User talk:Pbritti/archive 16

A kitten for you!
for your contributions to Christian topics :) ...for what it's worth, i think you should've been treated with more kindness & civility with regard to discussions about reliability of certain scholars & viewpoints on the historicity of Biblical events.

... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  06:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 
 * Thank you, friend! Have a mercy and grace-filled week! Warm tidings as we approach Paschaltide. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * back at ya !! :) ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  04:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Lovely Easter

 * And a lovely Easter to you, ! If memory serves, the last time there was an Easter alignment between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox was 2014 (I only remember because there was a service commemorating the victims of the Ludlow Massacre that year). I am hopeful for graces in the year to come! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey
The article The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey for comments about the article, and Talk:The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

U.S. states & landlocked status
Hello, I noticed that you reverted my edits regarding the landlocked status of Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico in their respective articles. Thanks for assuming good faith and acknowledging relevance, but mentioning the landlocked status is important for geography. I’d like to say that the other state articles I edited to include the landlocked status in the lead still have those edits, meaning they were relevant and appropriate. As these states are indeed landlocked, I request that you reconsider your reverts. If you have any questions feel free to ask, thanks! DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate your very polite reply. The best course of action here is to consider the importance of reference to the states' landlocked status in the lead. Since Wikipedia relies on other sources, we generally turn to other encyclopedias for examples of what information is crucial for inclusion. For example, Britannica has an article on Colorado. Their article, including the geography section, neglects mention of the state's landlocked status. This is a strong indication that reference to the landlocked status of the state is not encyclopedically relevant. Regardless of relevance, references are necessary, per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Your edits did not include references, so reversion was highly likely. If you have outstanding questions or points you'd like to add, please feel more than welcome to place them here on my talk page. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and it’s true that relevancy is important. Otherwise, many articles would contain information which a reader would not find useful! I actually do have some points I’d like to share. First, You don’t need to cite that the sky is blue. Although there are disagreements regarding the application of non-essays and guidelines, this particular one is very useful, reminding me that I don’t need sources for such information. Also, Wikipedia can be different. Yes, we most definetly seek other sources of information, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that any relevant information can and should be shared. Here, landlocked states need their status so that readers understand the impact geography has on the economy of the states. Consistency is another thing; it would only be appropriate if a balance of geographic status is spread throughout each article. Thank you for being very helpful to my case, and please reach out! DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for continuing your kind disagreement. Since you seem fairly committed to a reasoned defense of these additions and appear to understand all the relevant policies and guidelines involved, I'll encourage you to restore the "landlocked" bit and see if any other editors disagree. I am of the opinion you will become a very strong editor. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Tiffany Henyard
I added the politician's criminal history. Two citations were added - one from the arresting police department's own website (Chicago Police Department), and another from a major NY newspaper which also references the arrest. The primary source, the Chicago Police Department's own website is enough of a source. Drdas007 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has strict policies about what sources may be used on to reference information on biographies of living persons. These rules are even stricter when it pertains to possibly criminal information. Arrest records from police departments are considered primary sources and thus insufficient for introducing information (though they could be used to amplify information if used appropriately). The newspaper you reference is explicitly not a reliable source, per this consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The police department's arrest record is a primary source
 * A primary source is one "that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
 * No interpretation was made. A simple stating of fact with a primary source.
 * Thank you for the information on the NY Post. I will refrain from using that newspaper in the future, ESPECIALLY as a primary source!  That link was very helpful. Drdas007 (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Arrest records are not permitted per WP:BLPPRIMARY. You must self-revert and seek a new reference if you wish to include that information. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see where it states "arrest records are not permitted". Drdas007 (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Arrest records are fundamentally identical to trial records. Feel welcome to ask around about that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion at WP:BLPN. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help. Drdas007 (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course! If reliable sources do pop up, please feel free to add them. I'll help with any formatting trouble you may encounter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I appreciate the offer and guidance from more experienced members here. Drdas007 (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * A favorite! Williamsburg, Virginia, is the best place to get it! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You created an outstanding article! I'm glad you put it through the polishing process! It was a pleasure to work alongside you and I hope to encounter you more in the future. Please ping me if you ever need another set of eyes to look at sometime! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Request on 05:18:50, 7 April 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by TaiXuan91
The reasons for rejection are ridiculous. GNU Moe is a software. I quoted GNU Moe's official website in reference. There are detailed software documents and source code download addresses on its official website. I don't know what is more reliable source than the official website for a software.

TaiXuan91 (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires reliable sources for determining both the notability and factuality of a subject. In this case, a source like an official website could be used to amplify information from other sources. However, as an official website is not an independent source, it is not as reliable or ideal. Additionally, notability is (generally) not established without independent sourcing. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Armenian Rite
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Thank you! The baklava has been abundant of late. I'm hoping to take the Armenian Rite article a bit further, adding in material on non-Eucharistic rituals. Maybe it'll hit GAN someday, but TBD. By the way, I do believe some celebratory festivities are in order for you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i wish you luck with it! and thanks! :) ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  04:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Geoffrey Cuming
♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

A thank you and a question
First and foremost, thank you so much for the exceptionally kind barnstar you left on my page; it's my first one and it really means a lot you took the time to give me one!

Next, I have a question about the changes you make from Roman Catholic to Catholic. I'm an Eastern Catholic so I share your frustration with the conflation of the two, but on Fr. Loew's page, I thought "Roman" would be most appropriate. In general, I've considered anything shared by the universal church as "Catholic" (in simplex), but people and anything particular to the sui iuris churches as not necessitating the change (e.g., Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation vs. Joe Smith is a Roman Catholic). This is completely from my head, but since you're the only other person I've seen try to correct it, do you have a convention or rule of thumb that you use on pages? I'd like to be helpful in this regard and you seem like an editor who knows what he's doing, so I thought I might pick your brain. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, Roman is only used on Wikipedia to disambiguate in contexts when Catholic could reasonably be misinterpreted as referring to Independent Catholic, Liberal Catholic, Old Catholic, or Anglo-Catholic. Otherwise, it's a term that lends itself to conflation ("do they mean the Catholic Church as a whole or just the Latin Church). Great article, again! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation; I'll keep it in mind when I'm poking around pages. Happy editing and thanks again! ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:


 * with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
 * with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
 * with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
 * with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
 * with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

FTN policy violations
You said on the WikiProject Catholicism talk page that a lot of WP:FTN regulars are violating policy. I am not well-versed on policy when it comes to religion, but I am when it comes to politics and medicine. I agree with you that many of them are violating policies. Massacre of the Innocents was a fairly easy one though (WP:OR). Could you give me some more examples so that I can form coherent arguments should I ever have to give my opinion on this? Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Massacre of the Innocents is the flashpoint I'm most familiar with, but there was a lot of headhunting associated with Latter-Day Saints articles recently following the BYU E-I-R fiasco. When I was doing some editing in scriptural articles, I cited a CUP book that I ended up making an article for. Citing it to describe an academically acceptable but marginal opinion (it's a toned-down version of the Mythological Jesus argument) resulted in accusations of promoting fringe theories. I haven't kept a running list, but if you're interested in more details, I can send you some stuff via the email feature. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Pbritti, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:


 * Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
 * If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
 * If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity
I am so glad to see you there! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem! I had allocated time to review a GAN this week and, given the nominator hasn't gotten back immediately on my comments, I figured it was only right to offer a hand. I've been watching the article progress over the last month and I really like the shape it's taken. I'll do a more thorough review of sources when I can. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Blessings upon your head and on all your relatives!! That's the first nice thing anyone has said to me about this article. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I know this is a terrifically busy time of year for teachers, so I am not nagging - honestly! - but I wondered if you knew any other Medieval experts I could possibly contact and invite to the PR. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

A chapel altar for you!
I am filled with joy and awe after visiting Westminster Cathedral. Its Neo-Byzantine style is indeed proper, for it makes the cathedral stand out as the true "Roman" heir in a sea of Gothic, Neoclassical and Victorian churches in London. You guys really won this one. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A good one! I hope to visit the cathedral and some of the spaces of your fellow churchmen over there during the next few years! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Visited Brompton Oratory – too Romish and I was not touched :( Please have a look at the wax effigy of St Philip Neri. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can't believe I didn't reply, ! The Brompton Oratory has been in the news lately and I've had the opportunity to hear many of my fellow Latins acknowledge their own mixed feelings for the building. Of course, I won't challenge John Henry Newman on his sentiments for the building, if only because I would dread meeting him at the end of all things and having to explain myself. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am aware that Brompton is infamous on your side–just like our own little All Saints, Margaret Street. Be assured that I might have more reasons to dread meeting John Henry Newman. However, that really depends if I get to meet him at the end ... I wish you all the best on your recent GA efforts. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aquilegia sibirica
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aquilegia sibirica you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies regarding NOR, BLP, and discussion. A noticeboard discussion less than 15 minutes after opening a talk page discussion is deeply inappropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

GA review invite
Hi there, I'm hoping you take a look at Lalita Tademy. I just nominated it again. Thanks! — Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 11:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter
The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
 * with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
 * with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
 * with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
 * with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for The Oxford History of Christian Worship
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Karen B. Westerfield Tucker
Shubinator (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Triple barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! And thank you again for making what was a more drawn-out process than I intended something that I ended up actually enjoying. You're a good editor and and a kind person. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Assistance on Aquilegia sibirica
No idea if it would jog your elbow, but would it be helpful for your GA work on Aquilegia sibirica for me to make a table for the taxonomic synonyms with dates like I did for Tetraneuris acaulis? Obviously it would be simpler one since no subspecies or varieties for the article you're working on. Or anything else you'd care to have some assistance with. I'm pretty excellent at finding interesting references in archive.org and at finding good CC0 or CC-BY photos. I don't know if it interferes with going for GA, but I'd view it as being in a supporting role. 🌿 Mt B o t a n y (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This would be absolutely appreciated! It would be a benefit to the GA process (and, even if weren't, it would be good for the article and Wikipedia more generally). Anything I can do to assist you in this effort, let me know! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia U.S. Mountain West Online Meeting
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 14, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our . Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity
I am here to beg you to come back and review either or both the High or Late Middle Ages sections of H of C. Airshipjungleman had said he would help, but he did the early MA section then bailed. He said the organization was confusing, but could not further explain, so I am now confused. If you are unable, can you think of someone else who might be willing? These sections have not been reviewed since being redone. Please help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Expect a review of both sections tomorrow UTC! I'll gladly help! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bless you! Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for excellent cooperation on A. Sibirica
You know what I'd like to do one day? Try to bring the article on the genus Aquilegia to GA status as well. Let me know if you'd be interested, maybe we could make a collective effort in strengthening it. For the time being I'm busy with some other stuff, like writing about obscure book-collecting French admirals, but if you're interested we could perhaps make an attempt later. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aquilegia sibirica
The article Aquilegia sibirica you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aquilegia sibirica for comments about the article, and Talk:Aquilegia sibirica/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Rescheduled online meeting of the Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West 05/21/2024
The online meeting of the Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West originally scheduled for May 14 has been rescheduled for 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 21, 2024, at meet.google.com/wbg-wgws-sbj. Please see our new meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our . Thanks. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Question

 * @Pbritti
 * (The below message was previously on the other page.)
 * Hello,
 * I am not necessarily disagreeing with you about the "point of view," but what specifically in what I wrote violated the neutrality rule? I thought that the additional information balanced the seemingly implied message that the SBC is in serious decline by showing that it may be (this is of course, my own opinion) "trimming the fat," so to speak, considering the increased participation and addition of entirely new members. I think that the added information allows readers to form their own conclusion based on the data; be it one of overall growth, decline or balance, depending on their own interpretation of same.
 * Additionally, I always try to include the disclosure because of the issue with my "username." It had originally mentioned a connection to a rabbit breeders organization that I happen to be a member of, whose page I had edited. I was told that this seemed as if I was representing said organization and was advised to disclose any connection in the future. I am glad to know that that I may do so on my own "user page." Often the disclosure takes a significant amount of space in the small "edit summary" boxes. Thank you for directing me to the example. I do not at present have a page to place one as I have not yet created a "user page," but I will have to give it a try. Thank you again,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response, it looks like you tried discussing this further on your talk page–I'm terribly sorry! Thanks for starting discussion here, and perhaps the article talk page will be the better venue in the future. Addressing your comments by paragraph:
 * There's the implication that the SBC is somehow "on the mend", so to speak, with how the material is presented in your preferred phrasing. I'm inclined to agree with the other editor who edited that passage in terms of phrasing, but I am willing to accept your version if you're insistent. It is reliably sourced, after all.
 * Yeah, disclosures are a difficult thing to get right and you've made a commendable effort at being very forthcoming about your own persuasions and affiliations. I encourage you to review WP:COI if you have the time. If you need any help setting up a user page, I'd love to help!
 * Thanks for being an amazingly patient editor and, again, apologies for not replying earlier! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti
 * Not at all! I didn't expect an immediate response, I just wanted to make sure that you saw it. Thank you for answering so many questions. I haven't looked at that section in a few days. I'll review it again. Maybe there is a better possible phrasing between the two previously utilized. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you didn't know what "ce" means in an edit summary. It almost always means "copy edit" and refers to generally minor grammatical, spelling, or terminology changes. There are some additional pieces of technical jargon that may pop up in edit summaries you'll see. I recommend glossing over this glossary of Wikipedia terms to get acquainted with a few. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti O.K. Thank you. I had seen the term before, but I thought it referred to something else. TanRabbitry (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you didn't know what "ce" means in an edit summary. It almost always means "copy edit" and refers to generally minor grammatical, spelling, or terminology changes. There are some additional pieces of technical jargon that may pop up in edit summaries you'll see. I recommend glossing over this glossary of Wikipedia terms to get acquainted with a few. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti O.K. Thank you. I had seen the term before, but I thought it referred to something else. TanRabbitry (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment about the ANI
Thank you for filing your recent ANI. I think the other editor was over the line but I was generally content that they were told they had crossed it. That they continued to cross the line after the warning was clearly an issue. I did want to point out that in their request to lift the sanction they are claiming you didn't notify them. Per that appears to be incorrect. Happy editing! Springee (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Nianakk ennathinte sukkeda myre
evide poyalum nee KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I just added a newer image of Mar Raphael. The image doesn't even have an owner. It is used by everyone in our archdiocese. What wrong with you. I added the name of the bishop in Syriac according to the tradition of our church. You deleted that, WHY KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the image, unless released into the public domain, does have an owner. Please do not curse on my talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been released to the public, and also i have fixed the previous copyright issues. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also the new image features the proper regalia of the major archbishop. The other image was taken when he was the auxiliary bishop of Thrissur. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that it was released into the public domain? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Photo taken by Father Nelson MCBS, you can check out it in his website. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That means he owns the image. If he owns the image's copyright, you need him to release it into the public domain or under a Creative Commons license for it to be uploaded here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will tell him. If i upload the image again, there will not be any copyright issues. The point here is the current image on the page has no significance now. I don't understand why you are so upset in the upload of the new image with proper regalia, which is used by everyone here including news. The new image i uploaded was of current significance. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The new image is on commons. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You've just added the copyright violation to another location. That's not an improvement. Please uploading images that aren't yours. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Namichu myre ninne🙏🏼, enthelum kaanikk ninte ammaykk sthreedhanam kittiya vakayalle Wikipedia. Please just try to upload proper images or allow someone to upload proper images instead of putting incorrect image because of technicality, better images of the archbishop is available, search and please upload it yourself. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The original image you keep removing is the only one we have in the public domain. It's a legal issue, not a choice anyone on Wikipedia has made. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

About St Aloysius
May I ask, why do you keep changing it back to St. Aloysius College, It is now a deemed to be University. Deemed to be University is not a promotional sentence, it is an official title given to an institution here in India by the UGC and ministry of education. I see that you are from the US i dont think you understand the context. It is so annoying for us to see you deleting correct information about our university amd adding incorrect information. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The name St Aloysius College has been officially changed to St. Aloysius (Deemed to be University), for proof you can check the University website. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have changed it back to University. Please dont delete it again. It is now officially called a university not college. As senior editor i think you should provide correct information. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @KnowledgeHunter6788 There is nothing at the school's website to indicate that it is a university. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Open your eyes and look. St. Aloysius KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://x.com/SACMangaluru/status/1750504888629600520 KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @KnowledgeHunter6788 Neither of which calls the institution "St. Aloysius University". —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Its the same thing bro, Deemed to be University is no different from University.
 * So can i assume you saw the title deemed to be University. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly: it's a title that appears to not be part of the name, the way some American colleges are universities but don't feature that title in their name. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Deemed to be University is a title which is featured by Indian universities, for example check Christ University Bengaluru. I don't think you understand Indian context of these things and i don't get why are you meddling with the names of institutions here in Mangalore. KnowledgeHunter6788 (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @KnowledgeHunter6788, per WP:NC-UNI, colleges and universities should always be named using the common (not necessarily official) name of the institution. This can often be determined by looking at current branding of a university via their website, published documents, and advertisements. A search for "St. Aloysius University Mangalore" using Google News (see here) apparently indicates that St. Aloysius College is the much more common name. Uriel1022 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)