User talk:TITUSIIX

Welcome!

Hello, TITUSIIX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

help request
I am trying to populate content on two particular pages but I am being harassed by a particular user who is far more Wikipedia savvy than I am. Please help me! TITUSIIX (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Complete and utter nonsense. What you are actually trying to do is to promote church organisations that you are associated with by editing and creating articles about them in clear violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Editing (COI) policies as found at WP:COI. And the only harassment going on is what you are attempting on my talk page. You are the one out of order on these matters. You were informed about your COI edits but chose to ignore it. Anglicanus (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My friend you are incorrect yet again and out of line. I am trying to provide information where there is none and I am admittedly new to wikipedia and will improve my edits. However, I cannot do this if you continue this behavior.TITUSIIX (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can stop trying to fool me and anyone else that you are a "new" editor. You are obviously otherwise. It is your behaviour which is the problem here. You are engaging in some very obvious Conflict of Interest editing. How much clearer do things need to be explazined to you? Anglicanus (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * my account is 24 hours old and I have never edited a page on this site with another account or IP address at any point in my life. I have zero experience. But again I must thank you again for your unbalanced accusations. Your sir, are far too aggressive for your own good. Not very charitable behavior coming from a cleric.


 * I simply don't believe you. Your claims are not credible. Your editing shows that you obviously already have considerable knowledge of how to edit articles and do other Wikipedia tasks. Your account may be only 24 hours old but you are obviously an old hand on here. Anglicanus (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * He may be a computer scientist, he may have edited another wiki ... Competence is not proof of guilt. Furthermore, some of his edits do show inexperience (we in articles, not signing, needing several edits to add a section header etc.). If you think it will stand up, take it to SPI. Otherwise, drop it. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? If you want to "know how to improve" then stop being so naive and defending this nonsense. He may be fooling you (and even himself) but he certainly hasn't fooled me. You are not "helping". Anglicanus (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not being naive, I am assuming good faith, as should you. Your accusations have been stated on this talk page for the record, kindly take them to SPI or drop them now. Simply reasserting them is not wp:civil. That continues to hold even if you feel that wp:bite does not here. I am sorry my comments are not helping you. This will be my last reply to you here, unless I feel you are attacking TitusIXX. Good-bye Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 15:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not an issue of helping me. It is a problem of you defending the problem. And I can look after myself thank you very much. I stand 100% behind my comments. There is every good reason to believe that this is a very clear case of COI editing and I am not being fooled by it by assuming good faith when this is not appropriate. His use of "we" might have been a flag to you but you think it is just inexperience. Possible but unlikely. Anglicanus (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have accused me of being a fraud and a liar on my first interaction with Wikipedia, which is by nature a public forum. If that is the kind of conduct I can expect on this site I certainly have no time for it. As a matter of fact I do work with computers so picking up this sort of thing is not a challenge. I am inexperienced but you wp:bite are aggressive. Please refrain from dialogue with me and go about your business. If I continue to be attacked by you I will escalate this conversation. In fact I don't even know what "socking" or what an "SPI" is! I just wanted to edit an article and not get mired in your paranoia sir. TITUSIIX (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some definitions: A sock (short for sockpuppet) is a duplicate account used by an editor to get around policy etc. SPI is the noticeboard where these are investigated. About escalating the conversation, Anglicanus brought this conversation to the Administrator noticeboard for incidents (ANI) (see notice in a previous section). There uninvolved administrators are discussing the issue. You can go visit and even comment, but please be aware that this noticeboard is mostly used by slightly more experienced editors and acronyms fly (had to look up a few myself). Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 17:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is helpful! TITUSIIX (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Anglicanus: I fail to see your evidence of being an old account. If you have evidence of socking, go to SPI. Vague hints are counterproductive. Similare for COI. If just being from a religion is COI, I don't see how we can get anywhere. Do you have better evidence of COI? Perhaps you mean wp:NPOV? I agree with you on that, but it is a less serious and more easily corrected matter. TITUSIIX: words like a agressive and harass may be a little strong. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps they are. Alas, this user has got me "riled up" TITUSIIX (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I read the article quickly. It's not perfect, and it needs more balancing material. However, I don't see it being that far out of line. The multiple templates added to your talk page and the protection request seem a bit of a case of wp:OWN, but could you please calmly explain that instead of wp:bite him. I am leaving the helpme tag up. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 14:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I am doing my best with this platform but I am continuously stopped in my learning progress by this behaviour. I would greatly benefit from some help from this user instead of being bitten!TITUSIIX (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

OK so some tips after reading your diffs: Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 15:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Try editing articles you don't care about. It sounds silly, but it will give you awesome practice, and let you learn more about the community.
 * When editing on a page someone cares about, avoid using canned edit summaries unless they perfectly align with what you are doing. A fixed typo with over a thousand bytes of difference will raise eyebrows.
 * Don't remove warning tags unilaterally. Dicuss on the talk page, get other editors (for example from WikiProject Christianity) involved.
 * If someone reverts or complains about your edits, use the article talk page. Warning templates and page protection are really only for after multiple reverts or incivility. See Wp:Brd.
 * Have fun, don't take it personnally and take the high road. If you are really stressed, log off, eat, sleep. Wikipedia will be there in the morning.


 * Thank you very much, this is very helpful! I will definitely seek help from the other editors as you mentioned above. I am trying to learn! And yes, you are right to say that Wikipedia will be here another time. There are more important things to tend to then fruitless squabble. TITUSIIX (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another quick thing. "We" and "you" should generally be avoided in articles. You are supposed to be writing from the outside. This is a knack which you will pick up editing unrelated articles Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me! I didn't think of that! TITUSIIX (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and signing your posts on talk pages with 4 ~ is also considered helpful. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 15:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank You!

COI on Old Catholic Church in the United States
I will be seeking the removal of this article and having you blocked from editing for your obvious, blatant and repeated WP:COI violations. You are also running a significant risk of bringing your church into disrepute by editing this way. Anglicanus (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect yet again. I am will within the Wikipedia policy on content population. I would imagine that you will prevent anyone from populating this page with information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

Administrators Noticeboard / Incidents notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anglicanus (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

TITUSIIX, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Conflict of interest matters
Hi TITUSIIX. I understand that Anglicanus has raised concerns that you might have a conflict of interest with regard to the two articles that you have created, and he has been pretty intense about that. In my view Anglicanus has been far too aggressive with you, and I am sorry about that. I don't know what is driving it.

I don't know your background or if you have ever had to think about conflict of interest, but it is a serious issue. It goes to the integrity of Wikipedia. If people come edit, who have a connection in the real world to the subject matter of articles they edit in Wikipedia, there is a strong chance of intentional or unintentional bias coming into Wikipedia. Sometimes the interest is purely commercial (a company pays someone to create an article about them); sometimes it is promotional (a public relations person for a university edits the article on the university to make it look great) or an executive with a nonprofit organization writes an article on that organization, and sometimes it is adversarial (I once ran into a person who was adding loads of negative content to the article about a company that she was suing). All these sorts of things undermine the integrity of Wikipedia. I hope that makes sense to you.

In any case, would you please review WP:COI and let me know if you have any potential conflict of interest with regard to the things you have written about? You don't need to give any personally identifying information but anything relevant to the potential conflict, you should disclose. Once you have replied either way, I hope we can talk a bit more. Editors with a COI have a place here - they just have to do some things differently on articles where their conflict is relevant. Again I am sorry that Anglicanus was so aggressive with you. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog I have not been "aggressive". You, however, are being highly offensive about me for trying help protect Wikipedia from COI editing. You should know better. Your comments about me here and elsewhere are unjustified and quite disgraceful. Anglicanus (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Titus please do consider what I wrote; I look forward to hearing from you. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback and assistance. I truly appreciate it. I also should have you know that I am in no way trying to act in a malicious or dishonest manner. It is offensive to be accused of such and that is the reason for my irritation with said user. With that said I certainly will review the policy and get back to you, however I can assure you I am in no way trying to promote anything. To discuss this further how do I communicate with you? TITUSIIX (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can just write back here. If you could do this soon (like today) it would be good for everybody involved.  Please know that the question is not about what you were trying to do or not do.  The question is whether you actually have some connection to the subject matter you have written about, that constitutes a conflict of interest.  I am looking forward to a clear discussion with you about that. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank You. I have reviewed the WP:COI policy and I do not believe that I have a conflict of interest. I have an interest in the subject matter, yes. As a catholic cleric I have an interest in such jurisdictions and I noticed a lack of information on the articles on this site. I hardly think that my editing of these articles (in an inexperienced fashion, yes) constitutes wild accusations of a COI, rather they are signs that I simply do not know what I am doing yet. However, before I could make the edits I created this account to do I was dragged into this conversation. TITUSIIX (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Before I respond, would you please clarify if you are a "cleric" in the sense of a parish priest, or do you have some additional executive authority as a member of the hierarchy (e.g. bishop) or any other administrative roles? Also do have you a role in any affiliated organizations (nonprofits that may support or help the church in some way, etc), and if so what?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely. I am not in an administrative role in the Church and am a non-parochial member of the clergy, nor a bishop. That being said I do work for a NPO that supports the work of the Church. TITUSIIX (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok so... something like a monk, i guess. is that right? if you can just say your role without OUTING yourself that would be ideal. and what kind of role do you play at the NPO (executive, janitor, that sort of thing)? the more clear, the better. i'll have one more set of questions when we are done with this bit. thanks again for your patience, really! Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I truly want to contribute to this forum and have knowledge to share! I am not a religious but a secular priest. Professionally I work as an administrator for a religious NPO. TITUSIIX (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks. In my first post above, I described a range of things in the continuum of advocacy, all of which lead editors to skew the neutrality of Wikipedia. Conflict of interest, is a subset of advocacy.  The other stuff I want to ask you about now, concerns that larger picture.  2 questions.  Does that NPO advocate for the OCC in any way?  Also, in the real world, do you advocate for the OCC?  Thanks. Once two things are answered I'll respond with my thoughts (which will be just that - my thoughts)  Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to answer that. The NPO that I work for does not advocate in any way shape or form for the OCC and is completely unrelated. In the real world, I do not advocate on behalf of the OCC, I merely have a curious interest. I am part of a different branch of the Church. I hope this helps. TITUSIIX (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

oh, that makes everything much more simple. i should have asked if you part of the OCC in the first place.. i just assumed you were due to Anglicanus concern. based on what you have said here, I cannot see any reasonable COI nor any advocacy. I am really baffled by Anglicanus' concern. A last question just to address the other thing he raised - have you ever edited here under a different username or as an IP? thanks. i'll have one more thing to say about your edits thus far.... Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too am baffled that he assumed that. Which is why I reacted the way I did. No, to your last question. I have never edited anything on Wikipedia at anytime. I have never done so under a different name nor an IP address. I am a novice in all of this, but I am picking things up as I go along. TITUSIIX (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for talking. Two last things. The first version of the Old Catholic Church in the United States article had a lot of content you copied from the WCC site. You put it in quotes, but it was still way too much. What I suggest you do, is read good, recent, reliable secondary sources that describe the OCC, and summarize them, with good citations so other people can verify the content. Make sure you give WP:WEIGHT to various topics as they are described in those sources. OK? Last thing, as I said I don't see that you have a COI nor any issue with advocacy, based on what you described here; I am going to post a link to our discussion at ANI and have folks there weigh in, so that the community can resolve this. Please be patient while that goes forward. My sense is that whatever you try to do will be opposed by Anglicanus and it will just cause a lot of drama. Best to wait a bit for the community to weigh in. Assuming nothing new comes to light, and if the community agrees with me, and Anglicanus then continues his behavior against consensus, he will be sanctioned for that. Does that sound OK? Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I am relieved that the community will have an opportunity to weigh in. You have been extraordinarily helpful and for that I am grateful. As you suggest I will refrain from making further edits on these pages until the community weighs in. In the meantime I will find a few substantive sources to add some weight. TITUSIIX (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry a last thing above when you wrote "the Church" does that mean the Roman Catholic church? if not, what? thanks Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry to be cryptic but I am being very careful. I referring to Roman church in this particular instance. TITUSIIX (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK so you are an RC priest and the NPO you work for supports the RC church. yes? Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very close, I am more closely aligned to Western Orthodoxy and I work in an administrative role for a NPO that supports the work of a group under the jurisdiction of the Roman church. TITUSIIX (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

... ok thanks!! posting the link now. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to have you here Titus. I don't see anything which necessarily causes any real ongoing concerns here. I tend to be a bit less active around here Monday-Wednesday, because of work situations, and take some time off on Sunday too, but if you ever want any help particularly from Thursday to Saturday drop me a note and I'll do what I can. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I might just take you up on that! TITUSIIX (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing comments by others
I just wanted to mention that I have noticed you seem to often remove Anglicanus's comments from various talk pages. While I understand you find them offensive and annoying, this is against Wikipedia policy. I reccommend you stop, in your own interest. Just ignore him and get on with the editing. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 22:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your guidance! TITUSIIX (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is actually not quite true. You can remove comments that are personal attacks or vandalism. I hesitate to give you yet another Wikipedia policy page to read but you can get more details at WP:TPO. You can also ask for certain editors or admins not to post to your talk page. They should honor this except in the case of having to post notices of any actions they are taking that involve you. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello TITUSIIX, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Old Catholic Confederation has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Old Catholic Church in the United States


The article Old Catholic Church in the United States has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (organizations) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)