Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Hi, Veverve After a 'This section may contain material unrelated or insufficiently related to the topic of the article' banner was placed in the Religion section, I improved the text by adding some references in order to make clearer the link between the section and the subject of the entry. Find the changes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Day_of_Human_Fraternity&type=revision&diff=1069644755&oldid=1069510582 Thank you for your help! --Sirionnd1118 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider my revision of Gospel of John as I am trying to make wiki article more scholastic. Please be ecumenical and stop sectarianism on religious articles. Royalistandlegitimist (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalistandlegitimist: I did consider them and do not approve of them. As I said, it is useless to had that many information to add languages unrelated to those texts; it is especially useless since the content you add is unsourced. If you disagree, I advise you discuss it to the te talk pages of the four different articles of the gospels. Adding more languages do not make an article more scholarly as far as I know. You even removed a RS. Therefore, I will revert all three of your edits.

I fail to see how I can be sectarian in any form, please do not make those accusations of me being POV-pushing lightly. Veverve (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of pushing back and forth can you two provide reliable sources for the parts under discussion? Thank you. The Banner talk 10:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve:

I had posted a link to a file for the Regulae Iuris since you objected to them being placed on the page itself. You are of the opinion that this information is not useful.

I obviously believe otherwise. They are a fundamental part of interpreting Catholic Canon Law. Please restore my most recent post!

​Ever, Bruce

Canonistdoa (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Monsignor Bruce Miller, JCL Professor of Theological Studies[reply]

St. Joseph Seminary College

Judicial Vicar Emeritus

Pastor Emeritus

211 Lourdes Ln

Covington, LA 70435-6120

318.542.9136

DBruce.Miller@Gmail.com

@Canonistdoa: I did not disagree on you adding those, but you 1) added them to the body of the article 2) to replace parts of the article you had removed without jutifying your removal. Also, if you signature really describes who you are, you tried to add your own work, which constitutes WP:SELFCITE, and possibly a WP:Conflict of interest. WP:SELFCITE is not forbidden; however, the most opportune behaviour is to make a request at the talk pages of the article for other users to evaluate whether or not your work should be added. I will add back this source in an "Edition" section. Could you add the page numbers of the whole article (i.e. not simply the pages of of the annexes, but the pages of the whole article including its annexes)?

You have also uploaded your own work on WikiCommons. However, such uploads need to be validated throught the commons:Commons:Volunteer Response Team (a.k.a. OTRS), and you must make sure you possess the full rights (intellectual property) on the text before uploading it to WikiCommons, i.e. that your publisher (Canon Law Society of America) does not hold any right on the text. The book has been released recently, so there is grounds for doubts you have those rights. You must do that relatively quickly, otherwise your text will be deleted from WikiCommons for violating the copyright, as OTRS are necessary to properly establish an individual's identity on WikiCommons. As a sidenote, you wrote that Father Ladislas Orsy, S.J, was the one who produced the text and that he only gave a permission for it to be published ; this means you likely cannot have the copyright for this text and therefore cannot upload it on WikiCommons.

You seem to have trouble following Wikipedia's editing standards, so I would suggest you try the Wikipedia:ADVENTURE before doing further edits on the main space (main space = outside of talk pages).

Should you have any question, feel free to ask me. Veverve (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these files were not added by me, stop dealing with the destruction of the article. I can also undo your edits by unreasonably requiring sources. Thank you. Jafaz (talk) 11:37, 03 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jafaz: well, I mostly use RSs in what I add, but feel free to double check me. Also, are you WP:THREATENing me of being WP:POINTy if I continue to oppose your adding of unsource material? Veverve (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

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.

My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You now violated 3RR rule on the page [1]. Could you please self-revert? My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: while I try to follow the 3RR, I believe it would be WP:BUREAUCRACY to follow this rule with reverts of a POV-pusher like Tsan2. Yes, Tsan2 has commited vandalism with a clear refusal to communicate over days now, e.g. by willingly adding or re-adding FICTREFs (some of which can be read here), to serve what I can only guess is an WP:AGENDA. Veverve (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid misunderstanding and since we are talking about sources in different languages, was that you? So you do know Russian and Ukrainian? My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: yes, it is me. I can more or less read Cyrillic alphabet, but this is as far as my skills in Ukrainian and Russian go. I use Google translate if I have to. Veverve (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Making edit summaries in Ukrainian (like "не пов’язаний, без джерела") is highly unusual for someone who does not know the language. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Russian fascism (ideology)) for a period of 1 week for EDIT WARRING. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I did stop reverting, tried to discuss and seek consensus, but the user did not respond (apart from giving one line here and there). I then opened an ANI, but despite my individual requests at some admins (pings or messages on the talk page like the one you received), no admin intervened in the case for three days and the user continued their behaviour I had complained at the ANI, so I kept reverting the user until you intervened. I admit edit-warring was not a very good idea on my part. But what else could I have done?

As for an unblock, I will see; I am tired of this article, I feel like talking to walls. Veverve (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You edited that today. ANd I wanted everyone to be even. Stopped reverting. Sought dispute resolution. Continued to not edit the page, then filed at WP:ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have similar title in Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia. What is the problem with such a title. If you think it should be changed to 'Patriarch of the Church of the East', then we want Pope changed to Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East changed to Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church etc. Why double standards with the Church of the East only. Please remove your moving request. Jude Didimus (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jude Didimus: Not all religious titles are the same, one may call oneself "Patriarch" or "Catholicos" (Catholicos of All Armenians) or whatever; each case must be reviewed on a case-by-base basis, as there is no consistency in those titles. Veverve (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve:, In this case of Church of the East, it is Catholicos Patriarch itself.

@Veverve: see this source, [2] clearly says: the Head of the hierarchy of the Church of the East was the Catholicos-Patriarch of the East.Jude Didimus (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: I don't know why you are afyer me. But let me tell you just respond when you have started something. If you don't know about the Church of the East and Syriac Christianity, then step out from the articles related to it. Otherwise you must respond to the discussion, and you are not doing it even after I pinging you multiple times.Jude Didimus (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jude Didimus: I am not after you and I have the right not to respond if I think there is nothing more to be added to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Certainly you have the freedom to act extremely biased. However I think I have the right to ask for an answer. You have questioned the renaming based on a single source. But I have added two sources in my support. But you seem to have unnoticed of that. That what I am asking. Hope you understand.Jude Didimus (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dutton is an academic both for the qualifications he possesses, and because he worked at the university and is still doing intellectual activity. however, in my opinion it is a mistake to put it in the talk because biased and politicized people will remove the academic title. 79.51.98.25 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Veverve. I've saw your messages. I agree we should discuss this. But, I will already Bring back my Edits. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploreky (talk • contribs) 08:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ploreky: no, you cannot restore your version then discuss. You must first, as I explained, discuss then make the change if consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, let's discuss it. What part of my version seems to be the problem? Ploreky (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ploreky: you have added parts which are not sourced by inline references, that is my main complaint. Veverve (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what else is the problem? Ploreky (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there are also paragraphs in my edit that doesn't need references. if that's the problem, then I can Just add sentences that doesn't need References.

So, to summarize, I just need to add reference to any Sentence I add? Ploreky (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ploreky:

• the other problem is that you added external links as hyperlinks in the body of the article. Besides, the claim the organisation "has 3 Institutions" is not sourced; you have only added, in an erroneous way, two institutions, which does not mean there are more institutions within this organisation.
• I highly doubt any of your paragraphs would not need source; see WP:WHYCITE. As a general rule, everything should be supported by inline references on Wikipedia, except WP:WHENNOTCITE; this is among other things in the name of WP:Verifiability.

If the information you add is supported by reliable - e.g. not WP:BLOGS - sources which you properly cite in the body of the article, and if those information are WP:DUE (see also WP:ONUS), then I do not oppose you adding them.

I have tried to be as newcomer-friendly, concise and clear as possible in my answer. Veverve (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Now I know, I've been editing without knowing these.

Thank you! Ploreky (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Veverve, I've aleady did what you said. I've already published my Edit. All have references.

I've also noticed that you edit pages that's about churches, Look at the St. John Florentine Heading, you'll find something Interesting There.

Thank you for Teaching me! Ploreky (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you, please, explain Alexandr Dugin and his article [nazbol.shtml|article] about Fascism. Why he can`t be a representative of fascism if he wants to be the one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmytroKov (talk • contribs) 07:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DmytroKov: it is not up tp him to decide what he represents when he states such or suh things, but to WP:RSs. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re to this. No, you would need an official closing by admins for that matter. Just letting you know that I commented here [3]. I do agree this page could be renamed and must be significantly improved, but given such behavior there is nothing I can do here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: There is no WP:CONLEVEL as the AfD ended with no consensus; WP:CCC, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Veverve (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you allow me to properly rename and fix this page? My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: This is a discussion you should have at the article talk page and you would have to obtain consensus there before doing anything; I do not own the article.

Each of the objectively good improvements I proposed, e.g. removing FICTREFs and their false information (yes, FICTREFs are objectively a deceptive scheme to put what one wants in an article), was met with resistance from you. Therefore I expect I will be disagreeing with you on your proposal, but I could be pleasantly surprised. Veverve (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes as an author of the article Russian fascism I ask you to help with it. I'm surprised that @Veverve is against your desire to fix or rename the article. It is kind of POV here on behalf of Veverve - they've already decided that the article shouldn't exist. Tsans2 (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment by a topic banned editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AE here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you look at the page history, you will see what happened. I’ve restored the original target, which I think you’ll agree is perfectly valid and inoffensive. Given that, can we withdraw the deletion request? — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Biruitorul: done. Thanks! Veverve (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from all subject that relate to "Russia", including discussion or any article that is related to Russia in any way, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1082322438#Veverve

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this means ANY discussion or edit that is related to Russia in any way, including your talk page, article talk page, the current war in Ukraine, Russian fascism, or any fascism where Russia is mentioned. This is subject to the usual exclusions (basically, when appealing). Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but it does mean until the community feels you can be trusted to edit in this topic area without disruption. You can appeal at any time (WP:AN is the typical venue), but generally speaking, asking to have the sanction lifted at WP:AE is after a 6 month period of demonstrated good behavior in other areas. Failure to comply, and violations of this topic ban will likely lead to expansion of the topic ban, and/or being blocked for an extended period of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: just so that things are clear: can I have the reasons which were taken into account in imposing this sanction? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the original AE discussion. Participants likely looked through your diffs and came to their own conclusions, often using different diffs. There isn't a "list of offenses" that is going to be published, it isn't a court of law. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note, most of the time, these tbans will cover the entire EE area, all Eastern Europe. By limiting it to Russia only, I've tried to not overextend the topic area and leave you room to edit a lot of topics, so long as they aren't Russia related. If you aren't sure about an article or part of an article, whether or not it is "russia related" (some things ARE on the cusp), it is best to just ask me or another admin first. If we make a mistakes and say ok, then you generally aren't sanctioned for it as long as you were honest about the scope of your edit. Asking me (or another admin) about a specific kind of edit on the admin's talk page is an exception to the ban, and is allowed. We aren't trying to trip you up. Quite the opposite, in fact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown:

  • I have now noticed I had voted twice at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Russia Sanctions (I have no idea why, either I forgot I had previously voted, or forgot to cross my vote). Can I strikethrough my first vote or should I leave things as is?
  • Does the Tban apply to Nazi Party (there is one passing mention of Russia)? The lede has insonsistencies in its hyphens and I would like to fix them. The Party symbols section has external links while those should not be in the body of the article, even less since WP articles exist for most of those images.

  
  Veverve (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed your edits at the redirect discussion. As far as Nazi articles, I would suggest avoiding them because it is too easy to wander into problems, although from a technical stand, it would be ok to edit as long as you aren't editing areas that are remotely related to Russia. It's tricky, and we want to avoid "tricky" areas. Telling me here was the smartest thing you could do. In the future, you want to just delete the comments once you notice, and then say so here again. Hopefully there won't be a "next time", but in case, that is what it best. I understand adapting to the topic ban may take a little time to adjust, so I'm not going to scold or warn, you obviously get it or you wouldn't have said something here. But again, please be careful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown: Promise I'm not following your AE blocks; just have that RfD subpage watchlisted, and am a bit of a busybody with RfD clerical things, so here I am. :) The !votes you removed were both before the sanction was imposed. I think Veverve was just asking permission to to correct the double-!vote? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  By all means, I don't mind someone checking my work. In this case, you are correct, so I corrected myself. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is what I had asked for (correct[ing] the double-!vote I had erroneously made before my tban, by removing/strikethriking the first one). I should have given more details in my request; we have had a minor quiproquo, eh. Veverve (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Understand that I am monitoring your edits for a few days, but for the purpose of helping you adjust, not to see you trip up. One problem: This edit. Being that Markovian was Russian, this is what we call an edge edit. This means some admin will see it as ok but too close, some will see it as a clear violation. Edge stuff is what can get you in trouble. The way AE sanctions work, if 99 admins say it is ok, but 1 says it is not, that 1 can block you. There is no consensus needed for enforcement. Arb Enforcement is a very different animal than other admin-y areas, so it only takes ONE admin to take action. I suggest keeping a wider berth from these articles that have Russians in them, even if tangientially so. I know this is irritating to hear, I understand that, but I would rather irritate you now than see you get blocked next week, so I just want you to understand how an admin might see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown: Ok, thanks for your monitoring! Veverve (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown: Forgot to ask: so, should I undo this edit or can I leave it? Veverve (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I left it. If I find something that needs removing, I will. The edit wasn't a serious problem, it was just close to the wrong topic, so it was a chance to give a little instruction. Keep in mind, I work full time so I can't be a guardian angel, but I do want to help a bit this weekend. It is easy to get tripped up. How a future admin will view it will mainly based on how you react to it. If someone calls you out in good faith (even if you disagree), it's best to just revert it first, then discuss it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Can I be allowed to add as an inline ref the website given in this edit summary as source for those information? Two of the dioceses are Russian (I am not sure if the URL or the language of the source itself matters).
Also, while I am at it, I found nothing stating that sources should not be only given in edit summaries, despite the clear problem it creates with long-term WP:V (no one is going to go through years of edit summaries to find if someone has given a source in a summary). Did I fail my search, or is there really no guideline against it? Veverve (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. What you have to keep in mind is, it isn't about MY opinion, it is about what EVERY admin would see as a violation of the topic ban. Some might even say using the word "Russia" when asking about the ban is a violation (I don't agree, it makes discussion awkward to go that far). But I would avoid any diocese that is Russian, cites or edits. That is going to trigger a good many admin into issuing a sanction, and it only takes one admin to do it. Even in my own opinion, it's a little close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2 removals of the "Fathers of the Church -> Exegesis" section looks like nothing but outrageous, massive vandalism. You're preventing the posting of a gigantic piece of scholarship, namely, not part, but ALL of the Church Fathers's 4th-and-5th-century writings, and have given no substantive reason for it. Catholics and Orthodox use such ancient writings as evidence itself, as the ground, the sources of Theology, so codification of it in 1 place is critical.

1. On what grounds should I "Please do not try to force the change" of adding an entire section for them?
2. You wrongly wrote, that I had posted "from mostly primary sources." As presented IN MY NEW CHART'S CONTEXT, namely, relative to particular Bible verses, the Fathers of the Church, are not Primary sources at all, but Secondary sources. They are not, to quote Wikipedia's guide, "close to an event," nor "written by people who are directly involved," but they come 200-1000 years after the Bible's writing. Rather, I was including them in a chart, of the actual Primary sources which are, within this context, the original scriptures, so that Wikipedia users can see both the original Primary source, and the church's earliest Secondary sources, at once. Think about the alternative: If I were to cite what you call 'Secondary sources' (e.g, Lapide's 19th century Commentary, or recent books on 'What the Fathers wrote about Mary'), then it would strip ≈≤out the actual exegetical arguments, and reduce the Fathers to a bare list. Surely my 2-columned chart is a fuller, more honest, and all-around better way for assessing and critiquing their content.

If you had an issue with particular citations, then that would be fine, but throwing out the whole chart is utterly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavius2 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octavius2: I do know how Church Fathers work to make theology.

Church Fathers are primary sources in the sense that their opinion must be interpreted by a reliable source. For example, I remember one time where Leo XIII quoted a Church Father in an encyclical (maybe it was Satis cognitum), but this use was contested by EOrthodox as being misleading and out of context. Fights consisting in throwing Church Fathers quotes at each others are extremely common in Christianity, this suffices to prove that those are primary sources and should be treated as such. While primary sources can be used in some cases, in this case their use is not acceptable.

You should not add this chart on the ground of using Wikipedia as a source and of making your own (WP:OR) interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources (also, WP:BRD). Veverve (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✅AGREEMENT✅ - Okay, I'm happy to not use Wikipedia as a source. I'll make it so that warning doesn't come up. (But honestly, that warning was due to 1 tiny citation, so the chart as a whole shouldn't be removed because of that.)

❌NO AGREEMENT❌ - I have no idea how [Theological] fights "consisting in throwing Church Fathers quotes at each others" in any way "suffices" to demonstrate that those quotes are Primary sources. In a similar situation, scholars get in fights all the time, throwing, even secondary sources at each other! That's called the "appeal to authority.".

On the contrary, since you "do know how Church Fathers work to make theology," whereas I, as a Theology major, certainly do, I offer you this chart to help you confirm that the Fathers of the Church really are what Wikipedia calls a Secondary source :

Octavius2 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octavius2: The CFs ought to be analyzed within the context of Catholic-and-Orthodox theological methods, which were earlier, and are more universal than Protestant theology. Why? This is extremely biased and gratuitous, the alleged antiquity of the method is but a claim and in any case does not allow for rejecting most Christians.

Church Fathers are not be be used as secondary sources, the same way Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers is not a secondary source on the lives of Plato and Thales of Miletus. The fact no one seem to agree on what Church Fathers meant is another proof of that. @Pbritti: what do you think? Veverve (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve and Octavius2: Fascinating quandary we've stumbled upon here! I lean heavily towards Veverve's stance as a general practice: unless a Church Father's writing's are provided through reliable analysis, their works are as open to interpretation as Scripture is (and we all know how that turns out). However, there are instances where Octavius2's view should be considered. Namely, the (Pseudo) Athanasius source quoted at length seems like an acceptable instance of Church Father's writing functioning as a reliable secondary source, considering the rather definite terminology and direct reference to the Immaculate Conception. However, much of what is quoted at length in the versions since deleted seem to be translations of these texts by a Wikipedian (including the Athanasian source), which opens a whole new can of worms. In short, I would prefer the inclusion of Church Fathers and their writings only when it is through the lens of reliable source analysis or explicit and undebatable reference to the subject matter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR: Church Fathers are typically primary sources due to their spiritual nature, but can rarely be secondary sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

❌I see no difference❌ between (Pseudo) Athanasius and any of the other fathers that I cited. What is the difference? Regardless, the primary-or-secondary status of the fathers is irrelevant. See my "Big Picture" paragraph, in my 00:30, 27 April 2022 comment below, to Veverve, to the effect that both scripture and the fathers, because of their magnitude of their importance, deserve a place in a chart, regardless, and even more so if they are primary sources.

❌That's irrelevent❌ that we should only list the Church Fathers next to a scripture verse, "when it is through the lens of reliable source analysis." Patrologia Latina, Patrologia Graeca, etc. are all reliable sources. Please don't introduce spurious objections. If you prefer, I could ALSO paste the original Greek . . . Because that would certainly guarantee the "reliable source analysis" that you wanted.

✅I AGREE✅ that we should only include a Church Father when there is "explicit and undebatable reference to the subject matter." Let me know if any of my citations aren't. Octavius2 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve -

Bad example - This is THEOLOGY, not Philosophy, so your Lives and Opinions example proves nothing. Philosophy has nothing like a "Deposit of the Faith" doctrine, a cut-off line, which I described in row 3 of my chart above. So Theology is a different kind of Science, using different methods, than Philosophy does.

Catholic theology deserves a place - The Immaculate Conception doctrine is the brain-child of Catholics & Orthodox ONLY, as Protestants, do not believe in it. Why shouldn't we Catholics be allowed to chart the Patristic-Biblical basis, on which WE CATHOLICS believe in this brain-child of ours? There are only like 5 or 6 relevant scripture verses, and so Common Sense dictates that they would be PERFECT for codification within a chart; and the fathers deserve to be in a chart too, and even more-so, if they are, as you claim, mere data-points, i.e, non-analytical Primary Sources. (This is common sense.)

Big picture - Ultimately, it really doesn't matter whether you classify the Fathers of the Church as a 2ndary or Primary source, because the unavoidable fact remains, that they are historically the FIRST Christian interpreters of Scripture, and their reputed words are a major bone of contention, as you acknowledged, and so they deserve a place in a chart, regardless. People can follow the links and read their quotes, and form their own opinions for themselves, but they can't do that, if I can't list who said something about each scriptural verse.

Octavius2 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octavius2: There is a difference between the Athanasian source–it is the only that explicitly references the Immaculate Conception. The other citations refer mostly or exclusively to Mary as "sinless," "unblemished," or a similar term, so inference that they are making pronouncements on the Immaculate Conception rather than her sinlessness or perpetual virginity would at most be instances of WP:SYNTH without exterior sources attaching those statements to belief in the Immaculate Conception.

Also, as much as I would love for Wikipedia to serve as an explicit source of apologetics for our faith, we are called to engage with scrutiny and verifiability on this website. If it does not pass the standards laid out by years of discussion and development, it will be excluded. I would not view this as to the detriment of our beliefs, but simply a challenge to engage more thoughtfully and comprehensively. Patristic exegesis absolutely has its place, but to formulate it on Wikipedia rather than derive it from a reputable source negates the purpose of this encyclopedia (or any encyclopedia).

Thank you for your courteousness during this discussion, by the way. I just wanted to add something since you're a new editor: keep working hard and working to add or subtract material as needed. There are instances when long-standing standards will block the path you want to take, but maintaining the confident but polite attitude you've generally had through this conversation is a major bolster to us all. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti

I. WP:SYNTH claim - ❌No, that's a distinction without a difference❌ - Just because it doesn't say "Immaculate Conception," doesn't mean that it isn't talking about that. If 2 terms are coextensive in their scope-&-application, then one is a synonym for the other: "Immaculate Conception" and "sinless" are INDEED 2 such terms that mean identically the same thing: This means that you'll never find . . .

an Immaculately conceived person who is NOT sinless, nor

a non-Immaculately-Conceived-person who is sinless, nor

a sinless person who was not immaculately conceived, nor

a non-sinless person who was Immaculately Conceived.

NOBODY questions this in Theology. Try to prove me wrong with a counter-example that distinguishes between these 2 terms, and you won't be able to find one.

II. "Unblemished" also always means "Immaculate," at least, within the context of Marian Theology, where it is a technical term, arising from its use in Song of Songs 4:7. In fact, that's where the word "Immaculate" came from, as "macula" is the Latin word for "blemish." Later on, the word "blemish" was extended to other usages, but the original usage is coextensive with "immaculate."

III. Perpetual virginity is an entirely different topic from Immaculateness, and it is handled on its own Wikipedia page.

IV. The purpose of the chart is only to list the POSSIBLE BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC BASES for belief in the Immaculate Conception, not to analyze, nor to weigh the merits of those arguments. That's how Wikipedia wants us to use primary sources, namely, "to make [the] straightforward, descriptive statement[]" that 'there is a possible basis for the belief,' in these 6 verses, based on a Father-of-the-Church-'expert' citing it, to approximately that effect.

V. Again, Catholicism-&-Eastern-Orthodoxy are the ONLY contexts in which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has ever been posited, and so their method of presenting-&-defending it (i.e, from the Fathers, and from Scripture, with older publications being more highly valued than newer ones, so as to demonstrate that it was believed thru all centuries), should be at least tolerated, so that the doctrine gets a fair hearing. To forbid EVEN the listing of these ancient endorsements, upon which we base our belief, is anti-intellectual bigotry, almost as bad as forbidding any statement of the doctrine itself. Octavius2 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octavius2: A couple quick pointer: typically, big-and-bold emoji usage is unwise–it comes across as more adversarial than you intend it (even if you are just using it to highlight your points). Also, accusations of "bigotry" have really quite touchy things, especially when it is a very practical discussion of well-established Wikipedia policy–refrain from doing it and focus on the merits of the discussion. With regard to your points

• It is actually the duty of that person inserting information to positively demonstrate that the terms are synonymous. But, as asked for, here's examples of the Eastern Orthodox (who proclaim Mary as sinless) rejecting Immaculate Conception: "Most Orthodox would say that she was without sin at the Annunciation, but would disagree that the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate...", if you don’t have a concept of original sin threshed out and articulated as it has been in the West, then you don’t need to explain how it is that Mary isn’t affected by original sin
• It is WP:SYNTH if it can just as easily be interpreted as meaning something else but is presented as forming a particular view. If I say "Mary was without sin," I'm making a point about her sinlessness. There is ancient debate among Christians whether "without sin" and "Immaculate Conception" are associated terms. Indeed, quite a few of your recent edits on this page and others seem to qualify as WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, especially your additions to the Common good article that uncritically and directly cite Plato's ideas as representative of Ancient Greece.
• Perpetual virginity is a different subject, which is why when some of the patristic sources you included make reference to it and not the immaculate qualities of Mary's conception, they are irrelevant.
• This website doesn't change the rules when a topic is only supported by one or a handful of groups. If that were the case, we would permit articles that uncritically cite the Book of Mormon. Patristic exegesis is a key source in the development and understanding of Christian dogma, but it is not the job of an encyclopedia to publish this research. Think of it this way: the Constitution explicitly says quite a bit, but that doesn't mean that the Second Amendment is understood identically or that all interpretations deserve equal mention. The same can be said of nearly all the patristic (and philosophic) sources you provide: they are open to a wide breadth of interpretations, some with and some without merit. We wouldn't give equal weight to an 19th-century anti-Catholic Baptist screed for defining the Immaculate Conception doctrine, and by the nature of this encyclopedia the same weight is given to uncritical reference to ancient Christian authors.

Please remember that this is not a personal attack. You clearly know quite a bit about the world, and should write about these things in a way that would allow us to cite you. However, Wikipedia is primarily a tertiary source, with almost no room for independent interpretation of sources. ~ 04:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: I should have mentioned it in the last message, but you mentioned that you're inserting a lot of this material "so that the doctrine gets a fair hearing." Stating that you are editing with this purpose qualifies as WP:NOTADVOCACY. There are ways to insert the same information, but stating you're editing for this purpose can lead to not only improper edits, but accusations that other edits are soapboxing when they're actually innocuous. I'd encourage you to read through the linked essay, or at least the linked section. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✅I AGREE✅ - Okay, sorry. I admit that I used an off-topic slur ("bigotry"), and should not have, as you really are making decent arguments, now.

✅I AGREE✅ - Okay, good counter-example. So perhaps I was wrong, and perhaps there are a lot of distinctions between the phrases "Immaculately Conceived" and "sinless" and "unblemished." I will therefore take care to explicitly explain the coextensiveness of these 3 terms, at least within Roman Catholic theology (since this is claimed to be an exclusively Roman Catholic dogma), when I repost my chart.

Where did I cite Perpetual virginity? . . . Perhaps you thought that this quote below was adduced in support of Perpetual Virginity?

For the prophets, wisely wrote it down, preaching the order of the marriage, how the heavenly virgin will be found, simultaneously, both bride and mother, freely receiving the gifts even before the marriage, [namely,] the Holy Spirit, [and thereby] simultaneously both heaven and paradise.

If so, it wasn't, except accidentally. It was intended to support Immaculateness, which is connoted by the phrases "receiving gifts before the marriage," "Holy Spirit," and "heaven and paradise." The rest of the text was just included, for context.

❌DISAGREE❌ - Au Contraire, yes it is "the job of an encyclopedia to publish this [Patristic] research." That's a question of Scope. Wikipedia advocates for broader, not narrower scopes:,

"All material that is notable, referenced, and that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope must be covered, (at least in a summarised fashion).

That's what my chart is doing: Summarizing it.

You yourself just argued me into seeing it your way that Church Fathers are Primary Source material. Well, Wikipedia says,

"However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.

I'm doing that: "Any educated person," is able to verify, from my chart, that Church Fathers actually cited the foregoing scriptures, to proclaim an essential aspect connected with the Immaculate Conception, either (1) immaculately-conceived-ness, (2) unblemished-ness, or (3) ever-sinlessness, (4) etc.

❌DISAGREE❌ - No, ensuring that primary-sources get included at all, and with no analysis, can't possibly count as advocacy.

Octavius2 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octavius2: Thanks for understanding the reasoning regarding our aversion to certain accusations, that is extremely appreciated. As for some of your points, I think you are still struggling to recognize the distinction between what it secondary source interpretation and tertiary source representation. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Inserting something amounting to the assertion "Catholics believe sinlessness and being Immaculately Conceived are synonymous" would require that the patristic writings have reliable sources stating as much. Right now, you're at best engaging in anachronism (as the dogma was not expressly and uniformly defined until recently) or engaging in WP:SYNTH. Neither are good. Regarding scope, that somewhat-deprecated position essay is referencing what material is within the scope of a topic, not material can be cited as a reliable source; these are different concepts. As a last point, your stated purpose demonstrates why the chart you provide is a bad idea: it uncritically pronounces that because Church Fathers saw Mary as sinless, they must have seen her as immaculately conceived. These are the sorts of leaps of logic we can't initiate on Wikipedia—it's just not what the site is for. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: thanks for your input!

@Octavius2:

• 1) You cannot impose a Catholic, EOrthodox or whatever view on a subject or on some sources; WP is supposed to be neutral and non-WP:POV
  • Your proposal makes even less sense since the Immaculate Conception is not accepted by most EOrthodox (i.e. they consider the death of Jesus Christ was to wash the sin of all humanity, not 'all humanity minus Mary who did not need it since she was born without the original sin', and that therefore the Immaculate Conception is unacceptable)
• 2) The idea that theology would make CF texts magically understandable in one single way by everyone and quotable as is, is bold and not what can be seen in real life to say the least
• 3) There is a huge difference between 'not comitting sin' and the Immaculate Conception (not being born with the original sin)
• 4) the "Deposit of the Faith" is once again only a claim (and currently it seem only two denominations make this claim). We are not here to make (WP:OR) theology, but to inform the reader.
• 5) Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
• 6) the unavoidable fact remains, that they are historically the FIRST Christian interpreters of Scripture, and their reputed words are a major bone of contention, as you acknowledged, and so they deserve a place in a chart, regardless. People can follow the links and read their quotes, and form their own opinions for themselves, but they can't do that, if I can't list who said something about each scriptural verse. This is an almost apologetic claim. And the importance of something in a field is not the topic here, the use of the CF to support an opinion is.

Veverve (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) ✅I AGREE✅ on WP's neutrality. I'm not violating neutrality by merely listing in a chart (what you call) Primary Sources (Bible verses, & Church Father [CF] citations).

Whether the Orthodox agree with the Catholics who proclaimed the dogma is irrelevant. Therefore also . . . Whether they think Mary needed to be saved or not is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is whether Bible verses, and CF citations fall within the scope of this Wiki.

Regarding that, Wikipedia advocates for broader, not narrower scopes:

"All material that is notable, referenced, and that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope must be covered, (at least in a summarised fashion).

2) Well, but you convinced me that CFs count as --not Secondary, but-- Primary Sources. Regarding that, Wikipedia says,

"However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.

I'm doing that: "Any educated person," is able to verify, from my chart, that Church Fathers actually cited the foregoing scriptures, to proclaim an essential aspect connected with the Immaculate Conception, either (1) immaculately-conceived-ness, (2) unblemished-ness, or (3) ever-sinlessness, (4) etc.

3) That's a genus-species relationship, not a "huge difference": Anyone who was (in the species) immaculately conceived, would also thereby be (in the genus) amongst those not-committing sin.

4) Far from being "only a claim," the Deposit of Faith is a meta-concept, or axiom: That means that it determines how we do Theology itself. I therefore intend to introduce my chart with the following statement below, which demonstrates the reason for why we need to list the supporting scriptures & CFs: As this chart is in a "History" section of the Wiki, these scriptures & CFs contribute to paint the truthful picture of the doctrine as being somewhat-vaguely/implicitly there, in the classical and medieval centuries:

As with all Roman Catholic dogmas, the church holds that it was believed in, at least implicitly, either in Sacred Scripture, or in oral Sacred tradition, through all Christian centuries.^[12][13][14] Catholic theologians therefore point to the following ancient authorities as possible confirming testimonies to the longevity of the doctrine:^[15]
        [And then my chart]

And in footnote 15, I'll list all my Tertiary sources, which I got this chart from.

5) RIGHTGREATWRONGS? . . . What are you talking about? . . . I'm not doing that; I'm just listing Primary Sources!

In general, please try harder to conform to the spirit of the black box-quote, up above, in 1). Octavius2 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octavius2:

• 2) The important part of the quote is "but without specialist knowledge". CFs require special knowledge to be understood, their words are not clear. Having a broad scope does not trump having to use secondary WP:RS.
• 3) it is still a huge difference: there is no natural, logical link between them unless you take a Catholic POV (think about it as the difference between baptism of blood and baptism of desire: those two are only 'naturally' and 'logically' linked in Catholicism).
• 4) Deposit of faith is defined as "the body of revealed truth in the scriptures and sacred tradition proposed by the Roman Catholic Church for the belief of the faithful. The phrase has a similar use in the US Episcopal Church." Therefore, it is but a claim by two denominations.
• 5) You wrote that Catholicism-&-Eastern-Orthodoxy contexts [...] should be at least tolerated, so that the doctrine gets a fair hearing; this look like a RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also, first, the whole article is about a Catholic dogma, so the Catholic context has a prominent place already. Second, WP is not about every opinion being given its fair share on every topic (WP:DUE).

I do not know what @Pbritti: believes, but maybe opening a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and continuing the discussion there would be of any help. Veverve (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this should be at least mentioned elsewhere, as I think it’s been a persistent issue on this website. ~ Pbritti 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree; this should be mentioned elsewhere, as we aren't an inch closer to any kind of agreement or compromise. Octavius2 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went over there and added my proposed Catholic-theology standard there. I now generally ✅agree✅ with you both that the Church Fathers should constitute a Primary Source, except in instances like St. Augustine which display an academic character (i.e. systematic and rational, not mysticism-based). Octavius2 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti & @Veverve - Okay, I have now re-submitted the entire formerly-attempted material, and more, in addition. I've attempted to . . .

• either explicitly clarify, or remove any questionable term-transitivity (for example: treating "sinlessness" as synonymous to "immaculately conceived;"), as I said I would, in my "coextensiveness" promise, above. To accomplish this, I introduced an entirely new, giant "Theological Implications" section.
  This new section is such a major change, that I wanted to both 'repost' the article itself, and re-left-justify the discussion here, so that we can all go from here, as a fresh start, without letting in the way prior minutiae that we now agree on. Feel free to roll back the change there, and explain your new reasons for doing so here, whatever they are.
• introduce the 2-column chart by explicitly stating the reason unique to Catholic theology for why it is presented like that. I wrote—
  As with all Catholic dogmas, the church holds that it was believed in, at least implicitly, either in Sacred Scripture, or in oral Sacred tradition, and thence through all Christian centuries.[4 references]   The two are to be viewed, not in isolation, but with each supplementing and interpreting the other.[1 reference]   Catholic theologians and apologists therefore commonly point to the following ancient inter-corroborating authorities (side-by-side, on each row) as possible confirming testimonies to the antiquity and longevity of the doctrine:

Octavius2 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octavius2: Glad you put in all that effort! I'll be going through that massive addition (there's nothing wrong with it being that large, just will take some time for me to mention if there are any specific issues). Just to be check, because I think your translations are right: are they your original translations, or sourced from exterior to those original documents? ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're my translations. I was a Classics (Greek & Latin) major. Octavius2 (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octavius2: Swell, means they're copyright free. I'm going through it right now. There are only a few things I'm removing because we're running into that same issue of synthesizing on that page, but much of it is ok. Just as a formatting note, the source goes after punctation (including commas). Otherwise, decent first impression in my opinion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octavius2 and Pbritti: I just thought about solution that would make everyone happy in such cases: why not use Jurgen's Faith of the Early Fathers by attributing it as the apologetic opinion of the Catholic Church? The books are classified per Catholic dogma and can therefore be used very easily; Jurgen was a Catholic priest and if I remember correctly the work has an imprimatur. What do you say? Veverve (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Don't disagree, though I think Octavius really wants to insert these patristic sources directly. Trying to make that work, having some success. Page is perhaps bloated now, so there may be some usage of Jurgen to summarize. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, but I can accept that they require further secondary sources, to ensure proper contextualization (Even though I rate my own contextualization accurate). My big question is-- Does the 6-foot-long (on the bookshelf) Lapide Great Commentary, all in Latin micro-print, written from 1611 to 1681, count as a 2ndary source? . . . Lapide does nothing but go, verse by verse, thru all of scripture, saying, 'For this verse, there are 3 interpretations: These church fathers support this one, those that one, (etc.).' Octavius2 (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octavius2:

1) the commentary is very old so I tend to say it is a primary source.

2) The commentary relies on the manuscripts available at the time which means it is likely an WP:AGE MATTERS case, especially considering that full texts of CFs thought to be lost are regularly discovered (Didache, Fortunatianus of Aquileia, Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures, etc.).

3) The author is very, very likely to be heavily biased in favour of the Catholic Church

Same goes for the Catena Aurea, Contra Errores Graecorum, and similar texts. Veverve (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebase: I, Octavius2, responded to this over on the Christianity Noticeboard, under ["Establishing a patristics and exegesis standard"], where @Veverve had already been posting for some time. Octavius2 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus would that be? Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: the various recent and regular reverts, e.g. [4], [5], [6]. I agree there has been no talk page discussion to establish consensus, unless one considers Talk:Septuagint/Archive_3#BCE,_CE to be a discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So no consensus at all! The article was certainly BC when started in 2001, & still in 2010. But by 2012 Doug Weller was reverting to keep BCE. That one person changes it, and another reverts, does not indicate a consensus - quite the opposite. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: two other users recently along with Doug Weller seem to support the current use. Maybe discussing it at the talk page now would be a good idea to settle the matter. Veverve (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ie they revert three other users who don't. So much for "implied consensus"! Yes, there should be a discussion. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: WP:EDITCONSENSUS does not need to be written in talk pages to exist. Veverve (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow you (and please stop pinging). Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, it seems a bit disingenuous not to mention that this very issue is the subject of an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style where you are a very active participant (not pinging per request, so really this is more Veverve, who should have been informed). Generalrelative (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how that will help here (haven't they in fact commented there - I didn't check), especially if we do have a discussion, & it is now a very long read, and seems to be gridlocked. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

Generalrelative (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty much preoccupied and sometimes certain things transpire of which I have no knowledge of, thank you for your edits on Olumba Olumba. Celestina007 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to express my gratitude, but got sidetracked and remembered just now. Thank you for going cross-wiki in your concerns about neutrality. I believe your persistence played a part in helping us reach, what I would call, a sensible editorial decision. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You already added the synth banner - and that seems to be what you're objecting to - so it doesn't need a citation tag as well. StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check the article Moscow Theological Academy. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Чръный человек: sorry, I cannot as I am under a topic ban concerning Russia on WP en. Veverve (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hilarion (Serafimovski), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! During your moving of Talk:Macedonian Orthodox Church – Archdiocese of Ohrid, you forgot to update the archive location. This is just a reminder - don't worry, I've fixed it. Thanks! Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements 70.24.86.150 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add to the siblings dispute, it seems that he had two daughters but I can't be sure. The Brotherhood article is a terrible mess. There are reliable sources available but it's been edited mainly by adherents. Bishonen has cleaned up a bit. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[7][8]. Rowland another son? Doug Weller talk 14:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: sorry, I am afraid I cannot help: I have no expertise on the life or belief of this person and their organisation. Veverve (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following some close AfDs that nearly preserved non-notable ecclesial bodies due to difficult if—not entirely impossible—to verify details in Melton's, should we attempt a referendum to determine if that source can be deployed to determine notability? It does not provide significant coverage in most cases nor are its contents independently supported. Could we seek to add it to WP:NCHURCH the same way the historic register is? ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti:

It does not provide significant coverage in most cases nor are its contents independently supported: I am not sure what you mean. The coverage of most denomination is often significant, details are given on the denomination's origin, history, etc. The Melton is not simply a telephone directory. I do not understand what you mean by nor are its contents independently supported.

We could decide that Melton covers denominations which are for most of them insignificant (e.g. only Melton discusses some of them), and that therefore this encyclopedia cannot be used to establish GNG, but can be used as a RS. With the way Melton is currently being used by some users ('being in Melton = free pass'), WPen might as well have an article for each entry this encyclopedia has.

However, I suspect that there is a will, an inclusionist effort to preserve articles of insignificant denominations on the part of some users, and therefore said users grasp at every straw to get those articles preserved. I mean, Peterkingiron has been advocating for at least the past 13 years, more or less consistently, that a denomination claiming on its website to have 20 parishes or ever hundreds of parishes accross the globe, was a notability criteria (2009, 2022). If I am right, I do not see any policy which would prevent those users from WP:IGNORE and vote keep.

@Ad Orientem: what do you think? Veverve (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an inclusionist.[9] -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree with you in an academic sense about the depth of some Melton's but considering that inclusion on historic registers traditionally includes public documents that feature blurbs of somewhat greater lengths, the comprehensiveness of Melton's articles seems to be insufficient by the guidelines to constitute establishment of notability. As for that second bit, yes, I can imagine an inclusionist pushback. However as something of one myself, I hope other inclusionists can see that some material is simply not suitable for encyclopedic reference.

@Ad Orientem: I think Veverve was seeking your input as a respected fellow editor. Glad for more insight. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I was only asking for your input on the issue Pbritti had raised.

Sorry if it came off as me accusing you of what I described, I know you are not part of that. Veverve (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any links to AFDs or the questionable source(s)? Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not familiar with Melton's. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: The source we are talking about is Melton's encyclopedia of American religions. You can read its penultimate edition (2009) here. The source is clearly reliable (academically published, and written by an expert in the field, Melton J. Gordon); the problem raised by Pbritti is this encyclopedia's use when it comes to GNG debates, since this encyclopedia catalogues even the smallest, most insignificant religious groups.

As for my experience, you can see this use of Melton at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Old Roman Catholic Church and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Charismatic Church of Canada by the same user. In both cases, the articles were deleted anyway.

I do not know what Pbritti's experience was. I can tell you that it is likely he opened this discussion here due to the 'keepers' at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Episcopal Church (2nd nomination) who considered that having as sole sources Melton+another RS, was enough to establish notability. Veverve (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Knowing what that is would probably help. This is the mentioned Melton's. See the current AOSEC and SEC AfDs as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Life Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, my view is that a single source, even a highly reliable one, is rarely sufficient to ring the WP:N bell. There are a number of variables here. How deep is the coverage? If it's a few sentences that won't do. If it's several paragraphs, that might. If it's a page or longer that almost certainly would count towards SIGCOV. But Meltons would still be just one source. If a denomination got substantial coverage from there and also the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, then I think you could make a reasonable argument that it passes our guidelines. I may glance at the AfDs when I get a few minutes but will likely not directly comment there out of an abundance of caution and deference to CANVASSING. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Regarding your correct revert on Spiritus Domini (Pope Francis), I believe that @Instituted's large edits have been close paraphrases or copy-pastes of documents, and therefore are copyright violations. I'm on the lookout now for similar problems. Elizium23 (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: long time no see! I hope you are doing well.

Thanks for warning me. I have also noted a copyright problem from another user, at Talk:Dicastery for Evangelization#Copyright violation, in case you want to have a look at this user's edits. Veverve (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit I made today to the article "Second Vatican Council". The edit consisted in adding the following to the reflist:

• Komonchak, Joseph A. (1977). "Modernity and the Construction of Roman Catholicism". Cristianesimo nella storia (18): 353–85. Available online at https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/jak-modernity-rcism.pdf.

You gave as your reasons for the revert: "it is not a source (the article makes no reference to it) and it is not properly formatted; it has its place in a 'Further reading' section)"

(1) "The article makes no reference to it". If one is going to add a short footnote to an article, the source must already be in the reflist; otherwise the short footnote has nothing to point to. So the order is: (a) add title to reflist; (b) create short footnote. You undid my addition to the reflist 12 minutes after I had added it. This is typical of your trigger happy behaviour in the past few months targetting my edits. When you did this, I was in the process of creating the short footnote pointing to the source I had just added to the reflist. As an experienced Wikipedia editor, you should have known better.

(2) "It is not properly formatted". On the contrary, "Komonchak, Joseph A. (1977). "Modernity and the Construction of Roman Catholicism". Cristianesimo nella storia (18): 353–85." is a perfectly formatted source. I added an explanatory sentence that the article was also available online. If you think this additional sentence was inappropriate, you could have removed that single sentence. You had no reason to remove the complete addition to the reflist. Again, typical trigger happy behaviour on your part.

You are basically a Wikipedia bully, as you have proven many times in the previous months with your reverts to my edits. Wikipedia says: before reverting, discuss the matter and/or propose an alternative. This is something you never do. Your talk page shows you have been sanctioned in the past for abusive editing. I will be seeking arbitration, with the ultimate objective of having you blocked from my edits. MDJH (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You gave no indication you were to use this as a source later.
• The URL should be inside the ref.
• The last of my reverts of yours is from November 2021, I can hardly see how it is a trigger happy behaviour in the past few months targetting my edits
• Feel free to seek arbitration.

- Veverve (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on this page are making it unreadable, boring, and a pointless source. You're deleting everything, even when sources are already in the article. You may as well ask to have the whole page deleted, as you seem to expect every sentence to have a source attached directly to that sentence. Please don't sit on pages just to delete sentences when a source is not directly attached to each sentence. For example, his connection to the Blue Army is noted in the body of the text, but you deleted reference to the Blue Army in his description. This is his primary claim to fame, and it's the notable achievement of his life along with founding the CMRI, which you also deleted, which every source connects him to the founding of the CMRI. G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@G4wa5r4gasag:

• you seem to expect every sentence to have a source attached directly to that sentence: outside of the information in the summary which are found in the body of the article, I do expect every sentence to have a source attached directly to it. See WP:V; it is not simply my own caprice.
• This is his primary claim to fame: according to whom?

- Veverve (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@G4wa5r4gasag: By the way, I have finished putting the article on good foundations, using a reliable source you can read freely on Archive.org (The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism). This source I used has much more information, but I really do not think I will continue adding them as I lack the time and motivation to do so. Feel free to add the other information from this source. Veverve (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Long time no see! I see you have had a slight interest in the topic. If you want, feel free to complete the Francis Schuckardt using the source I described above. This source can also be used for Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather go to WP:AFD, since I'm beginning to doubt that Schuckardt enjoys WP:SIGCOV or can pass WP:GNG. But let's assume for now that we can't delete it entirely, so I'll lay down some WP:TNT, light some incense, and see what happens in the coming week. Elizium23 (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, I have misgivings about paring the articles down so much that they rest chiefly on a single source. Since I am not so eager to view the Smoke of Satan myself, what is your judgement about the length of the piece on CMRI and how much of an article can be supported solely by Cuneo's work? Is it really only two pages long? Elizium23 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: In Cuneo's work, the part on Schuckardt (the person) is only two-pages long (p. 102 to 104). The CMRI history is from p. 102 to 113 (due to Schuckardt being part of its history as its founder).

I feel both Schuckardt and the CMRI are notable. You can find numerous news reports here.

As for the length of the piece on CMRI and how much of an article can be supported solely by Cuneo's work: well, both can be supported solely by Cuneo's work, but Schuckardt's article would be quite short. Maybe using the news reports I linked could help flesh out both articles. Veverve (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those media reports are good citations and clearly demonstrate significant coverage. They're 100% dead links, but cited specifically enough to be recoverable. They may be accessible through Newspapers.com, where I hold a paid account. Elizium23 (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted the ENTIRE CMRI page, despite nearly 100 references, many hours of work, including newspapers, books, and outside studies. You are an absolute troll, and this is exactly why wikipedia is a complete joke. Thankfully I downloaded all my work, and will host it on my own website. Hopefully you're getting paid to be a troll, otherwise you really need to re-evaluate your life. 98.146.177.153 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page watcher) I've warned for LOUTSOCKing and personal attacks at User talk:G4wa5r4gasag § Three notes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit to consecrator within 10 minutes of its being posted, saying there was no cite (I was finding one). When one was posted, within the hour, you reverted that, citing the self-reference policy, which has to do with references to Wikipedia, etc.

The passage in question is:

The presence of the additional bishops also ensures apostolic succession.^[1]

Where is the self-refence in that? Or is there something deeper going on here? Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piledhigheranddeeper: My bad, I got it wrong: it is a WP:SELF-PUBLISHED, not a WP:SELF. Veverve (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this feels like blatant discrimination and selective permission designed to eliminate any knowledge or information about our church and it's history and relevance.

I am sorry you will have to explain why all the other churches exist on wikipedia but we are not allowed to exist

I made some edits to one of the entries and put all the websites in of the lineage of ALL russian orthodox churches and their branches and that was also deleted

We exist as a historical fact ... whether you like it or not ... Nazi's burned books ... wikipedia is doing the same with information ... only a select few get to be in wikipedia the selection criteria? Haydukovich (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Haydukovich See WP:N, WP:NCHURCH, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See also Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Haydukovich: I am under a topic ban concerning Russia, so I cannot answer you on those. Sorry. Veverve (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if you were notified about this, but could come and talk about your changes to G3neral Roman Calendar please? → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General_Roman_Calendar#WP%3ANOTDIRECTORY 7otto (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fiddle to impose your drive-by preferences like this. Both styles are fine. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I tried to message you earlier but the page it took me to said you were "retired". My question is, why did you completely gut this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960

It is supposed to show the 1960 version of the Roman Calendar. Now it only makes references to the Calendar but shows nothing. The same was done to other Church Calendars before 1960. They all need to be restored. If minor details need to be fixed that's one thing, but entirely gutting it so it is no longer meaningful is vandalism. I undid that one edit myself since it said you were retired, in an attempt to walk the page back one step at a time to the August 16 version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960&oldid=1104648537

which was the newest one that was still a useful Calendar, since I could find no way to get it back in one step. Since you obviously know how to do this stuff better than I do, can you please restore it back to the original Calendar format before doing any needed technical edits? The same needs to be done for the 1954 Calendar, the Tridentine Calendar and any others that were demolished in the same manner.

I use these pages for reference daily and know others who use them regularly as well. They are all now unusable.

Thanks.

- Gary Megalonzerg (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalonzerg:

It is supposed to show the 1960 version of the Roman Calendar: how so? Wikipedia is not supposed to show the full content of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen at the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen article; the Quinisext Council page does not display all the numerous canons approved by the council. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is why WP:EL sections exist.

All those dates and feasts were also unsourced (WP:V).

Even if those were sourced, WP:ONUS applies. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most words on Wikipedia are not sourced. Only controversial things need to be removed while waiting for someone who has time to add intimate sources. Obvious things should be left alone unless you see an error and have a source to refute them. They you should correct them with your own source. If you want to improve something that is "unsourced" then source it, or give a source to refute it, and then correct it rather than removing it. What you have been frantically doing the last week or so to all the Church Calendar pages is pure vandalism. What is wrong with you? What is your purpose anyway? Do you hate Catholicism or Church history, or do you simply hate all Catholics? If all you want to do is destroy things why don't you just go away and stop bothering people. I'm wondering if you are live streaming your "editing" of people's lives, like the Memphis shooter last night live streamed his "editing" of people's lives. Maybe you just get thrills from killing? Megalonzerg (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalonzerg:

Most words on Wikipedia are not sourced: and it is a very bad thing! WP:CITOGENESIS is something which should be avoided at all cost. I do not remove things which are unsourced just [to] get thrills, I do it because I feel compelled to do so. Citogenesis is really something bad, both for Wikipedia and for the scientific community as a whole. I do not edit articles just for fun, I do it to improve them.

Obvious things should be left alone unless you see an error and have a source to refute them: WP:BURDEN, also this philosophy can only lead to citogenesis.

I will not answer your personal attack and ridiculous claims. Veverve (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Citogenesis" is like "injustice". It is an easy, alarm-signalling, word to throw around when you are trying to justify objectively bad behavior. If a building has rusty hinges on the doors, tearing the building down with no warning or discussion is not a good solution, no matter how compelled someone feels to do it. Leaving the building in place so as not to waste thousands of hours of other people's time, and not put people out on the street, and, instead, oiling the hinges might be a better solution. Megalonzerg (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, your user page says you're retired, but you've edited every month since you became a member. And your edit frequency is increasing. Maybe you're not retired? Not a big deal, but just wondering. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Glane23 I have had some free time lately, and found work to do on WP and a bit of motivation to accomplish it. Veverve (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have you among the very active editors. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not nice at all. He is a vandal. He is a destroyer, not a builder. He is also very fast, efficient, and dedicated at it, so there is no way to repair the damage he does. It's like having a raptor loose in your house. You just have to hope he somehow doesn't notice your next child. Megalonzerg (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently edit-warring across a wide swath of liturgical calendar-related articles. You are fighting multiple editors who disagree with your unilateral decision to gut all of these articles of their usefulness. Could you please cease and desist the edit-wars, firstly, and secondly, consider that your decision goes against consensus and that you should permit others to hold contrary opinions about this? Elizium23 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Elizium23. Unfortunately it apparently doesn't matter if a thousand people try to stand in front of a narcissist driving a bulldozer. Logic and reason are not relevant. It is so much easier to destroy than to build. Megalonzerg (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I do have the policy in my favour. Others at the Teahouse, as you know, have weighted in, which gives me the confidence to continue attempting clearing WP of its long lists of calendars of saints and feasts. Veverve (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any consensus there or even any strong opinions in your favor. I am also not seeing any policies that favor your blanket removals of large swaths of sourced information. In fact this information is the main source of utility for the articles you're gutting. Elizium23 (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: see WP:NOTDIRECTORY (and also WP:NOTGUIDE) for the policy. As for the consensus, see here and here. Veverve (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus. I hardly even see anyone who agrees with you!! How can you possibly read a consensus into this sort of hue and cry over your deletions? Elizium23 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I, @Pbritti, Cullen328, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: agree on the removal, from what I read. Veverve (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is wrong even when you are right. One must follow WP:BRD-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: what kind of nonsensical accusations are those ([10], [11], [12])? Have you heard of WP:NOATTACK, WP:AGF, WP:V and WP:BURDEN? The latter two also go for [13] and [14]. Have you even read the banners you have yourself added? Veverve (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF says “This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism).” And I never personally attacked you. I’m just reverting obvious vandalism. I💖平沢唯 (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: I henceforth assume you are perfectly aware of violating WP:BURDEN, on top of accusing me of vansalism (based on nothing, with no argument to your reverts). You have not read the banners you have yourself added either. You can reverse those changes, or I can open an ANI. Veverve (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not violating WP:BURDEN and I have no reason to listen to your threats because you’re just a troll (and banned), but just to make you happy I’m gonna add more citations to the Coptic and Ethiopian calendars. Just promise to stop blanking pages when you get unbanned, orelse I’ll open an ANI I💖平沢唯 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: you are clearly violating this policy. I am not the only one who does that as you can see by this very recent example, removing unsourced content is perfectly normal. Complying to WP:BURDEN is not about making me happier. Veverve (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007: about this: I answer here since I am blocked. I think List of Catholic saints already fulfills that role. Maybe adding reliably sourced footnotes to this list to indicate which saint is in which GRC would help. Therefore, I oppose the creation of the list you proposed. As for creating the page: in case you still create the page anyway, you must indicate which edition of the GRC you refer to and provide reliable sources. Veverve (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve Thanks, I appreciate the response. I'm going to experiment with List of Catholic saints in my sandbox and then make a proposal on that page. Spartacus007 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: in this edit you made a typo ("]]" instead of "}}"). I would fix it myself if I could, but am currently blocked for a few more days. Veverve (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spending the time to figure out what the redirect status was supposed to be, I could only discern that whatever the situation was supposed to be, having the article and the talk not in sync was not it :) Ljleppan (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring in the same articles immediately after your previous block ended. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: what "edit-warring" are you referring to? Veverve (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really have to link the articles? OK, here's one: Calendar of saints (Church in Wales) has you edit warring back and forth with another person, and there's an empty talk page. Literally minutes after you block ended, you raced to that article to resume your edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is states "Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring." The user was blocked, so my revert cannot be described as edit warring. Veverve (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. That only applies to editors who are evading a block or ban by using a sock puppet account. You don't get a free pass to revert any edits you want after someone has been temporarily blocked for edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: this is clearly not what the policy says. Otherwise, it would state "Reverting edits of users evading a block or ban by using a sock puppet account is not edit warring." There is nothing in the section which implies it is restricted to the cases you have described. The hyperlink to Wikipedia:Blocking policy of this policy defines block as the the moment an user is technically prevent[ed] from editing Wikipedia. Veverve (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Veverve, you are misinterpreting the policy. Edits that have been made in violation of a block or ban can be reverted. Your wikilawyering is doing nothing to help your cause here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: you might want to change the wording of the policy to add that nuance. First with my tban then that: I am getting tired of receiving sanctions and admins not AGF due to me interpreting poorly-worded policies with the obvious meaning they have (yes, I fully have the right to blame the wordings, and I will stick to it). Veverve (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity, it literally states in violation of a ban in the sentence you were relying on for the exemption. The policy also states If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Your edit summaries stated "same reason as before" which is a clear continuation of the edit war that led to your block and makes no mention of any type of exemption.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to weigh in here, but you guys are talking past each other: Wikipedia:Edit warring says "Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring" (without qualification, as Veverve says) and then in another section further down it lists "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users" under Exemptions (as Ponyo notes). StAnselm (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words - yes, there is considerable ambiguity in the policy and it should be changed. StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: so, you do not accept that I acted in good faith by reverting those edits, some of which were also a clear violation of BURDEN? Veverve (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of repeatedly pinging me, why don't you just make an unblock request? As far as edit warring to enforce content policies, it's a difficult situation. Everyone occasionally reverts a bit more than they should, especially when they know they're right. The problem is that most people think they're right during an edit war. One way to resolve that is to post to a talk page. Even if you just post a perfunctory "I'm just doing this to say that I did" note on the talk page, that goes pretty far. If nobody responds after a while, you can revert "per talk page". That gives people a chance to make policy-based objections. It also shows that you're willing to engage in communication beyond edit summaries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Indyguy, Pbritti, Elizium23, Jdcompguy, and Manannan67: I am pinging you since you are regulars on WProjects related to Christianity.

Absolutely all edits by an IP has been vandalism of numerous pages by restoring obvious POV and unsourced data.

Another IP different has done roughly the same here (maybe it is the same user? it seem the Traditionalist POV is for both).

I would take care of those myself if I could, or contact you via WProject Christianity, but I am blocked for a bit less than two weeks. Veverve (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Also, that is a very odd Tban they handed down. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is not a tban, but a full-on block. I cannot edit anything outside of my talk and personnal page; I cannot sent "Thanks" either (see the section just above). Veverve (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. Well, you are absolutely welcome to ping me until that expires–especially when notifying of such egregious vandalism. Hope to see you back to fighting fit as soon as that expires. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: thanks a lot for your help! Veverve (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Veverve (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My goal when I reverted the user Pisarz12345 was not to edit war; as I explained to the admin who blocked me, my reverts done on the ground of the meaning of Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is states's sentence "Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring". On the pages I had previously edit-warred, I made sure to revert only Pisarz12345's edits, since the user was blocked. It turns out that the authoritative part of Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is states is not this sentence, but "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users".

My actions were due to following a sentence ("Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring") which is obsolete (and would need to be amended to reflect the current policy).

I inderstand my mistakes. In the future, I intend to try to discuss more at the article or user talk pages, when someone reverts me, instead of trying to explain my point to them through. Should the user persist in disrespecting policies, I will not edit, but open an ANI against them and wait until the admins intervene. Veverve (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A user being blocked is not a license to remove their edits, as stated above. I think that's pretty clear in the policy, but if you want to seek changes in the wording of the policy, you are free to once unblocked. ANI is not for content disputes, it is for user behavior issues. Content disputes should be worked through using established processes. 331dot (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Spartacus007 and Pirripok: by the following edits, you have violated WP:BURDEN, despited the very clear mention of this policy as a justification for removal in my edit summaries of those articles.

Spartacus007: [15], [16],

Pirripok: [17], [18]

Either you a) revert your edits, or b) source those claims in a reasonable time period (one to two weeks); otherwise I will c) open an ANI against you for violating this policy. Veverve (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions I made were specifically ones the community came to a consensus on, in Talk:General Roman Calendar#WP:LISTCRITERIA. Of course I would be more than happy to improve the sourcing on those edits I made and I intend to do so. Spartacus007 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007: I am glad to know the lack of source will be fixed as soon as possible.

Nowhere in this discussion do I see a consensus to ignore BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007: you have also restored unsourced content at [19]. You have also removed my external links. You have simply ignored all my rationales in my edit summaries, and have blindly restored the page as it was before my edits. Veverve (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the revisions I made were specifically ones the community came to a consensus on, in Talk:General Roman Calendar#WP:LISTCRITERIA. The consensus was to revert to a specific version of the page and then make edits from there. I suggest moving this discussion to Talk:General Roman Calendar#WP:LISTCRITERIA, since that was where the decision was made and that is where the community of editors, experts and users of General Roman Calendar and related pages discuss these issues. Spartacus007 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007: The consensus was to revert to a specific version of the page and then make edits from there.: no, this is but Bob Tarver (an user whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to restore those articles, WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA)'s opinion, as well as yours. This is not the consensus, and it is still a violation of WP:BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already informed you that I plan to address the issues with the pages that need to be fixed due to Wikipedia:BURDEN and I explained why I took the first step of reverting them. If you have disagreements about this, the Talk page of the article is a much more appropriate place for them, so the community can have a chance to discuss. Thanks. Spartacus007 (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: your accusation of WP:BURDEN is specious. You really, really, really need to stop claiming that we're adding unsourced material when the feast days are all clearly verifiable by the primary source, the calendar itself. Being implicitly cited, there is no particular need to footnote each and every line in the article. You're blocked, (and your userpage still claims you're "RETIRED") and so stop trying to litigate this stuff on false premises from your user talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I had removed what had not inline source and clearly stated BURDEN and V, and this content was restored. To me, this violates BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: despite the warnings you received stating that When someone removes unsourced content, you must add sources to using inline citations before restoring it, you have not reverted any of your edits for which this warning was issued. For information you have added back and which has not been sourced by an inline ref in the meantime, either you a) revert your edits (or remove the information you added back), or b) source those claims in a reasonable time period (one to two weeks); otherwise I will c) open once again an ANI against you for violating this policy. Veverve (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will I💖平沢唯 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: you still have not.

You have also POV-pushed and disregarded a reliable source which states "Racial segregation has appeared in all parts of the world where there are multiracial communities, except where racial amalgamation occurred on a large scale as in Hawaii and Brazil". Veverve (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]