User talk:Smdjcl/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Smdjcl, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Pbritti (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ecstasy of Saint Teresa
Hi, Smdjcl. Could you please review this page. I have done my best to tidy it up. Could the Template now be removed? With thanks.
 * I took a look, and it's a definite improvement, so I removed the cleanup template. A few notes, though:
 * My concern about the quotations wasn't so much about the length as the number. WP:MOSQUOTE gives the Wikipedia policy on quotations. It says Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate (while being aware that close paraphrasing can still violate copyright). I think the current version is acceptable, though it could be improved further by paraphrasing.
 * Wikipedia's policies on what sort of sources can be used can be found at WP:RS. The first source in the section, which I have tagged, is a blog, which definitely doesn't count as a reliable source. I have tagged it, but I'll leave it to you to replace with a different source or remove altogether. I'm also not sure about the John Moore article, and have also tagged that one.
 * For citing sources, it's better to give a fuller citation than just a bare URL. I went ahead and changed a couple of them for you, but you can read about how to do it yourself at WP:INLINE, especially the "Examples" section, which shows you how to use templates like Template:Cite book. Also check out the "Repeated citations" section, which shows you how to cite the same source more than once.
 * Thank you for your contributions! Smdjcl (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Fiducia Supplicans
Hi! I noticed that you left some criticism of my edits on Fiducia Supplicans on my talk page.


 * The original statement did not say that some interpreted it to be a reversal. The addition of that clarification was added by me. It was originally stated as a fact that it was objectively an overturning of the 2021 ruling. I already spoke with the other editor on his talk page and we came to an agreement on the addition of the wording that some believe it to be so, rather than a statement of fact that it is so. I also spoke with an administrator in order to get the current version, which currently still retains my contribution in this area, locked and protected for three days. The editors that I was in an "edit war" with and I came to an agreement and found a wording we could all agree on, which you would have seen had you investigated the matter before accusing me of all sorts of misunderstanding on my talk page.
 * Perhaps you could take a look at the matter before making false accusations :) just a suggestion!
 * Hopefully this explanation is a bit clearer!
 * Hopefully this explanation is a bit clearer!
 * Hopefully this explanation is a bit clearer!
 * Hopefully this explanation is a bit clearer!

Ysys9 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clarification, though I was aware of all of that already. I did in fact investigate the matter before writing my comment, which is where I got the diffs. I am aware of how the article read before your addition, and did not interpret it to be making a claim of fact, nor, apparently, did the other editors.
 * My comment wasn't a disagreement over the status quo (indeed, the fact that you're not the only one to have had this misunderstanding shows that some change was warranted, which is why I have not and will not make any edit request). My only concern was over the way that it was reached. In that regard, my previous comment stands. At any rate, all's well that ends well. Best, Smdjcl (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)