviewed by Rolling Stone or Spin magazine and disclosed it there, that would be acceptable. A blog or just a declaration here is not. We actually don't even know your true identity, you could be someone else claiming to be Jarvis. We follow guidelines in WP:BLP for living persons, and that means that contentious poorly-sourced claims must be removed immediately. I would also point you to Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest. If you are Jarvis, then you are discouraged from editing related pages directly. It is suggested you use the talk page to make edit suggestions that can be carried out by a neutral editor without a COI. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I completely understand what you are saying, it is true I am not an unbiased author referencing an interview I might have done reffering to my illness. And yes I do suppose this could be considered a conflict of interest. I was only using this oppurtunity to make public and disclose the fact that I have bipolar disorder, and thought that it made sense to include on this page being an accomplished musician and member of Scissorfight. As someone who suffers from bipolar, not only is it a big step to acknowledge and accept this illness, but it is very helpful to learn that others you respect and admire also suffer from this illness. Which I thought was the purpose of this page. I felt that by adding my name to this list, I was only doing my part helping others with bipolar and helping reduce stigma. Thanks --Jarvis9251 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I expected better of you
Come on, Elizium. You're not a troll - you know that you need consensus for changes. Why this insistence on adding material for which consensus has not been obtained? I mean, you presumably have realized that the new additions are ludicrous original research, so maybe this was just your mistake, but you can't be unaware that Esoglou, despite the presence of a couple of sockpuppets/meatpuppets, has nonetheless failed to gain consensus for these additions despite having been trying to edit-war some of them in since July. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When at least three separate people have reverted you, you can't claim to have consensus for what you keep defending by your edit-warring. Elizium23 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And at least three people have removed the content as well. "You must gain consensus to keep the article how it was" isn't how Wikipedia works - instead, you must gain consensus to make changes. You presumably know the latter is true, but imagine if the former were actually true, as you're bizarrely claiming now. With no consensus either for the article to change or for it to stay as it is, it would have to be, I don't know, blanked entirely. Something has to take precedence, and WP:BRD tells us it's the status quo. Now, why don't you try to build consensus for these new edits? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When there are at least three separate people on each side, then you have no consensus for either version, and logic indicates that you stop edit-warring and discuss on the talk page until you achieve some sort of consensus before attempting to make another edit. But you're perpetuating a long, slow edit-war in multiple places on Wikipedia, and it's quite clear to anyone familiar with your history that that is what you do best, rather than build consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When there are at least three separate people on each side, then you have no consensus for either version, and logic indicates that you stop edit-warring and discuss on the talk page until you achieve some sort of consensus before attempting to make another edit. - I could say the same for you. Since the new text is transparently bad, it's better to leave it out, but if you think there's anything whatsoever to be saved there, why not try to gain consensus for it on the talk page? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Glass Castle (film)
Jxleung (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Glass Castle is a verifiable film. Consult with me before you delete my page next time...
 * Is it verifiable that the film is already IN PRODUCTION? If it is not in production yet, then per WP:NFF we do not create an article for it on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Jxleung (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter the author confirmed that the film is in production and Jennifer Lawrence is going to play her. Other info is also on Wikipedia on The Glass Castle page.
 * I can find no such interview. Please provide a link to it. IMDb lists this film as "IN DEVELOPMENT". Elizium23 (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the link, obviously I did not finish the job! BTW, consider restoring a mention of the United Nations in the lede? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Bishops Browne/Lowe
I see you are an expert. Thanks. Rick570 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. What do you think of this approach ? Rick570 (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What about it? Elizium23 (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that website ([Catholic Hierarchy) does not accord with your approach. I think the Vatican itself has a similarly liberal approach. As long as it is clear in the article that the person is not actually ordained and installed, then all the information should be provided as if he were a bishop (including the title). In my editing I make sure that the term "bishop-elect" is always used and it is clear that he has been appointed but is not ordained or installed. Doing all that work now will minimise the work I have to do later. And also minimise the effects of my forgetting to do it. I think your approach is just a little too pedantic. But, I am grateful for your input and I will be careful not to offend your sensibilities.[[User:Rick570|Rick570]] (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Catholic Hierarchy is just one guy's database, and not a WP:RS. It clearly contains inaccuracies such as making them bishop of a diocese where they have not actually taken canonical possession. That happens on installation, not appointment. So I don't see why we should hold it up as an example to imitate. I don't see what is so pedantic about calling a priest a priest and not a bishop. Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your reply. All the best.Rick570 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Mockingjay Part 2
I responded to your question on my talk page, but in future before posting to a user's talk page about their changes to an article, please check the article's talk page to see if there's already a discussion there about those changes. Thanks! BeIsKr (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I saw that discussion but I thought it was on the Part 1 talk page. Sorry about the confusion. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for any trouble I may have caused.
I didn't mean to cause controversy when I created those episode sublists. I was just trying to make space for television episode lists so it'd be easier for me to sort out the writers of primetime TV series for Primetime TV Writers Wiki. I'll understand if you think I should be blocked to convince me not to do it anymore. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Apologies are a good start. What you can concentrate on, going forward, is repairing the problems you have created, by un-merging articles where appropriate, and elsewhere by providing attribution for the cut-and-paste moves that were done. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia and the template Copied for how to do this. It is not for me to decide if you should be blocked or not, but I will say that copyright is taken seriously at Wikipedia, because it is a matter of law, not just policy. So your efforts to repair the problems would be taken into account. Elizium23 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Acts of the Apostles
Please provide an example of the "personal opinion" you say I added to this page.--Sfarney (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney
 * You're trying to introduce "weasel words" - equivocations that ultimately make the statements meaningless. "often presumed to be..." "often interpreted as..." "some scholars call..." "author of Acts claims..." "Some scholars argue..." "Some scholars suggest..." "...alleged..." "...apparently..." "are seen as..." - in other words, pretty much everything you added is a violation of WP:NPOV. While it is correct that beliefs should not be presented as fact, this is factual scholarship rather than beliefs upon which you are trying to cast doubt. amd these equivocations are not even suitable for statements of belief. Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Episcopal Church in Minnesota
I'm afraid I've taken an opposite stance to yours rather strongly on the talk page. Just wanted to say, no ill feelings on my part, and hope there are none on yours. Evensteven (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologizes
I would to apologize for my rebuttal on my talk page. My comment seemed a bit "smart-ass" like rude. I hope I didn't upset you. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's ok, don't worry about it. Elizium23 (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox usage: Byzantine Rite, not just EO
You're correct, of course. But, what about the subsequent section, "Oriental Orthodox"? The sections should be analogous, so methinks you need to divide up the latter according to rite. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will think about it. Perhaps "Other Eastern Rites" would fit. Elizium23 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Other Eastern Rites" doesn't cover Nestorians and their corresponding Catholic Churches, e.g., the Chaldean Rite. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. "Eastern" does not mean "Eastern Orthodox" but simply "Eastern Christian" - all 22 Eastern Catholic Churches are termed "Eastern" by the Catholic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Somehow in my mind I was thinking "Oriental Orthodox" when I typed what I did. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
My heartfelt wishes for a blessed, joyful, and festal Christmas season, with all the best for the coming year. My thanks also for your pointers when I was new here - always good to go, and still appreciated. Evensteven (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Merry Christmas to you as well! Elizium23 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Hello, I'm Evrik. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Red Mass because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --evrik (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon. I reverted your edit because it did not appear constructive. It is disingenuous of you to claim the reverse on my talk page. Do me a favor and don't post here again. Elizium23 (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Blue Mass. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. --evrik (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to think that you wouldn't know vandalism if it bit you on the nose. Once again, I'm asking you politely to stop using my talk page, because you can't seem to use it constructively. Next time we'll ask an administrator what he thinks. Elizium23 (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert C. Morlino
Hi-Would you please look at the article about Bishop Robert C. Morlino? An anon editor deleted some cited materials with no reasons given. Robert Morlino is controversial and I am not sure what should be in the article. Many thanks and Happy New Year-RFD (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for looking at the article.RFD (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Actually I was surprised to find it's not already on my watchlist... quite a glaring omission for me. I'll keep a better eye in the future :) Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The Singing Nun
Not sure why you reverted my edits. My goal was not to create any ill will. If I erred, I apologize, but I thought eliminating the extra space between sentences was correct internet usage and that eliminating the comma before "that" was correct in that context. Please let me know your thoughts. Grammarspellchecker (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Single or double spaces between sentences is really irrelevant on the Wiki because multiple instances of whitespace are collapsed into one by the renderer. So it is wasted effort to try and "correct" spacing where it occurs. Now as for the comma, compare "Deckers wrote, sang and performed her own songs, which were so well received by her fellow Sisters and by visitors that her religious superiors encouraged her to record an album" and "Deckers wrote, sang and performed her own songs, which were so well received by her fellow Sisters and by visitors, that her religious superiors encouraged her to record an album". What strikes me is that the comma helps to set off the noun "visitors" from the following clause, because they are not meant to be directly associated. Without the comma, the reader is led to a confusing interpretation of "visitors that her religious superiors encouraged her to record an album". This seems to be the case of dangling modifier and is perhaps best repaired by a total rewrite of that very long sentence rather than removing a simple comma. Elizium23 (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncontroversial moves
Please list them correctly; they go in the uncontroversial moves section at WP:RM, and are not performed by using the Rm template on the article talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that all too well, now... thank you. Also thanks for the talk page tweaking, I appreciate it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Incipits
In view of what you wrote to me on this matter, you might like to add a comment here. I have usually made the request as uncontroversial and had it accepted as such, but two were accepted with the comment "presented as uncontroversial". I made this one request as potentially controversial, in order to have something to refer to, if opposition ever arose to making such a change. This one I chose as one of the incipits that people may be most used to seeing capitalized and therefore more likely to be controversial. The Vatican website text of the encyclical in Latin is here. Esoglou (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Eucharist
I made a change to an article, Eucharist, which you reverted. What is a reliable source in your definition? I quoted a biography about William Booth by Edward Harold Begbie and linked to a website with further quotes from the same book. Unfortunately I didn't have time to go through all relevant biographies, various editions of The Handbook of Doctrine, vintage articles of The War Cry and various books and pamphlets on the subject to find the exact quotes, I was looking for. But I placed the main quote, stating that Salvation Army simply didn't practice sacraments, because in the beginning the Army did not intend to be a church. I was simply trying to establish the difference between early practices - practical theology - and later attempts to create a systematic theology in salvationism on the matter, which the article clearly lacked. Not even academic thesises demand, that every sentence is documented with references. ;-) Gywerd (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
If neither Esoglou nor Roscelese (I'm not pinging at this time) is willing to file a request, perhaps can you yourself or I myself file it? --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply don't have time. As much as I desperately need these two parties to move past their perennial dispute, my life is about to become extremely hectic for at least a month and a half. It also represents a huge time investment to go through the prolific editing histories of the two disputants and find behavioral evidence for a case. Right now, I am so ignorant of the arbcom process that I don't even know if a third party can file a request. If this is indeed the case, then perhaps you would want to do so. I am willing, as time permits, to offer observations and discussion in an ongoing case. But I will not be available for any more significant participation in such a task for the foreseeable future. Elizium23 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, I've filed a request for arbitration. The link is Arbitration/Requests/Case. To reply to others, do so in your own section. --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The case is accepted: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Call to Action
"""Comment""" Apologies for thinking the Call to Action site had been deleted Tomcapa1 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI
Please note that we don't use former in the intros of living retired officials. For examples: Albert II of Belgium, Jimmy Carter, Kim Campbell, Beatrix of the Netherlands etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You will also note that we don't use "was" in their intros either! So please don't revert me. Elizium23 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We very much do use "former". See MOS:BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made some adjustments to ...served as pope...'. We should use pope emeritus in the intro, to avoid any futher conflict, though. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

On SOL Laptop
Hi,

«Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.»

The author of the article, that additionally happens to be the owner of the company, has used duplicate accounts to modify it, and also to reinforce his arguments while, BTW, using offensive language against other editors. I think that's surpassing a limit to assume good Faith by far.

On the other hand the article itself hasn't been marked as non noticeable before, that was other different article that happened to be fused with this one, AFAIK. 95.16.146.53 (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Midnight Rider (film) article split
Thank you for your request to add the article history of Midnight Rider (film) to split article: Midnight Rider train accident. If possible could you review: Talk:Midnight_Rider_(film) and offer any advise as to best way to address issue. DFinmitre (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February..  If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee.  If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know.  On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

Copts
I knew my redirect would be reverted, but long experience has taught me that this is the only way to get any attention to problems at Wikipedia. The article is nonsense. It completely fails to establish its basic premise, that the Copts are an ethnic group, as opposed to a religious minority. The impressive-looking set of references is irrelevant to this central point. There is no point in editing an article which is based on a false premise and should not exist at all. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lloydbaltazar?
I have begun to wonder about Athene cheval, but I have nothing to go on other than nationality and the same excessive confidence in mistaken ideas. Esoglou (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, my friend, but I think not. Two factors immediately leap to mind: account age (2010) and breadth of topic interest. In contrast, Lloyd is rather new and narrow-minded. Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Christianity and Sexuality case: workshop phase extended
Dear, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

RE: reverted changes to [WP:Jesus,_King_of_the_Jews#The_INRI_and_.CE.99.CE.9D.CE.92.CE.99_acronyms] The footnote I added is not original research, but a correction of the mistake in the verse. While the KJV of this verse says "Greek, Latin, and Hebrew", no other translation possesses this line. This is because the Greek text of the NT does not have this line. The KJV added it by mistake. but even if you don't accept that, it does not change the fact the Greek does not say " in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew". I did not add original research, I simply corrected the diagram. In a footnote, btw.--XKV8R (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did, however, leave out the part about the harmonization with John. The fn now reflects the actual Greek text of the NT.--XKV8R (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing 'unsourced' about this change. The Greek text of the verse under discussion does not contain the text that the KJV adds. That's the point. The KJV added text that is not present in the Greek. This is demonstrated by the fact that no other translation has the translation that the KJV has. It is not 'unsourced'. I cited the source: the Greek text of Luke 23:38, and EVERY OTHER VERSION OF THE TEXT. THAT'S THE CITATION. lol. The fact of the matter is that the article is incorrect as it now stands. Luke 23:38 does NOT say "Latin, Hebrew, Greek". I'm pointing that out, and you're falsely citing it as 'original research' and as 'unsourced', when neither are true.--XKV8R (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want a "source", check out http://biblehub.com/luke/23-38.htm. Notice anything about every translation EXCEPT the KJV? The text in question is not there. Why? Because it's not in the Greek. The KJV added it, but it's not there. That's the point.--XKV8R (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closed
An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place:


 * 1) User:Esoglou and User:Padresfan94 have been site banned.  Both users may appeal their bans after one year.
 * 2) User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.  They are also prohibited from making rollback-style reverts without providing an explanation, and from engaging in conduct that casts aspersions or personalises disputes.
 * 3) User:Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for edit warring.  In addition, they are restricted to one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss content reversions on the article talk page.  This restriction may be appealed after twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Question about recognition of bishops
Hello, Since you seem to know quite a bit about such things I am wondering if you can clarify for me to what extent bishops such as Richard Williamson are understood to still be (Roman) Catholic bishops (and not just bishops with valid but illicit orders) when they have been ordained without canonical authority? I partly ask this because of a disagreement I've recently had over the article name for Michael Cox (Catholic bishop) who is, in my understanding, more of a vagantes bishop. How do you understand the differences in recognition between someone such as Williamson and someone such as Cox? Cheers, Anglicanus (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that the bottom line is if independent reliable sources describe Cox as Catholic, then we can go with that. The difference is that Cox belongs to a schismatic organization that is several levels removed from the Catholic Church. Williamson, in his association with the SSPX, was directly ordained by a Catholic Church bishop and remained Catholic, even while not in full communion. Note that the Catholic Church affirmed that attendance at an SSPX chapel would fulfill the Sunday obligation, i.e. in a "Catholic rite". I do not know if the Catholic Church has commented on the canonical status of the Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, or the validity of the Thuc line of apostolic succession. My suggestion for a succinct description of Cox would be "Independent Catholic bishop", as that is how his church is described. Elizium23 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your inappropriate deletion of my addition to Nuns on the Bus
When you left me a comment saying I had done a personal analysis in the material, you showed you had not actually looked at the reference I gave, the Huffington post article, which covered everything I included. If you don't agree with something, then by all means bring it to the talk page. Or if something isn't referenced then ask for a citation. But your comment made a presumptuous and erroneous accusation, which is not a good Wikipedia approach. Remember, comment on the issue, not the person. Want another source for the same material you thought was my personal analysis? http://www.religionnews.com/2014/09/08/new-nuns-bus-tour-tackle-political-dark-money/ VanEman (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Leadership Conference of Women Religious page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=657126328 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F657126328%7CLeadership Conference of Women Religious%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leadership Conference of Women Religious, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gerhard Müller. 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) 09:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Threatening users who add up-to-date, well referenced material from reliable sources
Stop threatening people for adding material you think is NPOV, when it's accurate, up to date, well referenced material. If you think another point of view should be added, then add it. But don't delete other material with Wikipedia acronyms you use in place of "I don't like this." Your threats will not work.VanEman (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

LOTR
What does one do when incorrect information is posted on Wikipedia and attempts to rectify said information are rebuked as unreliable?XenoRasta (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply find a reliable source, one that says what you want it to say, and use it. This might be complicated if several equally-reliable sources disagree on a particular fact. Then it should be brought for discussion and evaluation by the community on the article talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Does the cover of the DVD/Bluray count as reliable? XenoRasta (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in fact would trump most other sources out there such as news sites. I think the current reference points to the BBC. Be aware, however, that sometimes a disc has two or more different versions released, so you should consider the possibility that both times are correct for their respective editions. Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (TPS) Also, be aware that it is not unknown for errors to appear in the info on DVD covers. I am not saying that is the situation here but, if you could find any other source that syncs up with cover info, any edit change would be on more secure ground. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it sounds like my edits are accurate based on the above statements, considering that I know there are two different versions of the film and I have watched the DVD and Bluray. I stand by my edits.  XenoRasta (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pope Francis
Hi, I notice your recent edit of Pope Francis page. Did you notice the recently posted video on youtube claiming responsibility for the fires in the churches in Israel? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzPuDnmmtE I wonder if this should be brought to the attention of the authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesread77 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Timothy Radcliffe
Hi. Sorry, but I don't understand the message you've send me with regards to the Timothy Radcliffe page. What is it about? JonahOP
 * Are you a member of the Dominican Order? Elizium23 (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As you can see I didn't make any textual contributions to the Timothy Radcliffe page, so (lack of) objectivity doesn't play a role. (JonahOP) 07:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

removing talkpage comments
Hi Elizium23, I understand that it is acceptable to remove article talk page comments if they are harmful, especially if they are disruptive and off-topic. In this case the editor deliberately misgendered someone, and claimed no knowledge of WP:MOS:IDENTITY right after they had contributed to a discussion on it. It was pure trolling and has no place on the article talk page. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 03:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you know it was deliberate? Weegeerunner (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They had just been in a conversation about her gender. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 04:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Give me some difs to prove what you are saying. It's not like using different pronouns on talk pages is strictly banned. Weegeerunner (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it was "pure" trolling, because the comment contained a concern that had recently been expressed by many on the same talk page. And saying he did something deliberate is a clear failure by you to WP:AGF. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not strictly banned but the WP:Gender identity essay and general practice say its a BLP violation. For diffs just check the editor's recent history. Elizium23 I think we'll agree to disagree. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't intend to troll. It is not at all clear to me that the talk pages are subject to MOS and it seems a gross extension of discretionary powers to assume so. In terms of my recent history, in anything controversial my postings are on the talk page, which is where things are talked about. If there is a Wiki policy referring to language choices on the talk pages, please let me know and I will follow it. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP, as referenced in WP:Gender identity. I never said talk pages were subject to MOS. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 01:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Thanks. BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church and "facts"
No one was taking out the "facts". I was only clarifying the facts as the earlier IP editor had added the episcopate to the "generally restricted" which is unfactual. Afterwriting (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you were clarifying, then why did you remove the word "episcopate" and not add a clarification like I did? Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is obvious why I removed "episcopate" ~ because it was actually not a fact as you well know. Making any further clarification about this is not the issue. Do not make such false edit summary comments in future. Get your own facts right first. Afterwriting (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right, you are right, and I am sorry but I was wrong. Please forgive me. Elizium23 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I contact you about a page I edited?
Hello, I joined Wiki last night and made some edits on the ISKCON page for what I thought was important information with what I thought were reliable sources, but then I found a short time later that the whole section I wrote has been deleted. Then I found your message saying to go to your talk page about it, but no links about how I'm supposed to contact you on it. I'm still trying to work out Wiki. Can you please tell me if this is the correct way to contact you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GemmJones (talk • contribs) 12:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have successfully contacted me, but the best place to discuss improvements to that article is on Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Please first read and understand WP:IRS. Also remember to sign your talk page messages with four tildes: ~ Elizium23 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sabbath in Christianity
Hi,

I've just made an edit at this article that links the text "Catholicism" to the article "Roman Catholic Church". That's not inappropriate, since I'm just trying to keep the article text brief. What I'm saying applies to Orthodoxy too, and what I'm wondering is if there is a better link to use, which would include the Eastern Catholics, since I think they're also in agreement. Do you have a suggestion? Evensteven (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roman Catholic Church is a redirect, of course, to Catholic Church, and this main article refers to the whole communion of 24 Churches, exactly as the article Eastern Orthodox Church refers to the EO communion. The only things I'd want to add to your list would be the oft-forgotten Oriental Orthodox communion as well as the Assyrian Church of the East. Elizium23 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, of course, and thanks; I should have checked instead of working from memory. I remember a discussion with an Eastern Catholic over these article names and got them mixed. As for the other eastern churches, I don't have direct knowledge regarding their stance, though I scarcely think it's reasonable that they would differ. This matter was pretty much settled before any of the divisions. I guess it might be good faith to include them and then hope for someone's revision if it turns out to be wrong. Evensteven (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Maybe not Church of the East. Differences are still unlikely, but I'm just not so sure. Evensteven (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and...
...as far as I can tell, the only mention of religion at WP:SYSTEMIC is the observation that the Christian POV is overrepresented. The existence of gay people is not a systemic bias issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

IT IS CITED!
Everything I changed on Anno Domini is either cited (the peculiarity of medieval latin with the irregular ending of -o instead of -us)or common knowledge (latin doesn't use articles is common knowledge, as is the fact that an 'ablative' noun would have to be taken as the object of a preposition and this is not a prepositional phrase, of is a genitive phrase hence nominative Anno, genitive Domini). There is a common interpretation that it is Anno ablative as in 'in' the year, but that one point of contention isn't enough to undo the other less debated statements in my edit about articles being interpolated into the translation, so you reverted everything over one point instead of editing that singular point. Please don't revert without starting a convo in the talk page. What exactly do you feel needs to be further cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iṣṭa Devatā (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replied at Talk:Anno Domini. Elizium23 (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hanging Tree (song)
I provided a single source from a WBUR Boston, an NPR station and a very reliable source. Everything I wrote is in either in that source or the original source materiel (movie and book that the article is on). I see no need to provide further sources. Please elaborate and explain. Yserbius (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've reviewed the article and restored your edits. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Elizium23 (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Cardinal Beslius Cleemis Does not hold the title "Catholicose"
Hi. This is regarding the page edit of Cardinal Baselios Cleemis. Earlier as you have writted he is not a Catholicos. Pls check the vatican siote http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/documentation/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_thottunkal_bc.html

This is a wrong message telling him to be the Catholicose. The post of Catholicose is eaqual to the Papal Chair. How can a Cardinal be equal to the Pope. In the year 2005 this Church was elevated to the status of a Major Archiepiscopal Church and suddenly the Church began to address its Primate as Major Archbishop Catholicos. Catholicos title has not been granted by Vatican and that has been clearly mentioned in the letter (Port.N. 2581/2005/h) sent on 18th June 2005 by His Excellency Cardinal Walter Kasper, the then President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity to the late Metropolitan Philipose Mar Eusebius, the President of the Ecumenical Relations Department of Indian Malankara Orthodox Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldilex (talk • contribs) 13:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ZENIT source Kerala Catholic Bishops' Conference Syro-Malankara Catholic Church all official websites describe him thus. Elizium23 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Percy Jackson Task-force
Hi, I'm looking to help revamp the Percy Jackson Task-force, a project dedicated to maintaining articles related to Rick Riordan and Percy Jackson & the Olympians. I noticed your edits on some articles that fall under this task-force's "jurisdiction", and I wanted to invite you to join! If you're interested, I'd like to invite you to become a full member; please note that the difficult requirements for membership are going to be lowered in the near future, so you can join worry-free (I know they scared me away on the first try.). You can also become just a "supporter", if that's more your speed.

Head on over to the project page if you're interested -- and no hard feelings if you're not. Thanks again in advance, and feel free to contact me on my Talk page. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, welcome to the task-force! And thanks for getting right down to contributing -- I saw your opinion post on the deletion page for "Percy Jackson & the Olympians terms". 2ReinreB2 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you. But I have not edited that particular page at all. Elizium23 (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that's embarrassing. I'm trying to watch too many pages at once. Oh well, consider it just thanks in advance for anything you will do. :) 2ReinreB2 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)