User talk:Pbritti/Archive 13

August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive reminder
The August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive is at the halfway mark, and has seen incredible progress, dropping the backlog from 638 to 359 unreviewed articles -- a 43.7% reduction in only fifteen days! But we still have over two weeks to go, and there are plenty of articles left to review:


 * We've gone from 14 nominations 270+ days old and 65 nominations 180+ days old to 2 and 0 respectively. No more articles will reach 270+ status during the drive, and only three more will reach 180+ if unreviewed, so this is your last chance to get the higher age bonuses!
 * We still have plenty of articles in the 90+ range, but the list is shrinking fast.
 * Some articles need new reviewers, either because they're officially on second opinion or because the original reviews were deleted or invalidated. You can help prevent these articles from waiting longer!
 * While there are starting to be clear favourites for the Content Review Medal of Merit, the field is still very open. A late entrant can still pull an upset to get the most reviews in the drive!

And remember: if you've done reviews, you should log them at the backlog drive page for points, so they can be tracked towards your awards at the end.

Thanks for signing up for the drive, and I hope to see you reviewing! Vaticidalprophet 02:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You have received this message as a participant in the August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive who has logged one or no reviews. This is a one-off massmessage. If you wish to opt out of all massmessages, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Your GA nomination of Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian)
The article Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian) for comments about the article, and Talk:Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the exceedingly patient, courteous, and productive review. Truly was a painless experience with you and I appreciate your openness to engaging in your own digging that challenged my perspective! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Jahaza (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Dominican Rite
Hi @Pbritti, in my humble opinion, it would be useful to have a list of books dealing with the Dominican Rite. Ilcultoredarte (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree! However, a bibliography section is a space for references utilized in the article; please place a Further reading section beneath the references if you wish to include additional resources for readers to consider looking at! Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti, I understand the misunderstanding. For you Bibliography meant "sources", for me it meant "Further reading". Ilcultoredarte (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're more than fine. On English Wikipedia, bibliography most typically refers to works written or published by an article's subject (eg listing the Summa in the Thomas Aquinas article). It less commonly refers to what we call "References". Due to its many meanings—such as suggested further readings—we distinguish the section for ancillary coverage unused in the article as "Further reading" or "External links" (depending on context). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Tweet Kimball
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Cherokee Ranch petrified forest
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

An article needs a bit of a fix
My Catholic friend,

Hope all is well. I was looking into the page Woman of the Apocalypse, and its lede is not up to good standards. For example, the first paragraph reads:
 * The Woman of the Apocalypse (or the woman clothed with the sun, γυνὴ περιβεβλημένη τὸν ἥλιον; Latin: Mulier amicta sole) is a figure, mostly believed to be the Virgin Mary, (this interpretation is held by some commentators of the ancient Church), described in Chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation (written c. AD 95).

I wonder if you would like to give some time into rewriting the lede? I know that August 15 is Assumption day for you folks, so you might as well do it with great *veneration*.

Also, this article is peppered with parenthetical explanations. I can see that it would need a bit of clean-up in the future.

I am bringing this up because my Anglo-Catholic parish put in a Marian hymn for the offertory today. I don't know, I feel strange, my upper limit is the Angelus at the end of the solemn mass.

I hope you have a restful evening.

Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With great fondness for my fellow Christian and editor, I'll see what I can do to remedy the article. Thank you for drawing it to my attention! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you–with great fondness too. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say I haven't forgotten your request, but I have had my mind in different places these last couple days. I will be making the relevant amendments today UTC! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem! You are doing better than I am. I am stuck in my research and only go to the Teahouse / AfD as a procrastination outlet. TheLonelyPather (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for William Maldon
—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Hey! Pbritti, could you please review my draft Draft:Zauq E Naat. BrownCanary61 (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your draft and left comments there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * may i know why you have rejected sn reddy wikipedia this man is a big producer of indian movies most of his movies have wikipedia pages already made on wikipedia then why its page rejected Is सत्यम देवगन (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

SN Reddy Wikipedia related talking
may i know why you have rejected sn reddy wikipedia this man is a big producer of indian movies most of his movies have wikipedia pages already made on wikipedia then why its page rejected Is सत्यम देवगन (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you have put this page in rejection without collecting information, you are requested to get the right information and do not put this page in rejection and make the page live as soon as possible सत्यम देवगन (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I did not reject your draft, but rather declined it in its current form. You are welcome to resubmit it, as you have already. However, you do not appear to have adjusted the draft to reflect my comments nor those of another editor. Please see my comments, repeated here: The sourcing here is unfortunately inadequate. Several of the sources appear to be promotional content, while another source is Wikipedia article. The draft lacks reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia not an acceptable source? सत्यम देवगन (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. The policy behind not citing Wikipedia is found at WP:CIRCULAR. I can not locate sources on your behalf, but I can direct you to reading this policy page on understanding how to identify reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for helping me, I will always be grateful to you big brother सत्यम देवगन (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Please note that I've added a notice to your talk page. If it does not pertain to you, please feel welcome to ignore it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot brother, I will take note of the knowledge you have given. सत्यम देवगन (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding SN Reddy Wikipedia
you सत्यम देवगन (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * can you tell me which sources i put wrong so that i can improve सत्यम देवगन (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crezl
I removed the informal and non-neutral terminology in the members' profiles, as you noted. Much appreciate your comments. Any additional feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Echohk (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have approved the draft—congratulations! However, I would encourage you to continue seeking ways to improve the article. Consider looking at other articles in multiple subject areas to get a sense for what would best improve the article's coverage. Remember, an article getting better sometimes means it gets shorter. Additionally, consider submitting the article as a Did you know? fact, as it can appear on Wikipedia's main page for a day! You have seven days from now to nominate a DYK fact. Happy editing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much to you and all of the experienced editors, who really provided so much guidance and helpful suggestions. I will continue to improve the article and again grateful to your helpful feedback! Echohk (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Indian residential school gravesites
Please don't bother to undo dummy edits. Your revert just added a pointless version change to the history. Meters (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * see Help:Dummy edit for indication that changes made in dummy edits are fine to be undone and usually should be. If you need to respond to another editor with extended commentary, use a talk page. You used a talk page to address your dummy edit being reverted but you should have started by addressing whatever the content debate was with a talk comment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was clarifying my previous summary so that other editors would know that the ref removed, even though it seemed useful, did not need to be added to the article. Your edit did nothing but add a pointless revision. It's fine to remove the dummy edit while making some other change to the article, but making a revision simply to remove a dummy edit that did not change the article display is not worth doing. Please don't do that. Meters (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This was not something that needed to be discussed on the article talk page. Meters (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If it takes more than one edit summary to explain, it probably ought to be a talk comment. It clutters an article revision history when a dummy edit is used instead of a single summary that says "[...] see talk". Please do not open discussions on user talk pages that are not worth doing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not wasting any more time on this. Do not ping me again, and do not revert dummy edits again. Meters (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the August 2023 GAN backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case request filed with you as a party
Hi,

has filed an arbitration case request with you as a party. This request may be declined as premature, but I have yet to receive confirmation on whether I can do this from an arbitrator.

Thanks, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This case request can be viewed at Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the notification. I won't reply there for a day as I can't figure out why it was filed. If an arb wants it to go through for some reason, I'll reply. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Very strange leap to go from the article talk page to ARBCOM, especially when they were making comments that could be construed as legal threats. Can't imagine that will go over well with ARBCOM. I wouldn't worry about it! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly, I am new to this. How would I know if this was a waste of time or not? But if that's what it is then cancel this request and I'll follow it up through another channel. Flanker235 (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , when filing requests for arbitration, you should usually go to WP:ANI first. This is because the Arbitration Committee is generally the last step in dispute resolution, with WP:ANI being a step before. In this case you only discussed at the talk page before jumping to ArbCom. If you want to go to WP:ANI instead you can withdraw the case request. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have received confirmation from arbitrator to remove the case request as premature. As such, the case request has been removed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

For those interested, I filed at ANI. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ANI with no admin action, with Tamzin telling Flanker235 they strongly recommend redacting the legal-related material. Agree with the other editors who felt this was not blockable but that a line was crossed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Miracle of Calanda
I noticed that you removed a source on Our Lady of Zeitoun on the grounds that he is a fraudster. However, that same fraudster is still cited on Miracle of Calanda. There also is a discussion happening at WP:FTN about this. Maybe I could swap a critical analysis from the French Wiki with the Skeptoid podcast? Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'll take a look, but I'll need to refresh myself on the specifics. I actually start a new job tomorrow, so it may be a bit later in the day as I have a good amount of onboarding paperwork awaiting me. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Churches
Does GCatholic (Catholic Dioceses in the World by Rite) serve you as a source? What about this reference: "Annuario pontificio ed. 2023, p. 1126"? Both list Kazahkstan, but not Albania. Coquidragon (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not for such big things like a jurisdiction still existing or not. It's essentially a self-published source. I'll see what I can scrounge up—I know some people in the ECC canon law sphere who may have documentary evidence we can use. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I do agree that a specific mention in a document would be also good, the "Annuario Pontificio" is an official source, the Church's directory, published yearly by the Vatican. Albania disappeared in 2020. Kazakhstan was added the same year. From 2020 to 2023, the Annuario has kept the change. I have them with me. That's how I got the page number for the most recent 2023.--Coquidragon (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the AP simply delisting something doesn't explicitly identify that something ceased existing. Extrapolations like that are original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. What about the Church of Kazakhstan? Can I add it back? It has been listed as sui-Iuris since the Annuario of 2020.
 * 2. About Albania, I am also looking for an explicit declaration, but none is explicit. In the AP, not only has the Church been removed from the list of sui iuris Churches, but the "Apostolic Administration of Southern Albania" no longer appears as subject to the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. I am trying to find the reference for an Italian article that I read recently on Eastern churches that listed Albania along with Poland as example of places without churches sui-iuris where the faithful are under the care of Latin jurisdictions. Also, looking at the Wiki in other languages, taking into account that many are not up-to-date, some (ie. Italian) no longer have it listed as sui-iuris Church and some (ie. Spanish) have the wiki article for the "Albanian Church" speak of it in past tense. I am not pushing back. I understand how Wiki works with the sources, just letting you know things I've seen. I hope you do find something. Thanks.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I found an Eastern Church Directory, edited by Bishop Vartan Waldir Boghossian, SDB, of the Armenian Church, which in its 7th edition (2022), collects the statistics for all Eastern Churches but has no mention of the Albanian Church anywhere.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that might actually work. If you don't mind sending me the info on it, I'll see about picking up a copy for myself anyway to use as reference. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I realized later that it only an electronic directory, not a published one. Yet, here it is: https://issuu.com/exarmal/docs/annuarioorientale_-_2022.
 * I went back and the Albanian Church, listed in 2019, stopped being listed in 2020. In the comments, the Bishop states that he based the directory on the AP for each year, which then makes sense. Let me know how you feel about it. Also, what about Kazakhstan? Thanks. Coquidragon (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is simple.. it's just that statuses of the Kazakh and Albanian apostolic administrations are being switched between being sui iuris churches and the usual particular churches. Nothing is being created or ceasing to exist. When they are sui iuris they are called Byzantine (or Greek) Catholic Church of X, comprising the Apostolic Administration of X. When they are not sui iuris, they are simply Apostolic Administration of X. The Discoverer (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please cite sources that explicitly state this. The websites your reference are self-published and rely on the AP, which is (to paraphrase a sage of our age) just a bunch of names and numbers. I'm working to confirm this with reliable sources because I think you're correct, but this is a major development and would mean a lot of editing on other Wikipedia pages. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo Security Forces
Hello Pbritti tell me why u interfering on my issue... like what is wrong Leotrimylli (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You consistently add unreferenced material to Wikipedia, which will almost always be removed per WP:ONUS. Also, please explain what you mean by interfering on my issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to know, why my add is been removed like what is going on, I been giving on that platform a lot of great contributions based on true issue and news by Kosovo... Leotrimylli (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have to use a source. If you look at most articles on Wikipedia, there are little numbers in brackets at the end of sentences and paragraphs like this. These are called citations. While some information—such as the sky being blue—can be stated without a citation, important and unobvious information—like what artillery platforms Kosovo's armed forces are fielding—needs to be referenced with a reliable source. Until you provide a source and a citation, content you add will almost always be removed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, Thank you for explanation Leotrimylli (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Aquilegia sibirica
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Accusations of sock puppetry
Why did you deface the talk page with baseless accusations of ban evasion? I see you broke off your sources discussion with another editor... what gives? It seems like you're taking the content of the discussion on the talk page very personally... is there any reason why? I'm quite confused.

Also I brought up your conduct at ANI.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to know a lot of Wikipedia lingo for an IP—kinda like that other Winnipeg IP that was also verbosely concerned about the exact same issue, jumped IP addresses, and was slapped with multiple blocks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"Microwave cavity" link to "Loaded microwave cavities"
I wrote an article on Loaded Microwave Cavities, which you marked as "citation needed" in the article "Microwave Cavity". It is in User:Accelerator-physicist/sandbox2 and I clicked the "Publish" button.

Being new to WP editing, I am not sure how to move forward. Should I wait for the new article to appear on WP then add the citation? Please advise.

Accelerator-physicist (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at what you've written, I think that you should simply copy-and-paste the material to the Microwave cavity article rather than publishing this as a separate article. Once you've done that, I can revise it to match Wikipedia's manual of style. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti: Thank you, I will follow up with your advice.
 * Given that I plan to expand the material on loaded microwave cavities, perhaps at some point it may make sense to split off part of the article? I will be looking forward to your guidance.
 * ~ Accelerator-physicist (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Syro Malabar Church Controversy
The below section is biased.

The core of this controversy is whether the new way of celebrating the liturgy should be followed, as mandated by the synod, or if the traditional method of facing the people should continue. The priests and laity in the archdiocese feel unheard and believe that proper dialogue hasn't taken place. This dispute has deeply divided the Church, causing unrest and tension among its members. A possible solution could involve compromise, as seen in the Nigerian Diocese of Ahiara when Pope Francis accepted a bishop's resignation due to local opposition. However, currently, there is little indication of compromise, and the situation remains contentious with ongoing protests and conflicts. Nasrani131 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it is biased and why it should not be included. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This controversy is not a whole Church problem. The issue is in once diocese of the 35 dioceses of the Church. The wording of this section seems to indicate that "the church is divided" etc, which is just some biased wording.Also the section appears to provide a solution to the issue even!! Nasrani131 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the tile should be "Controversy in Ernakulam-Angamaly diocese" to better qualify what is stated. Nasrani131 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bias specifically refers to something that is non-neutral in content. If the article said "the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church should follow the Nigerian example", that would be bias. However, it doesn't. The issues you have are 1.) scope and 2.) relevance. The first is a reasonable argument: should the scope of the article on the whole of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church contain a section on the ongoing liturgical controversy in the archeparchy? The answer is actually probably "no, but it should contain at least a sentence or two on the subject". The next question is whether or not the Nigerian example is actually relevant to the article? Again, the answer is probably "no". If you want to learn more about how to correctly identify bias on Wikipedia, please read WP:NPOV. Additionally, a good practice is to leave an edit summary when deleting sourced content. I'll take care of cutting back the material on the controversy since I have a good deal of familiarity with the subject. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank You!! Please consider titling the section also appropriately to limit the actual scope. Nasrani131 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Letting you know I'll be getting to those edits sometime in the next 24 hours. I'll mention you in the edit summary when the changes are made so you can see the differences and suggest/implement alterations. Thanks for the patience. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thankyou @Pbritti 24.229.242.8 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Eucharist
Please allow me to add scholarly content to the page (Carl Ruck's writings). TheRealBalalaikaMaster (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Scholarly content is generally admissible on Wikipedia. However, an unpublished draft meant for review peddling in long-discounted theories—see The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross—generally falls under the exclusionary provisions of WP:UNDUE. If you require additional clarification, I can elaborate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your viewpoint. I am drafting a new version of what I wrote to give less weight to the connection between the Eucharist and the Eleusinian Mysteries, but still mentions it.❤TheRealBalalaikaMaster (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise against that. As best I can tell, only two authors (including Ruck) have consistently supported this view of the Eucharist. Doing a cursory search of my copy of The Oxford History of Christian Worship, the thesis is not covered. I have never seen it mentioned in any other survey of Christian Eucharistic worship—something I'm fairly well read on. Only one book that was considered laughable when it was published and one other scholar have backed this view. It is not encyclopedic; it should not be mentioned in the body of the article (but, hey, it could be mentioned in the See also section). ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will be honest with you here- I believe I know more than you do about the subject. I believe I am right to have added a mention of these viewpoints in the article. You seem not to want to have these viewpoints mentioned in the article at all, but I do want them mentioned, to give full coverage of the subject. I want to find the right place in the article.❤ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealBalalaikaMaster (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your use of an unpublished manuscript raises questions of whether your understanding of the subject is well-rounded and accurately captures the modern academic consensus. Additionally, I would point you in the direction of Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, fringe theories, and neutrality. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaving this for posterity. You are not wrong, just sorryTheRealBalalaikaMaster (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax
I noticed you reverted a user by the name of KlayCax. This same user has also been violating various policies on abortion-related articles. Most often, this includes original research, stating the results of non-WP:MEDRS studies in Wikivoice, or flat out misrepresenting the sources completely. However, for obvious reasons, nobody seems to care. I am tempted to take this to WP:AE, but I first need to talk with them. I also feel that my efforts for something to change are futile. Scorpions1325 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not abreast of their editing on that aspect of abortion, as I generally stick to just the political aspect (I don't usually edit in that subject at all). However, I'm deeply concerned with their misrepresentation and misapplication of sources in other contexts, particularly with regards to the Catholic Church. Their frequent UNDUE major changes to the leads of high-traffic, contentious articles also raise concerns. I don't know if AE is the place for this, as the issue seems more broad; if you raise it, I suggest ANI. If you want to discuss this further, let me know as I'm making the next day the first time in a few weeks I'm focusing on Wikipedia for a few hours consecutively. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Military dictatorship
I want to thank you again for your review at military dictatorship: it's one of the more helpful that I've received, to the point that I'm planning to nominate the article at WP:FAC. I was wondering if you'd be interested in doing another review for it. I've only made a few changes since the GA review, so it would essentially be the same review, just at a higher standard. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly take a look. As I have never worked directly in FAs, I may have to turn you down on being the primary reviewer based on my inexperience. This won't stop me from doing my best to help! It's a great article that serves an excellent encyclopedic purpose, so I hope that the FA goes through! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The nice thing about FAC is that there are several reviewers, so it's on the nominator and the coordinators to make sure everything is running smoothly. I've actually started to prefer reviewing FACs because the reviewer isn't expected to do everything. My favorite part is that there's one editor who specifically does a source review so the others don't have to worry about it—that's always my least favorite part with GA reviews. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, shucks, you've convinced me. I'll give it the ol' college try. Next week will be something of a major moment in my life (a very positive thing), so any delays in responses are not intended but should probably be expected. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * After talking to a few other editors, I've decided to work on the article more before trying FAC. Just thought I'd let you know so you weren't waiting and wondering why I haven't posted it. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Rufus Clark
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for South Denver, Colorado
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Afif Safieh
Hi, why did you remove that Safieh is a Palestinian Christian and his education history which is mentioned by Mapping Palestinian Politics amongst other RS. Its highly relevant to his biography, and not controversial. Athough you are very experienced editor and I appreciate you, please consider that as RS support the content on the page, it can seem like IDONTLIKEIT and overly bureaucratic. Without making assumptions on your personal beliefs, of course. Kind regards JJNito197 (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When you have a WP:BLP, you gotta have the citations to back up life details. Your editing to insert mention of him into Arab Christians using non-independent sources and puffery was problem enough, but BLP is a bright-line issue. Also, strike Without making assumptions on your personal beliefs, of course—that's wildly uncivil. After striking that passive-aggression, please don't comment on my talk page further. That's what article talk pages are for. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can strike it yourself and remove my comments latterly as you're right, it is your talk page, but Wikipedia is otherwise a community project so I suggest if you are going edit wikipedia to improve it, please refrain from the mass removal of content on public pages which can be resolved alternatively, by tags or otherwise. That content wasnt added by me, and was there for years. I suggest assuming good faith in the future. Kind regards JJNito197 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not comment on my talk page again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Many existing pictures from Syro Malabar church got removed. Can you just mive the webm alone?
Many existing pictures from Syro Malabar church got removed. Can you just mive the webm alone? Nasrani131 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey! I removed most of those images because we really don't want to overwhelm a page with too many images–it makes it difficult to read both on desktop and mobile, increases page load time, and can sometimes detract from the overall coverage of a topic. Wikipedia's standards for including images can be found at MOS:IRELEV. Also, going forward, I'd encourage you to use an article's talk page, rather to than deferring immediately to a user talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok sure! makes sense. Can I add that image of flabellum alone there? - not the video, but image which was there previously. Nasrani131 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's probably worthwhile; not many people–including most Christians–have any familiarity with such a thing. Feel free to lift the caption I used at Eastern Catholic liturgy; I corrected some of your grammar and added a link! I'd also suggest adding the webm at Liturgical fan in Eastern Christianity! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Pbritti!! Nasrani131 (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Moving an Article
Hi, Pbritti

Can you move this article here if its possible move it to a article named Battle of Kota Batu (1578)? Syazwi Irfan (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh never mind sorry for disturbing you. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Tridentine Mass - language
You have reverted my edit, giving justification "restoring source material". But the material is off-topic, so it does not matter whether it is sourced or note.

The Tridentine Mass obviously refers to the Mass after Trent. The Slavic and other masses were before Trent. Before : After. Off-topic : on-topic. Please unrevert. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The use of Slavonic in the Tridentine Mass is a notable component of its history. The Roman Rite—including the Roman Missal, Roman Breviary, and other liturgical texts—were all translated and used in Slavonic through the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. This is occasionally known as the "Glagolitic Rite", though this name is something of a misnomer—the rite was identical to the Tridentine Roman Rite in all but language. More can be read on this practice in the somewhat aged Catholic Encyclopedia article 'here and in Donald Attwater's books on liturgy (where he compares the use of vernacular/non-Latin languages in Eastern Christian liturgies with that of the Slavonic Tridentine practices). ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

A request for copyedit
First of all, thanks a lot for reviewing the article, India national football team at the Asian Games. I tried my best to include all information and facts, figure and imageries possible. I have tried to structure it in such a way so that it's easy for any reader to navigate through the article with ease along with the citation and the formats are well taken care of. I am thinking of taking the article for at least a GAN if not FA. But for that I need your help. You have already gone through the article once or twice and you know where copyedits necessary with grammatical uplift and you are best one considering the huge number of DYKs achievement here. Will you kindly accept this request, please please accept it. I don't want to go to GOCE, it will take again few more months. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"Catholic Church"
It is a small point in a much wider question, but I wonder whether you know that in the 16th century the Church of Rome did not call itself "the Catholic Church", and that Henry VIII never doubted that his church was part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church? That is still the position of Anglo-Catholics, and I do find your blinkered take on the matter out of place in the Anglo-Catholicism article. Moonraker (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you rephrase your inquiry in a civil, AGF fashion, I'll gladly reply. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, to hear your reply I have struck the only word that needs to go. You are right, it adds nothing helpful. Moonraker (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging and acting on my request. To answer your question: I am intimately familiar with the terminology of late 15th- and 16th-century Western Christianity. The term Catholic Church (note the uppercase Cs) had entered use following the East-West Schism and was increasingly utilized as it became necessary to distinguish Western Christian Protestants and Catholics. A good summary of this development was written by Richard McBrien here (pg 2). Having relied on academic resources written and published by Anglican (both Anglo-Catholic and Reformed), Catholic, and nonsectarian individuals and groups for many of my articles, I've generally found deference to the term Catholic Church (with some sources using the proximate Roman Catholic Church). Due to COMMONNAME interests and the the varied implications of phrases like Church of Rome, I stray away from them. If you have any lingering concerns, feel welcome to voice them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Review: Bendahara Sakam Draft
Hi Pbritti, can you review the draft "Bendahara Sakam" the link is here. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

According to my count you are editwarring at Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)‎
It looks like you are at 4 reverts. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe your count is correct. If you can point that out to me, let me know. I specifically avoided reverting someone at one point to avoid going over 3RR. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * went back over it and I actually think your count is correct, but one of those reverts was, which removed material that was, at that point, unsourced (which I acknowledge in the edit summary). Fairly certain that's a BLP exemption. Anyhow, good catch. I'll be off that page for a the next 24 to 48 and see what it cools down to over the weekend. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, triple checked it. Thanks for pointing that out. Ugh, that's my fault for pushing the envelope there. Here I was, thinking I was being good by opening a talk discussion... Let me know if you have any lingering issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not at all, thanks for the explanation. Easy to do if you're a bit passionate about something. Doug Weller  talk 13:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the understanding and for letting me know. Not a good move on my end, glad you pointed out I was making a mess. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Pbritti:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic Church"
Please stop your repeated and disruptive habit of changing mentions of "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" in articles about other Christian traditions. It was decided years ago, by a protracted formal Wikipedia consensus process, that both names are acceptable in articles according to common name principles and that which name is used in an individual article depends on what is more appropriate for that article. It has been a longstanding practice that "Roman Catholic Church" is normally used when referring to that church in articles about other Christian churches. Therefore it is obviously considered to be the more appropriate name in Anglicanism articles. I don't expect that you would be at all pleased if other editors chose to keep changing "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church" in articles about that church. You won't win an edit war on this issue, you will be just another Roman Catholic editor who has tried to impose their preference where it doesn't belong. Yahboo (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend you cease attacking editors for their identity, failing to assume good faith, and generally acting a BATTLEGROUND manner. You may notice that I have put a significant amount of work into Anglican articles. You have behaved uncivilly towards experienced editors over misunderstanding Wikipedia practices twice this month. If you want to uphold Wikipedia consensus, uphold the ones that created Assume good faith and Civility. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop distorting the facts. Your comments are considerable exaggerations. And I did not attack your identity. You need to be more concerned about how you respond to other editors. Yahboo (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)