User talk:Veverve/Archive 3

Vaticinium ex eventu
Hello, I improved on and added links to a previous edit that you reversed. You keep reversing in spite of citations to the contrary. Please stop. This is neither helpful, nor does it benefit the quality of the article. Rusdo (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Saints
I have reverted your move of List of Cornish saints, and noted on the talk page my reasons. I see you are engaged in moving many other pages to claim RC exclusivity. I think this is unhelpful and likely to be seen as disruptive - other churches have saints, some of the saints on the lists may be saints in other churches as well as the Roman Catholic, and some may not be saints in the Roman Catholic Church. I suggest you undo your moves and in future use WP:RM for such wholesale and likely-to-be-objected-to moves. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * the articles I moved are exclusively about RC saints, yet are called "List of X saints", as if all the saints from this region were only RC saints. Feel free to change all of those articles to include saints from other churches and then to undo my moves. Veverve (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is untrue. For example, in List of Cornish saints the very first saint is Austol, who is RC, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican. DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I should not have moved List of Cornish saints, as it states it concerns all saints from Corwall without mention of a specific Church; it was my mistake. Veverve (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ignatius (Deputatov) & Cyril (Nakonechny)
Hello Veverve, sorry to hear that you have retired, but checking your contributions log it seems as if you not totally done just yet. Two drafts I have been working on about Russian Orthodox bishops I think are near done, if you'd like to have a look you can find them at Draft:Ignatius (Deputatov) and Draft:Cyril (Nakonechny), if your not interested anymore that's fine. Thank you Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not interested anymore. I really do my best not to edit anymore unless it is really needed, and a fortriori I do my best not to edit on niche subjects anymore. Still, I thank you for your request. Veverve (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Christian Church
Can you shorten that short description? Editor2020 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Your recent editing history at Traditionis custodes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.AnupamTalk 23:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Traditionis Custodes
Why did you revert the change involving the removal of the word "revokation"? Without any evidence that this is a revokation of Summorum Pontificum, that wording does NOT stand. 108.66.108.145 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
While it appears you have been out of retirement to some degree for a while, I can't help but appreciate the incredible work you have done on ensuring the article for Traditionis custodes, a major document in for many Catholics, received the deserved treatment by an experienced editor. Additionally, despite hiccups and miscommunications, you maintained a general disposition toward cordiality and productiveness that serves as inspiration for a hobbyist such as myself. Thank you for your contributions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Important notices
GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church
Hello! Your submission of Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Original research
Please do not add original research or primary source material, as you did at Catacombs of Rome. Your original edits there were reverted because they included block quotes without attribution. Please do not re-add this material again without a discussion of its appropriateness and presentation.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not get it: there is a source to my paragraph. Please AGF and do not call my edits vandalism. Veverve (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was unsourced, nor did I call it vandalism (though your blind revert re-included vandalism that was not dealt with before your series of edits). Either its a quote from you (original research) or from someone else (without attribution). Either way its not appropriate. Please take it to the article talk page.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

[Untitled]
You just reverted my edit of Priest shortage in the Catholic Church. I raised the number of priests involved in the sexual abuse scandal from "hundreds" to "thousands". The list of cases on Wikipedia as well as those reported in the media document thousands of actions taken by the Catholic church and courts against priests found guilty of sexual abuse. Why do you wish to keep this number at "hundreds" in the article?

https://apnews.com/article/europe-france-sexual-abuse-by-clergy-sexual-abuse-religion-ee99d7921e5a1b8c45c770bf5af7ba38

Gavin (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) No number was given in the sources given, so I undid your edition and removed the numbers.
 * 2) Even if you use other sources for giving a number, this would be WP:SYNTH. Veverve (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Even if you use other sources for giving a number, this would be WP:SYNTH. Veverve (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard Williams Morgan
Hi, Veverve

I have reverted your changes to the Richard Williams Morgan article, since you had effectively erased most of it. You claim it was unsourced - the facts of RWM's life are readily found in the sources quoted in the list of 'Sources' - if you wish to turn these into numbered inline references please do the research first and then do so - most of the facts can be found in more than one of the sources, and it would probably require three of four numbered references at the end of every sentence. And RWM had an importance much wider than his involvement with the Ancient British Church, which is I assume your own interest! John O&#39;London (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. I undid your undoing. Any unsourced claim of this sort can be removed. If those claims are sourced and you want to keep them, then feel free to source them with inline references. I do not have to make any research to put inline references and keep those claims, as I am happy with simply removing those unsourced claims. Veverve (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history you will see that the article was created over more than 10 years by several dozen contributors drawing on the sources listed in the list of Sources. As I understand it, inline references were not thought essential by Wikipedia at the time it was created (I believe there are still plenty of Wiki articles without an inline reference for every fact). John O&#39;London (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, policies were different at the time. Veverve (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So, won't you agree articles that were originally created with a list of Sources instead of one-by-one inline references should be left intact until they can be 'improved' to meet modern Wiki standards, and should not be torn up root and branch, leaving someone to try to reconstruct them? I see the Welsh DNB gives a link to the Wikipedia article - which is a bit pointless at the moment, since you've even deleted material that is found in the Welsh DNB! John O&#39;London (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Enough time has passed (numerous years!), and this article is still not up to today's standards. I did not remove the sources, so other users can use them to expand the article. It is better to have few reliably sourced or easily checkable information than having long articles, as WP:CITOGENESIS should be avoided. I am not giving the benefit of the doubt to parts which have been improperly sourced for years, and leaving unsourced information until a saviour comes and takes the time to check them and check the sources is not, in my opinion, a correct way to proceed. Veverve (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How do we take it from here? Although I've been contributing to Wikipedia for years, I'm not experienced in the by-ways of procedure and policy - how do we get a second opinion or arbitration? I must admit I wasn't aware whole articles could be effectively deleted simply for not having inline references and for using an out-of-date system for crediting their sources! Is this now official Wikipedia policy?John O&#39;London (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it falls under Verifiability. A third opinion can be requested at Third opinion. Veverve (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the work you've done on the Richard Williams Morgan article recently (apparently on the basis of the single source you could get access to). I'm afraid your reliance on one single published source gives a very unbalanced picture of Morgan's life and career!


 * I had almost decided to give in, dig out my research notes from 20 years ago, call up the source books at the British Library (Freeman and Brown are much more reliable than Thomann, and there's also a recent thesis that describes RWM's role in the Tractarian movement) and rewrite the whole thing from scratch.


 * However, I came across this Wikipedia template:


 * Should you not have considered adding an appropriate template to the article rather than wholesale deletion? In fact the "unreferenced" template didn't apply anyway, since it clearly says: "This template should only be used on articles that have no citations or references at all" and "In articles containing a list of sources at the end, but no inline citations, including parenthetical references or in-text attributions, consider when the article would be significantly improved by detailed attribution of sources to specific claims."


 * So it seems that what YOU should have done was simply to attach the template This would alert the unwary reader that the content might be untrustworthy - (and only then could you legitimately complain that the article was "not up to today's standards"). And I may be the only person who has RWM on my watchlist, but it would at least have alerted me there was a problem before you took root and branch action. Although frankly I don't think a brief biography like RWM's will be "significantly improved" by adding a numbered footnote to every sentence. (Look at the Oxford DNB for example - they don't have footnotes, simply a list of sources at the end.) John O&#39;London (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Verifiability states: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Sorry, I am not goinf to wait indefinetly until someone decides to take the time to verify every claim in every source: it was never done in years in the RWM article, in fact I have been the first person in years to care enough to improve substantially the reliability of this article. I know of the existence of those templates, and believe problems should be fixed, not thrown under the rug. Also, yes, Wikipedia does not work like some websites and encyclopedia do. Veverve (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What it says is "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." Are you challenging the verifiability of the information in the original RWM article? If so - do it, on its talk page. But you've actually made it clear you don't have access to the sources cited and that you know nothing about the subject - so why do you take it upon yourself to decide what in this particular article requires verification? Will putting online references to the same limited number of sources make it any more verifiable? Certainly not by the ordinary reader - as you've discovered, there are very few sources available on the subject, and they are not easily accessible. You claim to "have been the first person in years to care enough to improve substantially the reliability of this article". Frankly that's rubbish. You destroyed an accurate and reliable article to replace it with some scanty third-hand references from a source that isn't even about the subject of the article. Please leave it alone. John O&#39;London (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue that I breached any policy or request my ban from this particular article, you can do it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I will not try to explain to you how an article with no inline citation is not an accurate and reliable article. Veverve (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Pope Francis
Your reversion on my edit instead should have been an edit to include German in Francis's list of fluent languages. He is still not fluent in French, English, etc., nor does the source claim that he is. I am going to edit the article again to fix that. If you have any issue with the newer edit, please talk it out with me instead of simply reverting it. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Images I helped creating
On WCommons, I have directed the work on this timelines where I introduced a nuance betwen True Orthodoxy and Old Calendarists, and True Orthodoxy and the ROCOR and ROCOR(A).


 * File:Timeline of the main Old Calendarists and True Orthodox Greek Eastern Orthodox Churches (2021).svg
 * File:Timeline of the main schisms from the Russian Orthodox Church (1589 to 2021).svg

My train of thoughts was that True Orthodoxy considered the sacraments made by mainstream churches to be invalid, whereas Old Calendarists and the ROCOR(A) did not. However, according to the definition I found and added at True Orthodoxy, Old Calendarists are a variant of True Orthodox. In Greece, the movement is known as Greek Old Calendarism, due to historical circumstances so the difference is semantic not on the essence; therefore, from what I undertand, all those independent churches at File:Timeline of the main Old Calendarists and True Orthodox Greek Eastern Orthodox Churches (2021).svg should all be either in blue as "Autocephalous Old Clendarist church" (my preferred opinion), or in orange as "Autocephalous True Orthodox church". I do not know if the ROCOR(A) and the ROCOR were or are traditionalist, so I will leave them as they are. what do you think of my idea to change the Greek timeline? Veverve (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Common Word Between Us and You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Spencer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Józef Czajkowski
 * added a link pointing to Polish

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are you destroying the information about our church to the world -
I do not understand why you want to destroy the information on tnis page ... are you the arbitor of all things?

You do a lot of editing in Orthodox religion pages

you are a sinful person --- even if our group was made by the devil himself - the world should know the status of the church and where we are today

please refrain from deleting the history of our church - it is akin to the Nazi book burnings  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1005:F300:C0C6:287A:393:EBC6 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello IP. I do not know what article you are talking about. In any case, WP:V is not the Nazi book burnings. Veverve (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Unfortunately, I do no have the skills or knowledge needed to substantially improve a draft on this topic. Veverve (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:V
I see you've gotten into it on another article. Here is what the policy says:

When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.5 If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. 5 When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.

Emphasis mine. Srnec (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

CCC
In the CCC article, I wrote:
 * Three decades prior to the first publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992, the Second Vatican Council was convened in 1962 to discern strategies aimed at the spiritual renewal of the church. Following the council, many major reforms were implemented.

The source states:
 * at the end of the Council 41 years ago, the Church’s primary task became the study and application of these teachings. The principal themes of the Council, as expressed in its four constitutions on Scripture, liturgy, the Church, and relating the Gospel to the modem world, presented a major challenge: how to integrate these new insights into the faith and life of the Catholic Church at the end of the second millennium of Christianity.

My text is a fair summary of the source.

Also in the CCC article, I wrote:
 * In 2018, Pope Francis modified paragraph no. 2267 in the official Latin edition; updated translations were subsequently published, including a modified second edition English translation.

On the cover of the print edition, is says this information. There is no requirement that a source be available online. –Zfish118⋉talk 23:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no mention in your first source that Vatican II was made to discern strategies aimed at the spiritual renewal of the church. Following the council, many major reforms were implemented to apply these teachings.
 * What book are you refering to? You have put as a reference the website of the Vatican which does not contain the information. Veverve (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What book are you refering to? You have put as a reference the website of the Vatican which does not contain the information. Veverve (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

AM30228479 spamming you
I am so sorry that this happened. I'm anyways warning them. Faster than Thunder (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Biblical Canon Article and the LDS canon section
So, in 2011, I began work on cleaning-up the Biblical canon article. It remains a mess, but it was even worse back then. I first viewed it with a final section on the LDS canon. I never had the heart to delete it, but I do not think it belongs there. What I certainly have problems with is discussing the standard works of one LDS denomination and not others. So I wrote a few paragraphs that discussed some of those other denominations. They were sourced. Over the years, other editors blew them up into something much larger than my original intent. I still think if you include a section on the LDS canon at all, it should include more than just one denomination. That was my purpose for reverting that section back. 75.117.193.162 (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Retired
Will you consider removing the "retired" tag, that you are editing at a prolific rate. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Orthodox Church of Ukraine
Regarding the separations in the OCU:

As it states in Conflict between Filaret and Epiphanius, only two bishops came to the Filaret's Council: and his vicar, bishop  who head parishes of the UOC-KP in Russia and Moldova.

The juristictions in Russia and Moldova never were parts of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, therefore we can't count them as separations from the OCU. The canonical territory of the OCU is Ukraine, and those were supposed to be transferred to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

As for Filaret himself, he remains a member of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, as the Kyiv Patriarchate church was never officially restored despite some attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎EricLewan (talk • contribs)


 * Some bishops and priests still constitute "part" of an organisation's clergy. It is clear the UOC-KP and the OCU split, whatever narrative the OCU tries to spin; reality trumps canon law. Veverve (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies
I was not in a good state of mind when I called the large edits to the Ethiopic canon page "racist". I apologize. I also didn't recognize who made those changes. (I sometimes don't look at the editors, just the changes.) I think I had just thanked you for your contributions related to the Vulgate on a related page---ones I eventually agreed with based on my own prior knowledge. (Sometimes you forget what you already know.)

I created that page as the "Ethiopian Orthodox biblical canon" some years ago under a different username. This is a complex and problematic case to say the least. I do not agree with the wholesale edits you made, but I am also not sure about what existed before either---eventhough I was its author. Surely some middle-ground exists.Joeymanderson3 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I accept your excuses, no harm.
 * Like I said, I am sorry. It doesn't matter how you see it, it was an apology and not an excuse. I was wrong.Joeymanderson3 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon article, I had asked for those paragraphs to be sourced by inline refs two years ago, so I think it is legitimate to remove them as they were not sourced for many years, and remained unsourced for two years after an explicit request. Veverve (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As for these things, I am tired. The amount of research that would have to go into this, beyond what has been already been published, is crazy--especially with the turmoil that has occurred and is occurring there. I also think there has been a lot of Western pressure on that canon, and that is why I called those edits racist---even though they clearly weren't.Joeymanderson3 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I accept your apologies. Veverve (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The Russian Orthodox Church in America page has dissappeared from Wikipedia
The Church exists and someone keeps taking the page down

perhaps someone feels like we should not exist but we do ...

We have Bishops Priests and Laity.

How do we reinstate the orginal post that existed for at least 8 to 10 years and update that information

I am clergy in the Russian Orthodox Church in America tasked with maintaining social media content and information about our church

John Haydukovich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydukovich (talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The page was deleted after a WP:PROD proposed by . I support this PROD on the ground of the arguments Ad Orientem proposed which can be read at Russian Orthodox Church in America; I support it even more since you wrote the WP article from scratch then used it as a notoriery argument on your own website, even boldly stating "According to reliable sources quoted in Wikipedia" when you did not provide any reliable source on the Wikipedia article (see also WP:NOTBLOG, WP:Self-promotion, Conflict of interest).
 * If you want a refund, you will have to go to WP:UNDELETE. However, the article will be nominated as WP:AFD by me once it is restored, as the organisation clearly fails WP:NCHURCH. Veverve (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Veverve (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Leonid Gorbachov
Please, look at this article. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul VI Missal reversions.
What needs to be done to keep the deacon and subdeacon edits in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smak 84 (talk • contribs)
 * Have WP:RS as inline references which support the information you add; see WP:V. Veverve (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

your message to me
Hi Veverve,

I saw your message about not leaving too many links to ten-commandments.org on various Wikipedia articles. However, it is difficult to know which link on which article would be effective. And the matter is urgent. I am very much a committed Catholic. Pope Francis has started the three-year process of Synodal Consultations which are crucial to bring about some very necessary updates as to how the Church operates. It is important that participants of the parochial and diocesan synods which have started to work are aware of the issues that need to be discussed. Please, let me know if you have constructive suggestions as to how I can reach them more effectively! Thanks. Elsa Elsa Beek (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to serve as propaganda for any form of militant movement. If you want to raise awareness for your cause, please do it outside of Wikipedia. To know when something can be added, please see WP:DUE, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:ONUS. Veverve (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Conor MacDari
Everything is wrong with this draft, but I couldn't help thinking of you when I saw some of these titles. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * After reading the monument of scholarship that is Irish Wisdom Preserved in Bible and Pyramids, I am now convinced British Israelism is a fraud and that the true religion is Irishraelism, whatever some anti-Irish liars may say. I am now also convinced Shakespeare's plays were in fact written by an Irish man which is the reason why Bacon was killed. Veverve (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I knew it. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My daughter wants to know if an Irish person has ever been to space. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Irish are not made of antimatter so they certainly went there (inspired by this recent edit of mine). Veverve (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Orthodox theology
I hope you are willing to solve all links to disambiguation pages that you have created with this retargeting. The Banner talk 16:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just did it now. Veverve (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, more work is needed]. The Banner  talk 17:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see how all links which target this DAB are of my doing. Veverve (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please
Please use an edit summary. Thanks. Editor2020 (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed controversial page move
As far as I know, your page move "Apostle" to Apostle (word) was not discussed anywhere. So I will do an official request to reinstated the original title. Your move created 1282 links to disambiguation through templates alone plus - I did not look into it yet - many other articles. The Banner talk 06:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I defend my page move, and creating DAB links was one of the goals as I stated in my edit summary of said page move. Veverve (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you try to discuss it anywhere to see if there was any support for it? And beside that: move an article with the intent to create links to disambiguation pages is at least dodgy. Official request tot move it back is now posted and open for discussion. The Banner  talk 06:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your page move is already reverted by an administrator. The Banner  talk 06:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Apostles, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 15:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Apostles. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Banner talk 15:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * you refuse to take the page back to WP:QUO or to discuss the change you want to make to the talk page, and prefer to give me warnings. What is your point? Veverve (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That you are disruptively editwarring and POV-pushing. And you only ask for discussion after your undiscussed changes were reverted multiple times. The Banner  talk 15:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Seeing you filing at WP:AN, I assume that you refuse to tone down your behaviour. On your head, my friend, on your head. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Some advice re: apostles
Since you've expressed appreciation for my involvement in this before, I hope you don't mind if I give you some advice, which is that in my opinion, escalating to AN will not accomplish anything. Although I think you've largely been in the right throughout this debate, Banner has a point that you shouldn't have made the initial page move without discussion – that wasn't against policy, but it was a bad judgement call – and then you shouldn't have edit-warred over the redirect (even though Banner did too). These actions will give some apparent merit to the claims of disruptive editing being made against you, and the AN thread is not likely to go your way (incidentally, I think you meant to post at ANI, not AN). The move request, also, is almost certainly going to fail now regardless of its merits, simply because the situation has got so messy.So my advice is to WP:DISENGAGE. Withdraw the AN report, withdraw the move request, and let the issue drop for a few months. I know there's a real problem you're trying to address, but it's not so urgent that it needs to be dealt with immediately, especially now you've fixed all the links. If more links have accumulated in six months' time, you'll have an even stronger argument to move the page. I understand the frustration of having to back off when you know you're right, but you won't do yourself any favours by pursuing this any further. Dan from A.P. (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for the advice. I withdrew my RM. As for the the ANM, I will let it go throught, as I feel the user is not going to stop if the problem is not taken to there. Besides, I am already getting thrown in the mud by another user at this ANM. I did not mean to post an ANI as the matter is not urgent, but I wrote "ANI" a few times because I am very used to reporting vandals and POV-pushers to ANI. Veverve (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, good luck. Dan from A.P. (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * my ANM has been archived without any admin intervention. I think therefore I will follow you advice and go back to those subjects in a few months. Veverve (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably for the best, I think. Dan from A.P. (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)