User talk:Lucullus19

Matra matters
Upload's actually pretty easy. If you've got the file, best place for it IMO is WP Commons. Uploading's EZ there, & it makes the image available to everybody. Just follow the links. :) Also, don't forget to sign your posts: ~ ( for just name,  if you want to add the time & date after a previous post... :D)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Seven
Please stop adding the reference to Bleacher Report to these articles. It is not a reliable source, and the fact that you are trying to mask it's presence by claiming it is a Sports Illustrated article could be considered disruptive. Please find a reliable source that supports this point before restoring a citation. Thank you, Resolute 21:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Finland men's national ice hockey team (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Big Six


 * United States men's national ice hockey team (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Big Six

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Hello, I'm Scjessey. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Barack Obama, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Constructor vs manufacturer
Please note that the term used in motor racing is "constructor", not "manufacturer". And that applies not only to F1 but also to other classes, so I have reverted your changes to a number of articles. Thomas.W (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grand Prix motor racing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Barrett. 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) 09:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to James Monroe. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World Cup of Hockey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Six. 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) 09:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

triumvirate
Please do not add statements into wikipedia without providing references; in the case of triumvirate article please provide references that Moses &Co constituted "A triumvirate (from Latin, triumvirātus, from trēs three + vir man) is a political regime dominated by three powerful individuals". Informal references that three person may be colloquially called "triumvirate" do not count: the article is about a specific, political usage of the term. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Term "triumvirate" is mentioned directly by the sources that I refer to: Dictionary of world bibliography - ....After the Exodus, the eighty three year old Aaron seems to have become one of the triumvirate of leaders sharing power with Moses and Hur....and on the page http://biblehub.com/galatians/2-9.htm -  .....The "James" of the old triumvirate of the Gospels, "Peter, James, and John," was now no more....Both Moses-Aaron-Hur and Peter-James-John clearly acted as member of triumvirate within a group of some people, although this triumvirate is informal as few other triumvirates mentioned in the articles. During Exodus Moses and Co. had a political power over all Israelite. On the other hand, this article is not merely on pure politics, but on all men acted with some authority over other group of people.Lucullus19 (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's exactly what I had in mind by references. Citing only Bible is not enough. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Saints Cyril and Methodius, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mao Zedong Zhou Enlai Zhu De.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mao Zedong Zhou Enlai Zhu De.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Stalin bier.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stalin bier.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Judea. 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 that 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. JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of Roman emperors into Crisis of the Third Century. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
You are in danger of edit warring at two articles, the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke. Your initial edit has been reverted twice, and you should now desist and argue your case on Talk. This is especially the case if the edits are again reverted by some other editor.PiCo (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
Your recent editing history at Authorship of the Bible shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring The other party, User:PiCo, has agreed to take a break from the three articles in dispute. So most likely PiCo won't be blocked. You might consider the wisdom of making the same promise, to allow the AN3 complaint to be closed. If you don't acknowledge the problem and make a proposal of how to avoid the war in the future, admins may feel that your account should be blocked due to your violation of the WP:Edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've closed this report with a warning to you. --Neil N  talk to me 16:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zhou Enlai Mao Zedong and Zhu De .jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Zhou Enlai Mao Zedong and Zhu De .jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Main protagonists of Prague spring in 1968.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2021
Greetings: I have reverted your recent edit to Continental Congress as well as the one to List of delegates to the Continental Congress in which you added a gallery of delegates to Continental Congress who also served as President of the United States. The gallery and the information it provides is not pertinent to either article and is beyond scope of both articles. Please do not reinsert it again without achieving a consensus to do so on the respective article's talk page. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Patriarch into Pentarchy. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Citation Formatting
Please pay closer attention to the citation style in articles you edit. If one is obviously predominant, as is the case for the Visigoths, ensure that your edits conform to that style. I corrected your previous addition but would most certainly appreciate it if you adhered to the standards of well-organized pages. --Obenritter (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Le Mans 1966.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Le Mans 1966.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

My revert of your revert on List of Formula One constructors
Hi Lucullus,

I think I should apologise for my edit summary reverting your revert, it isn't very helpful or meaningful, so sorry. But I definitely will stand by the revert itself. We can discuss on the article talk page if you prefer but to put "licensed" in there just doesn't make sense. This was at least 20 years before such constructor licenses existed, and in addition these are constructors who never even competed in an FIA sanctioned race. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Gallic Wars
Dear Lucullus19. Thank you for your recent attention to the article Gallic Wars, which has been nominated for A-Class review by User:CaptainEek and is at present under review at (WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gallic_Wars). Your edit brought back on the infobox in the list of Roman commanders the names of Mark Antony, Gaius Trebonius and Servius Sulpicius Galba that had been removed by CaptainEek following my suggestion as one of the reviewers. I suggested to do so because MOS:INFOBOX states that "The infobox is a panel ... that summarizes key features of the page's subject". I felt that just like the lead should not introduce information that has not been detailed in the body, so should the infobox. You seem to disagree. I am an apprentice-reviewer and might well be wrong. I feel your opinion should be heard and motivated with more detail on the reviewing page. You seem to be an expert in Roman history and have considerable experience as you joined Wikipedia in 2011. The A-Class nominations need to be supported by several reviewers to pass. You could be one of them. Otherwise, please consider to revert your edit. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverting your recent reverts
Hi Lucullus19. Regarding the reasoning of your recent reverts at the list of F1 champions pages, it is generally not a convincing argument to solely or mostly refer to how things are at other pages, as per WP:OTHERCONTENT. The issues that have been brought up at the lists of F1 champions pages might or might not apply to the other pages which you mentioned, and they might or might not need improvement in these areas. The context on those other pages might also be different. For example, it is a different situation to have flags in the most recent entry list compared to a champions table that begins from 1950. This is why the arguments in question were not very convincing.

As for your comment of "Moreover, in past seasons every constructor received nationality through its works team/entrant. It is therefore obvious that e.g. in 1950 Alfa was identified as Italian", this is far from obvious, because constructor and entrant are not the same thing. There are cases like 1969, where Matra did not have a works team. Therefore, please provide appropriate reliable sources to prove this.

I have reverted to the long-standing revision for now as usually should be after a dispute between two editors has started, but as per the WP:BRD cycle, if you manage to gain consensus for your changes, please feel free to add them back in that case. Thank you. Carfan568 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

List of popes
Hi Lucullus. I have reverted you at List of popes because there is no evidence that the names Paul threw around are the men put on the early lists of bishop of Rome. If there is evidence (reliable sources), please feel free to undo what i did and enter references showing so. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 14:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR
At Apostles in the New Testament, you have violated 3RR with your latest edit. Either undo your edit to go back to WP:QUO, or I will ask for sanctions. Veverve (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please feel welcome to reply to discussion
You'll find a discussion here. Many of your edits either aren't verified by the content of sources you provide, rely on unreliable sources, or otherwise contain inaccuracies. Please feel welcome to reply either here or at the discussion I linked above. Please also refrain from edit-warring. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Church Fathers
Hi Lucullus19! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Tryin to make a change :-/ 07:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I thank for making you aware of the problem with your editing at Church Fathers.  I notice that you have not posted to a talk page since 2018.  This must change; if you continue to reintroduce your content without first obtaining consensus, I will block your account.  This is a very simple situation to avoid.  Please read the links in Mychemicalromanceisrealemo's post and incorporate them in your future editing.  If you have any questions, you may post them here; I am watch listing this page.  Tide  rolls  14:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

February 2024
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Saint Joseph, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please familiarize yourself with Verifiability: "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." Note the part about reliable sources. Just because something has been attributed to sources and references made is insufficient; the nature of the source must also be scrutinized before use.

Saying that, The reliability of Kinane's book source for the purpose used was challenged in December 2023. You were even invited (User_talk:Lucullus19) to the discussion about it at the time, a discussion that you declined to participate in. The objection is that the author is not a noted scholar of the historical period in question, the work itself is not a scholarly one, and evidence of editorial oversight on the part of the publisher is lacking. As noted in the discussion, this is sufficient as a source for then author's opinion, not for a statement of "fact". The consensus moved on - or perhaps reasserted - without you based on existing policies.

As for the use of the The Biblical Archaeologist journal, it looks scholarly enough but the reference is practically useless. The Google page is a reference to two volumes. This is not reasonable. Use Template:Cite journal and indicate - among other things - the particularly article that was used. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank You for Your advice. Following your advice, if I use wording "According to some within Catholic tradition Saint Joseph (along with Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and John the Apostle) is among a few saints who left no bodily relics" instead of "Saint Joseph (along with Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and John the Apostle) is among a few saints who left no bodily relics", will it be suitable for this article ? With reference to the Kinane's book as a source for this purpose. According to You, this book is sufficient as a source for the author's opinion, not for a statement of "fact". Lucullus19 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"According to some" would then beg the question "according to whom?" This, in turn, would lead to the question of whether the opinion's source is a significant for purposes of WP:WEIGHT. My guess is that Kinane, for reasons discussed already concerning scholarly credentials and all, is insufficiently significant for the purpose.

It would be better to find a reliable scholarly source for the factoid instead. I figure that if it is a notable factoid it's bound to be in more than one reliable scholarly source; that tends to be the case. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 06:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
Hello, I'm Lone-078. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of pharaohs, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)