User talk:Elizium23/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

References on date articles

If you're going to try to enforce references being required for every entry on every date article, you're going to have a long road ahead of you. In the future, it might be more effective to check the linked article and simply grab any refs from there. It would save you pointlessly reverting legit edits. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, per WP:ONUS, not my problem. Elizium23 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, pass the buck. Great way to deal with people. Have a nice day. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, while I would be warmed by your solicitude for my workload, I can tell it is disingenuous, because your proposed solution would increase it 3x-4x. I would be interested to hear from Toddst1 who commended me for my work recently on WP:RSN.

And I would also turn this around on you, to say that "if editors are going to try to insert unsourced material in entries on every date article, they're going to have a lot of reverts ahead of them. In the future, it might be more effective for them to check the linked article, grab refs from there, and add it along with the entry. It would save them pointlessly receiving warnings."

I will continue to enforce WP:V in my own way. It would seem that if I did other people's work for them, they wouldn't get the picture that policy has changed now and references are required. This is simply an uncomfortable period of growing pains. Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The reference was in the article that was linked. As I said, start removing everything that doesn't have a reference on those articles and I'll believe your sincerity. If you aren't going to do that, then you're simply being disingenuous. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, dude, you of all people should know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Policy has changed. At one time, those list articles were allowed to not have references. That's why they are in the current state. We are bringing them into compliance with WP:V now because WP:Consensus can change, do you get the picture?

Now I'm not a disruptive vandal troll and I'm not removing all unsourced content from the articles because of WP:PRESERVE. So stop fooling around with the fake solutions already! Elizium23 (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Did I state Wikipedia is a reliable source? No. I said the reference for the information I added was found in the linked article, not that the linked article was being cited. I wouldn't have added it if it wasn't cited in the article. If you're bringing them into compliance with WP:V, then you must remove all the uncited material, even if it's just moving it to the article talk page until such time as references can be found. This isn't a fake solution. I'm merely asking you to be consistent rather than only going after new stuff that would take you all of 30 seconds to fix. If you're trying to fix things, don't do it piecemeal. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, since I would never make such drastic changes without obtaining consensus, I have opened an RFC according to your sincere wishes. Elizium23 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Following the ping that brought me here: So, I believe I saw @Nihonjoe:'s edit to the DOY page in question without a source, but I chose not to revert it. Why? Well Nihonjoe has been around here forever and is one of the most solid editors you'll find. When I see a veteran like him contravene WP:DOYCITE, I assume that:

1. They probably were unaware of the change creating WP:DOYCITE
2. There probably is a source somewhere
3. Given the editor's tenure, they probably deserve the benefit of the doubt.

You may notice that there is a group of us (masochists) going through and trying to fix up these DOY pages as discussed here. We've knocked a few out and have quite a few to to go - and welcome help. So in the spirit of fixing up these pages and respect for the veteran editors who are usually unaware of the change and frankly skeptical at the size of the task, I'll usually try to find a source for the veteran editor and when I do, leave the editor a polite note. Yes this is a double standard, but I think it helps veterans buy in to the change and, as as you've seen from Nihonjoe's comments, he's a bit skeptical. In this case, I believe the edit in question could have been supported by a reference on the linked page, but I was unsure of its reliability, so I asked for some opinions at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Encyclopedia_of_Science_Fiction, which seem to validate the source. Unfortunately I've been a bit busy today and haven't been able to circle back and add the source, and it looks like Elizium23, with all good intentions just reverted it. You were not at all wrong but I understand why Nihonjoe might have his feathers ruffled. I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As Toddst1 note, I did get my feathers ruffled a bit at the way the reverts were done. I'm fine if there's a requirement for including a source on these pages, but there didn't used to be as long as the article had a source for the information (I think because they didn't want some of the pages to have hundreds or thousands of citations, which would likely at least double the size of the pages given how many short entries there are on those pages). And as Todd noted, I had not been aware WP:DOYCITE was even a thing until this came up. Rather than complaining about "increasing workload" (since this is a volunteer-run site, and any person's workload is exactly as light or heavy as they desire), taking the 30 seconds it would take to fix it, and then advise me of the guideline I apparently wasn't aware of would have been a better way to handle it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank You for your help and advice

If you would like to contribute and help add references on the Wikipedia articles... it would greatly be appreciated. I will yield to your advice. Thank you so much for you help. I appreciate it. --Ehudakineah (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of Tulsi Gabbard minor edit

Hi Elizium, I noticed you reverted my removal of an unproven assertion in a biographical page of a political person (Tulsi Gabbard). We seem to disagree on the validity of the claim so could you quote the part of the cited article that shows its source since I didn't find one. Otherwise it would be inappropriate to put this claim in a living person's page.

Vik101101 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Jannat Rahmani

Hey, why my edit of Jannat Zubair Rahmani is getting deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharonAnama (talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Because it cited an unreliable source. If you take the very source that's found in her article to cite her birthdate, then that would be acceptable instead. Elizium23 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok can you tell me what's a reliable source? Some link or guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharonAnama (talk • contribs) 05:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodoxy by country

A new editor keeps restoring material I had previously removed because it cited unreliable self-published sources (mostly blog posts) that did not even back up the relevant claims. Their very last edit summary was "drop it, dude" in Greek. Would you perhaps have any suggestions on how to handle this matter? --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Omnipaedista, finding other editors to help is good. You could also request page protection. Or you could post an appeal at a noticeboard. Elizium23 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

My warm thanks for your reply. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Omnipaedista, you're welcome! Elizium23 (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

ANEW

Please consider my resolution of the report as a warning- there needs to be a talk page discussion between the two of you. You have reverted just as much as the other user. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem

Hi! I am not sure what this edit summary means. Could you please elaborate? --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

So here's what I thought, is that the "jurisdiction" field was an automatically parsed one that had to be of a certain value. That it governed the color or layout or something based on a switch. But it does not. So I have reverted myself because the proper wording of the infobox depends on that. Sorry for the confusion. Elizium23 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop Vandalizing

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Derbe and Saint Timothy. Dervenagas (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

2020

Hi Elizium, why did you delete my edit in the page 2020? Thanks. Borteddd (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Borteddd, check the diff. You clobbered a hatnote. Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dervenagas (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

1992

all people in 1992 births is without source!! why only me who should add source? --FPP (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

FPP, WP:DOYCITE applies since 2017. Elizium23 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

About 1996 cameroonian football goalkeeper was very correct, not wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:2200:472:DC97:C9F9:5F19:93B8:7528 (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern

Hello I was in the process of adding a cite on the accurate biography that I wrote but the cite became an error thank you for correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonC 02 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

- CrimsonC 02

How is it not a "reliable source"? Is it because I got it from YouTube? Is it because it's not on an article instead?? The footage showcases the artist telling the viewer everything that I wrote in the now corrected biography that I worked on. YouTube videos are a reliable source and you & others can't tell me otherwise, Good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonC 02 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

>>>Your "edit war" notice on my Talk page

Are you serious? It is not an edit war at all. Look again. It's a vandal! Thus far, one other editor agrees with my pronunciation of "Colchester", and so do a whole load of local people in Colchester who appear in a video at which I pointed Kevin McE (this one); they consistently say "/ˈkoʊltʃɪstər/", as does the voice in the audio file that has been with this article for years. Those recordings are proof. Kevin McE has presented none. We cannot even know whether he really has lived in Colchester for 20 years (I suspect not if he doubts the pronunciation that all those people in the video use, and which I have myself known since before I started school). Please research the matter yourself before you make such accusations. And, don't you rather think it's the editor who calls another editor a "racist wanker" – as Kevin McE called me – who needs a lecture?

There is no edit war here. I have tried presenting evidence to Kevin McE, but he just won't have it; he has only called me names. He might think that this is some kind of game.

And, oh yes, I shall be reverting Kevin's vandalism once again because I have proved true the information that he has deleted. Kelisi (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision

You undid my revision at religious habit. Care to share why? You provide nothing in your edit summary. A loose necktie (talk)

	The Bold Barnstar
	For creating a dab page that needed creating. Yes! A loose necktie (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

History merge request

• You wanted me to history-merge page Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St Joseph's Minor Basilica,Varapuzha into page User:Varapuzha Former Cathedral/sandbox. But this cannot be done, because they are WP:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Notre Dame residence halls

I have no connection with these residence halls. I'm not sure why you assume I do. Could you please remove it? I admire your work on the WikiPorject:Catholicism, I don't know why you took a dislike to me.Eccekevin (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, done. It's not a dislike, my friend. It's just due process. You said you're an alumnus, but since there are tens of thousands of ND alumni, I think tht is not a close connection. Elizium23 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. And once more I acknowledge my admiration for the amount and quality of work you have done on the Project pages.Eccekevin (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I am flattered. Thank you too. Elizium23 (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Block evasion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Block evasion. This subject may concern one of the IPs you have been reverting in the past week. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Sedition Caucus

Hi Eliziun, I understand that my recent edit of the Sedition Caucus article violated WP:REFERS, but after a talk page discussion I believe the consensus is that REFERS does not apply because that would violate WP:BLPPUBLIC. That said, I was the one who changed the consensus, so I might not have the best judgement as to what the consensus is. Is there a part of Wikipedia policy I am misunderstanding, and if so which one? Caleb M1 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC) I double check-ed the edit history and realized that you undid your own rollback. oops Caleb M1 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Flag Icon

Hello, you have undone my edit of in the article Larry J. Kulick. Originally you stated it was because it was the incorrect flag. After I reverted your edit because the Holy See flag is the standard flag used to represent the distinction on Wikipedia (see Category:Knights of the Holy Sepulchre), you changed your justification. I do not believe your new reasoning of "Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance" which you directed me to is relevant in this case. The flag of Vatican City and the Holy See is neither subnational or supranational, it is national. Additionally, the MOS that you directed me to supports the use of the flag in this case when it states, "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject officially represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams."--Gri3720 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversies about Opus Dei

I do not understand why you removed citations. For example, in the sentence that ends "have been published" you removed the actual places where they have been published. This makes the statement unsubstantiated, lowering the scholarly quality of the page rather than raising it. The other editor just re-formatted things that needed re-formatting. So if your concern was about the formatting of those citations I gather you would have fixed the formatting. What, then, is your objection to the citations I put in?

In another example, you both removed the citation and changed the verb of a sentence to make the sentence inaccurate. The sentence said "targeting," and you replaced that with "approaching." The source I had linked to was a report of a strategy being laid out to garner new members for the group. Approaching was not the topic.

In a third case you removed a citation from a newspaper article wherein was reported the statement that the article says has been reported. Again, leaving the statement unsubstantiated. I do not understand why an editor would do this.

You did the same in a couple of other cases.

Please explain your rationale for each of the things you removed. Wikipedia exists to provide information to the public.

I noticed that your affiliations say Knights of Columbus, and it is public knowledge that the head of Knights of Columbus was, until about a week ago, a member of Opus Dei (Carl Anderson). I would not like to think that an editor is trying to prevent information concerning controversies about Opus Dei from reaching the public because he wants to use the page as PR for Opus Dei.

I myself am not affiliated with the "survivor networks" of former members and am not any of the people cited in the article. I have expertise and interest in the history and sociology of religion. Todaviavalelapena (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC) — Todaviavalelapena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Honour/Hunger Games

Fixed it. My bad.

!Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm evrik. Your recent edit(s) to the page Advent appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 02:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Abortion debate, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, your contributions are bigoted. Elizium23 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My contributions are, but I'm not? Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, who am I to judge? Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ieronymos II of Athens

Hello Elizium23,

1. I had contributed to the article of Ieronymos II of Athens with the following text:

Ieronymos has however since developed a more Islamophobic view and fueled racism against muslims by stating in an interview with Open TV on Saturday 16th of January 2021 that "Because we know that Islam and its people is not a religion. The believers are people of war."[8][9] These islamophobic remarks sparked outrage within the muslim community across the world, who considers Islam to be a peaceful religion. This forced the Church of Greece to apologize in a statement on Sunday 17th of January 2021. [10]

2. You removed the whole text, with the following motivation:

Hello, I'm Elizium23. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ieronymos II of Athens seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

3. I believe you are partially correct, especially with regards to the choice of loaded formulated phrases such as "... since developed a more Islamophobic view and fueled racism against muslims ..." and ... , who considers Islam to be a peaceful religion ...

4. While these statements might be correct, or not, the rest of the text together with the sources ought to be put back. The text would then instead contain the following facts: Ieronymos has however since stated in an interview with Open TV on Saturday 16th of January 2021 that "Because we know that Islam and its people is not a religion. The believers are people of war."[8][9] These remarks sparked outrage within the muslim community across the world, who considered the statements to be Islamophobic. The Church of Greece later on made a regretting statement on Sunday 17th of January 2021. [10]

5. Will you restore the edited text, or should I?

Thank you,

83.250.100.16 (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

RM for Autocephaly

I have started a RM for Autocephaly, please come and give your feedback here. Veverve (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism by user 76.75.43.202

I have seen that you posted a block warning on the page of user 76.75.43.202, who was vandalising pages. Unfortunately, and for some reason, he has continued to do so. He removed several people from the List of Hispanic and Latino American actors without any explanation. The list was published by me and obviously any input is welcome as long as you don't vandalise the list.--Isinbill (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Accusations

Elizium23 has used the word 'Lack of neutrality' to delete new info. I added 1951 revolution that overthrew hereditary Rana Dynasty. PN27 (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Cynthia Newton

Please can you explain why you reverted the tony1811 edit. This is accurate and widly reported. The source does not appear on any 'banned' source list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1811 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

June 1, 1941 Edo de Waart

I got the information about De Waart from his Wikipedia page. Perhaps you should have gone there before you cancelled my edit?

DrMusicArt (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)DrMusicArt

Reverting on Reference Desk page?

What do you think you're doing, reverting my comments on the Reference Desk page? You have no right to censor anyone! DOR (HK) (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks, that sounds good how you put it :) Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Enniskillen / Amphibious flying club

Dear, I sent you a "thank" for the revert, but both were probably premature: there is something fishy with the weblink, it has apparently been re-assigned (legally or not) to some medicine publicity from the Far East. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Jan olieslagers, yes, this user is deleting links to websites that have been usurped. This is the wrong approach; we need to preserve the links through archiving before they are deleted. Elizium23 (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

She does not have a reliable source

Meghan Strange's birthday does not have a reliable source.Arek333 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Archiving

Noticed you reverted my change on the Rumble talk page. I was trying to get the archiving to work, hence my edit. Do you know what I'm doing wrong on the setup because it's not archiving? Thanks for your help. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Canadianr0ckstar2000, it is possible that one of the URLs there is on the WP:Spam blacklist, which Miszabot docs say will cause nothing to be archived. Off-hand, though, I can't spot any culprits. I'll keep thinking about it. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, it may be because there's only one thread left. Why do you want to archive the last thread so soon? Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well its about 5 months ago, so figured that was quite some time ago. But, I'm fine with whatever you think is best. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Canadianr0ckstar2000, the last reply in that thread is from 27 March, which would be about 65 days ago; that should match the archiving criteria, all things being equal. Elizium23 (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I missed that. Thanks! Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

It looks like you're using the Rollback privilege to revert edits you don't agree with. That is not a proper use for Rollback, and could result in it being taken away from you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, false: The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.

I am using an "additional tool" called RedWarn and I have used an explanatory edit summary -- {{rpa}} (removed personal attack) every time I removed the personal attack. Elizium23 (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is the policy page you're quoting? If the rollback rules have changed, I need to see it. And your interpretation of what constitutes a "personal attack" is liable to get you into trouble down the road. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, WP:ROLLBACKUSE Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, it changed 11 years ago so I can understand if you're not fully up-to-date on this. Elizium23 (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed Linkspam

Please do not template the regulars. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, hi, I've scheduled an IABot job to deal with the articles in the proper way. I would remind you that we don't remove links in references simply because they are dead, we attempt to rescue those references. Elizium23 (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Dead? It was not dead. It went to a site flogging quack cures. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 10:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, yes, we're aware of this, and the editor who deleted it has been reported to WP:AIV and warned multiple times to cease and desist, because: we don't remove links in references simply because they are dead, we attempt to rescue those references. Elizium23 (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

indeed, why did you revert my removal of link spam? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 10:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, so it turns out that the removed link was an EL and not a reference, so you were correct to remove it after all, and I didn't inspect the diff long enough to figure that out. Sorries. Elizium23 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

these things happen Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

why are you a bully

We thankfully had our graduation indoors. I sent proof and you evilly siate me as having a con lict of interest. And you are a Knight of Columbus? Who appointed you guardian of this page? -- Tassonejoe

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orthodox Theological Seminary, Kottayam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dionysius II.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne

I must say I find it a little strange that you've edited Avril Lavigne before but only five minutes after my edit, you decided to take issue with the wording and attribution (or lack thereof) of the "Artistry" subsection. I don't know if you were intending to partially cite WP:NPOV at me or it was only said in general, but I only tweaked the grammar and punctuation therein—I didn't write the section and couldn't care less what happens to it. Just in case there was any doubt on your part. Ss112 04:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ss112, it is on my watchlist. I follow up other people's edits when I notice issues nearby in the diffs. If I didn't address you directly with a warning then I had no issue with your edits in particular. Elizium23 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Re:June 2021

This is in reference to your message sent to me, this is to inform you that Sede Vacante is over once an archbishop or an ordinary has been appointed to a see or to an archdiocese so technically by CHURCH RULES, it's no longer Sede Vacante, it will only revert to Sede vacante once the ordinary nominated/elected dies or renders his resignation. Please do research further on the these because we worked for the institution that we are maintaining in this article. In addition, the materials is already in the news if you want me to put it each, I'll put it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.146.46.142 (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No, actually sede vacante persists until the bishop is installed. In fact, a priest can be appointed without yet being ordained a bishop, how could he possibly be in office before his ordination? Canon Law is clear on this. Elizium23 (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

1983 Code of Canon Law

Can. 382 §1 A person who is promoted to the episcopate cannot become involved in the exercise of the office entrusted to him before he has taken canonical possession of the diocese. However, he is able to exercise offices which he already held in the same diocese at the time of his promotion, without prejudice to can. 409 §2.

§2 Unless he is lawfully impeded, one who is not already consecrated a Bishop and is now promoted to the office of diocesan Bishop, must take canonical possession of his diocese within four months of receiving the apostolic letters. If he is already consecrated, he must take possession within two months of receiving the apostolic letters.

§3 A Bishop takes canonical possession of his diocese when, personally or by proxy, he shows the apostolic letters to the college of consultors, in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who makes a record of the fact. This must take place within the diocese. In dioceses which are newly established he takes possession when he communicates the same letters to the clergy and the people in the cathedral church, with the senior of the priests present making a record of the fact.

§4 It is strongly recommended that the taking of canonical possession be performed with a liturgical act in the cathedral church, in the presence of the clergy and the people. Elizium23 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

John K. active?

Okay, I am going to ask nicely for you to reply to my message on the John Kricfalusi talk page. I don't understand why you think he is active when he has withdrawn himself from the animation industry which contradicts "active" on his infobox. I have also explained how certain companies have refused to work for him. Please look at it and respond with your defense. Thank you.HelloADoodleDown (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I am waiting for your response.HelloADoodleDown (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I will add it back if I don't get a response in three days.HelloADoodleDown (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Greek monarchs

Seriously, read up on Greek history. There you'll learn about their monarchs & their dates of reign. Or, would you prefer to question those dates within those bios as well? GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, On List of LGBT slang terms, I added enby, you reversed my edit, I added a citation, is that better? Linguist97 (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. Let's read Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources and see what comes from that. Elizium23 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

After reading some of dictionaries as sources, I think we can use dictionaries as sources, especially on this kind of page, which is a list of terms. Other words on this page use dictionaries as sources (eg a lot of words from "A Dictionary of Slang, Slanguistics").Linguist97 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

why are you taking out a bunch of words (celesbian, egg, Charlie, iron, Mary, ginger beer)? if you delete things, maybe say why you are deleting them in your edit description?Linguist97 (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Philippine bishops

Hi. Isn't Advincula the Archbishop-elect of Manila? If you cannot provide sources that he is otherwise, then please refrain from removing the said info in the article that says that he is Manila's archbishop-elect. The column title is Date of Appointment, not Date of Installation. I hope you are reading enough so as to prevent yourself from doing what appears to be disruptive editing. Thanks. Foxtrot2021 (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Foxtrot2021, the table places him as "archbishop of Manila" which he is not. WP:CRYSTAL tells us to avoid speculative and future events. Elizium23 (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. The info in the paragraph part may be deleted, but in the table, it should be reinstated because the latter only says that he is an archbishop-elect. Is it clear now? Foxtrot2021 (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Foxtrot2021, the article is arranged by diocese. Advincula has nothing to do with Manila until his installation. If you wish to modify the scope and structure of the article, then please start a discussion on the article talk page, not my user talk page, and establish consensus for your changes. Elizium23 (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry but it appears that you can't prove that he isn't an archbishop-elect. While I agree that until Advincula's installation, he has nothing to with the Manila, the table column, however, tells only about their appointment date, not installation. It seems you are lost. Foxtrot2021 (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Foxtrot2021, actually dude, he is still the archbishop of Capiz. Why don't you even care about his current office? Elizium23 (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. He's Capiz's archbishop and at the same time, an archbishop-elect of Manila. Again, archbishop-elect of Manila. Isn't he? Foxtrot2021 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of Change from Comedienne to Comedian (Vanessa Bayer)

Hello, you reverted my edit to Vanessa Bayer's page. I'm a bit confused about it though. I'm not very experienced with wikipedia, so I apologize for any ignorance on my part, but I'm wondering on what grounds you wish to have the page refer to her as a "comedienne". To me this seems to be an archaic term and one that is not used very frequently to refer to female comedians on wikipedia or elsewhere. I checked the pages of other comedians like Aidy Bryant, Leslie Jones, Amy Schumer, Amy Poehler and Samantha Bee and only Samantha Bee was referred to as a "comedienne". (And her page used to refer to her as a comedian, just as Vanessa Bayer's used to. Both were edited without explanation.) Reliable sources, at least the ones cited on her page, refer to her as a comedian several times but never as a "comedienne".Fleural (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding sources

About this diff, it seems like an important event for the project. What would you suggest to do, so that it can be inserted into the article? (I'm already familiar with Wikipedia sources policies, however, I was thinking that the sources which I included have already had some analysis. More quality sources may not appear very quickly.) Thanks. --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 04:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback Roel Vermeulen at 1970

Hi Elizium23, thank you for your feedback. I'm still learning to be a Wikipedia editor. I have read the tutorial about inline sources and added a source now. Hope this resolves your issue with my (formerly) unsourced addition to the page. If not, I hope you would be so kind to help me in the right direction. Martijn-030 (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

About the renaming of the article

Hello Elizium23, Actually I'm here for some help. It would be indeed helpful if you could rename the article Roman Catholics of Malabar to "Latin Catholics of Kerala". Due to some technical issues I am not able to carry on the process of renaming an article. Humbly requesting you to help by renaming the article, if possible... Micahhadar (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Please look

User:Micahhadar is deceptively adding opinions in Caste system among South Asian Christians. He said he added content copied from Caste system in Kerala 1. But he added content ""descendants of Assyrians, Jews and that they were Upper castes,"" as his own opinion with zero sourcing which is not in the page. He is now reverting calling me for censoring. Im sorry for personal attacks, I got angry. Please ask him this. He is not respecting me because iam an Ip. 42.109.142.85 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was not disrespecting you, I'm very sorry if you had felt that I was disrespecting you. I had included the caste status of the Syrian Christians for the users to understand the intense cruelty the lower castes had to face by the Upper caste Christians. Never will I promote it. Please go through this WP:CENSOR, Wikipedia is never to be censored. And for the points that I included please go through this article by an established and reliable new source "the Wire" (https://m.thewire.in/article/religion/kerala-syrian-christians-caste-anti-muslim-rhetoric), This clearly specifies the Knanaya relation to Assyrians and Jews. It also specifies the caste system which Saint Thomas Syrian Christians follow. Please provide reliable sources for stating your point. Thanks Micahhadar (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 see this guy now. He has added no sources for the assyrian and jew addition. Now he brings a source which does not say anything about jews,assyrians and knanya christians. The content u copied is absent in caste system in kerala. Wonder how much opinions he had made with fake sourcing like this. He called latin catholics as inferior castes[1]42.109.129.236 (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

white/Black

Hey, Elizium23! Thanks for the theater>theatre. It was a conscious decision to use white/Black capitalization. —valereee (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"Trivia?"

That was not a trivia. 🤦 Xfhxzf (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Catholic Diocese of Beaumont

Quick question. I respect your decision, but I wanted to know your reasoning behind removing DiNardo from the diocesan page. I've seen others that have the metro archbishop. Thoughts?

2601:5C4:4300:8050:94C3:22AE:B4C1:374B (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Catholic Diocese of Beaumont

Quick question. I respect your decision, but I wanted to know your reasoning behind removing DiNardo from the diocesan page. I've seen others that have the metro archbishop. Thoughts?

2601:5C4:4300:8050:94C3:22AE:B4C1:374B (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversies_about_Opus_Dei

Hi Elizium23, I've removed the paragraph "Spain" added[2] by you to Controversies about Opus Dei, which you had correctly copy-edited out of the questionable edit by CarlPhilippTrump.me. The problem is, as elaborated in Talk:Opus_Dei#removal_of_unsupported_claim, that nearly every single claim in the cited El-Pais-article is unproven and has been questioned by more recent articles of several other spanish journals.--Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What is your preferred gender identity?

Hello Elizium23! You asked me not to misgender you [3] but I can’t find any mention of your gender on your user page. I try to have the utmost respect when it comes to gender preferences and the trans community, if you would let me know what gender you prefer to identify as, or simply what pronouns you wish to be used in association without yourself, I will make a note of it for future use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Re:June 2021

Keep calm. Nobody "removed portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation". It's OK to disagree with new edits, but respect and good sense come first.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

What is Lowercase Sigmabot and why does it keep removing my topic?

Quick question. I respect your decision, but I wanted to know your reasoning behind removing DiNardo from the Diocese of Beaumont's page. I've seen others that have the metro archbishop. Thoughts?

2601:5C4:4300:8050:90CE:A6C7:9815:BFD1 (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Article Greta Thunberg : puzzled by removal of father's name in infobox in English version

Hello, Elizium23

As I only saw a talk link to Kirkgaard on your 13 January 2021 reversion of good faith edits to suppress Greta Thunberg's father name in infobox, I am adding this entry trying to understand the Wikipedia rationale. Does the indication "Non-notable per talk" signifies that her father's notoriety did not warrant posting in infobox, whereas it appears in the Early Life section ? In such case why does it still appear in the French, Spanish or Swedish infoboxes for instance ? 

Thanks for clarifying Cquarksnow (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Why the change?

Why did you remove the information on Francis Drake's parents? It's from his Birth and early years section. I don't see how that is a good faith edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuchi1579 (talk • contribs)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 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

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Templates with subpages

A tag has been placed on Category:Templates with subpages indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 07:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

lebanese marontie order page

Hello regarding lebanese marontie order page on wikipedia please note that i wrote it objectively, and trying to fix the name the organisation name is not baladites, it is Lebanese maronite order check these links: it should not redirect to baladites , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayadjimmy (talk • contribs) 08:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Revert Harmon

Why did you revert this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Harman&oldid=prev&diff=1006091836 It is a fact, substantiated by a Catholic news source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccirulli (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

"Assent of Faith" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Assent of Faith and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Assent of Faith until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Claire Danes

You recently provided input on Claire Danes talk page. I have opened an RFC about the same content and would appreciate your input. Talk:Claire Danes#RFC - Claire Danes persona non grata resolution SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series Featured article review

I have nominated Religious debates over the Harry Potter series for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts - gender and sexuality, manual of style and article titles policy

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Alumni"

It turns out that word's rooted in some Latin form of "nourishment". All the more reason you should never have to be reverted on this again; malnutrition was a key weapon in what is now widely considered the shameful institutional pursuit of breaking these reluctant young minds and bodies down. I think you meant better than that, though, so no hard feelings and I wish you the best in recognizing which potential semantic balancing acts are or aren't due. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I've commented on content and behavior. I'm not singling anyone out regarding this behavior. It's systemic, it's disgraceful, and it's unbecoming of any editor who wants Wikipedia to stay truly neutral. I think you've given me this warning in bad faith. Elizium23 (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The judgementalism and partisanship displayed by editors who force their political framing this way is shining through in this article, especially in light of recent edits and expansions. It's reprehensible that POV is pushed, and pushed, and pushed more by those who continually return to the most liberal progressive sources they can get their hands on and claim that all the RS are framing it that way. is a comment on a group of contributors.

Yeah, it also means that you prejudge reliability of sources by your ideological litmus tests, and by selective review of them you come to foregone conclusions that all the reliable world agrees with your viewpoints as you wish to force them into the public square like this is directly aimed at a single editor.

I think you've given me this warning in bad faith Accusing others of bad faith is usually construed as a personal attack.

Please note that Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom is under the aegis of three separate sets of discretionary sanctions and editors are expected to follow closely with our conduct policies in these controversial topic areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually it's not aimed at a single editor. In English, "you" can be a plural pronoun, and I frequently use "you" to refer to groups of people, so this was also a comment on a group of contributors, that being the entire group of contributors who edit this topic area.

Also, "I think" means that I have a feeling, and not an accusation. That's my POV. I'm not accusing HEB of bad faith, I'm suggesting that that may be on the table because of the situation we're in right now.

Just so we're clear. Elizium23 (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what @NorthBySouthBaranof does with sources and I don't really care, either; I hope they can figure out for themselves that I wasn't even talking about them in the first place. Elizium23 (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th @Horse Eye's Back If you're upset that I haven't included evidence about alleged behavior of editors, I'm happy to back up all my accusations with facts and evidence in the form of diffs and comments. There is no prohibition on calling out disruptive behavior of other editors or we wouldn't have WP:ANI. I have no problem continuing to discuss disruptive behavior of other editors because they would not be considered personal attacks as long as evidence is supplied. Elizium23 (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused, where you making general comments about wikipedia or were you making "accusations" and "calling out disruptive behavior of other editors"? I'm not acting in bad faith, thats a strong accusation to make when you appear to be confused about what you even said! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)