Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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

@Johnbod: the various recent and regular reverts, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. 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]

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]

[4][5]. 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]

I’ll help update the siblings ElRabbi (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2023 (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.[6] -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]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: what kind of nonsensical accusations are those ([7], [8], [9])? Have you heard of WP:NOATTACK, WP:AGF, WP:V and WP:BURDEN? The latter two also go for [10] and [11]. 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]

@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]

@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: [12], [13],

Pirripok: [14], [15]

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 [16]. 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]

@Veverve Your actions violate the guidelines of Wikipedia:Content removal.

"Removing a section of an article needs to be at least explained and in some cases discussed. Unexplained content removal (UCR) occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted."

You removed the majority of several articles with no prior discussion on the talk pages and nearly no explanation. Those edits were open to being promptly reverted.

"If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template {{fact}} ({{cn}} will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information."

Rather than requesting a citation, you made major erasures and began to edit war.

I also found, when I went back to add citations, that there *were* citations on the pages for that info! They just weren't inline citations yet.

You chose the most destructive possible solution to the problem of a lack of inline citations and engaged in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, threatening users who made edits you disagreed with instead of opening up good faith discussions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints or the pages in question. Spartacus007 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Truewhit: my warning (in the very beginning ot this thread) also applies to your edit. Veverve (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as noted by @Elizium23 there are several problems with how you went about removing this content. (see below)

"'Removing a section of an article needs to be at least explained and in some cases discussed. Unexplained content removal (UCR) occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted."

You removed the majority of several articles with no prior discussion on the talk pages and nearly no explanation. Those edits were open to being promptly reverted.

'If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template ^{[citation needed]} (^{[citation needed]} will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information.'

Rather than requesting a citation, you made major erasures and began to edit war.

I also found, when I went back to add citations, that there *were* citations on the pages for that info! They just weren't inline citations yet."

On my part, I added a single in-line citation to each of the two calendars to show where specifically in the books referenced the calendars are located. I hope that this addresses your concerns. Truewhit (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007 and Truewhit: I have no idea why your messages are so similar, but since they are I will answer both at once.

"when the reason is not obvious", nearly no explanation: but the reasons were obvious, and explained at lenght in my edit summaries, e.g. by linking policies.

You removed the majority of several articles [...] You chose the most destructive possible solution to the problem of a lack of inline citations: you are implying that even if I had let a [Citation needed] for 2 months and then removed, you would have objected; I am therefore not sure why you are bringing this point. See also: Wikipedia:Unsourced information is not valuable.

threatening users who made edits you disagreed with instead of opening up good faith discussions: I did warn you on my talk page. If you violate BURDEN after being called out, it is your choice. The person I disagreed with, on the thread just below, has got an admin warning for not respecting BURDEN, so the 'wikilawyering' accusation falls flat. Veverve (talk) 17:23, 27 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]

Dude, I'm busy. I'll do it later but by the end of this week. Also stop stalking my edit history I💖平沢唯 (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, is this not WP:HARASSMENT? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My time to examine this dispute is limited; please bring user conduct issues to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended your block by two weeks and revoked your talk page access. Pinging other editors to argue with them and berate them while you are blocked is not acceptable. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TPA reinstated[edit]

I've reinstated TPA, Veverve, but I'm doing so on the condition that you may only make use of it to appeal the current block through the {{unblock}} feature. Please do not discuss anything else, and only ping relevant admins, definitely not editors involved in whatever dispute or disputes this concerns — if in doubt, use {{noping|user}}. Thanks. El_C 05:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very next sentences in the reference provided go into how Bishops interpret canons..

"The canons do not act by themselves, but they serve the bishops as authoritative guidelines in adjudicating specific cases. The canons are based on precedent and do not envisage hypothetical circumstances. The spectrum of the canons coincides largely with the above-mentioned range of subjects. One may liken the application of the canons to the prescription of medical remedies of differing potency. In some instances a practitioner may decide to follow literally (i.e., according to akriveia, a Greek term meaning “exactness”) the recommendations of a canon regarding penance..."

So, I'm confused by your comment that the original intent was clear.. if all of the canons must "mandatorily be obeyed" then why does it immediately talk about how oftentimes they aren't expected to be followed?

Also, wouldn't it say, "mandatorily obey canons that pertain to you" because, as we know, not all canons apply to all people. Why would I mandatorily obey canons referring to women if I am a man? Dr. Patsavos, one of the premier canonists in the world today, writes in his Spiritual Dimensions of the Holy Canons on the applicability and authority of canon law, "On the one hand, there are those who revere the letter of the canons. But as has already been remarked, "no one seems to absolutize all of them". then there are those who deny the relevancy of the entire body of the canons in its present state." He agrees with Fr. Meyendorff that both positions are wrong. The canons cannot be absolutized because there are countless that have fallen into oblivion and are not used at all today.

At the very least, the original citation doesn't even really belong in the section. Not even but a few sentences later in the is this sentence, "Canons which concern administrative or disciplinary matters – which are most canons – are not considered to be infallible, and can therefore be changed or reinterpreted". So, again, I ask.. why would I have to mandatorily follow canons that can be changed or aren't even used anymore?

It's obvious that the original quote from the citation is referring to observance of the canons in the sense that they are to be recognized as a genuine aspect of the Orthodox Faith given the entire context of the chapter in its original text. 199.66.170.13 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP: I do not see how "observance" should be otherwise interpreted as something else than "the act of obeying a law or following a religious custom" ([17]). Veverve (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What am I meant to be looking for on the talk page? I don't see any relevant discussion. Schierbecker (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom#Undue, then I will have to strongly disagree. There's a comment there from User:Zezen (an indef blocked crypto-Nazi), yourself supporting Zezen, an IP supporting including the statement, and one inflammatory tirade from a two-edit account. It is undue weight to mention that this Nazi spent time in prison for child pornography?? Please, expand on this. Schierbecker (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schierbecker It is indeed undue to mention this in the article summary, as it is not part of the subject's main characteristics. Veverve (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've both interacted with Lord saturnus a few times at this point. I've issued a warning or two to them. I am suspicious about this brand-new editor and their intentions, but moreover their competence to simply put a sentence together is lacking. Elizium23 (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: the editor seems to be bona fide incompetent. I do not know what to do with those kind of editors, I myself have been struggling with one at Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). Altough I must say Lord saturnus seems to have mastered the art of adding unsourced content, a skill very much appreciated on Wikipedia nowadays where unsourced rambling is seen as more precious than having few reliably sourced lines. Veverve (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting; I was idly composing an essay in my head last week about Wikipedia's burden of debt. We've been left with a legacy of debt, in the form of unsourced statements in hundreds of thousands of articles across all topics. Nobody can verify it all but Wikipedia is supposedly built on a pillar that says everything must be verifiable. Who's going to go through offline sources, chase archived links, read hundred-page PDFs, and listen to hour-long podcasts to verify facts just because they're in an article? I do it on rare occasions and it's shocking how poorly our articles fare.

The burden of maintenance is huge and our cadre of editors today barely keeps up the illusion of a functioning project. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool deletionist but I can't keep enough of it out! Elizium23 (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: in case you had not seen it, I have written WP:CHEWINGGUM on the importance of having sourced content and removing unsourced content.

I have encountered opposition on the removal of unsoured content from users on two articles recently. Today at Liturgical Movement; and before that at Philippine Independent Church (you can see my frustration here and here).

I feel the "put a banner, add a 'Citation needed' tag, do whatever you want, but by all means never remove anything for bytes in articles are so precious" culture is extremely destructive to WP. The mere fact that some users actively work on keeping those worthless (since they are unsourced) information flusters me a lot. Veverve (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veverve!

I saw you canceled my edit on the article "Psalms 152–155". Today I added the text of Psalm 155 to the Hebrew Wikipedia. It is a psalm about the Lord, and not about King Hezekiah. Keep in mind that the text about King Hezekiah did not exist untill a user called "Shin Kurogane" added a false Psalm to the article. Luckily I found the true text of Pslam 155, so this isn't the theme of the Psalm. כובש המלפפונים (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@כובש המלפפונים: Again: what does Wright, W. (1887), Some Apocryphal Psalms in Syriac says? Veverve (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the text of Some Apocryphal Psalms in Syriac is not available for me. However, I did found the text of Psalm 155 in its Hebrew origin here, on Wikitext. I added the text of the Psalm to Hebrew Wikipedia as well. כובש המלפפונים (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@כובש המלפפונים: So, you are removing what is sourced in favour of your own interpretation of a text. This is WP:OR and is not acceptable Veverve (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source: [18] כובש המלפפונים (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@כובש המלפפונים: I have added an URL to Wright's article, so you can read it. His second psalm is indeed called "The Prayer of Hezekiah when enemies surrounded him". Veverve (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SDFORMAT — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, haven’t left a message before, eager to hear your thoughts.

How are the below verses not included in the source? There are more verses that kings and queens would have objection to, but not to beleaguer the point…. https://founders.org/2011/10/12/the-geneva-bible-and-its-influence-on-the-king-james-bible/ (see chapter title “The Rejection of the ‘Seditious’ Geneva Bible by King James I”)

text in issue cited below:

Example of the commentary in conflict with the monarchy in the Geneva Bible (modern spelling) include:

• Daniel 6:22 — “For he [Daniel] disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonoured.”
• Daniel 11:36 — “So long the tyrants will prevail as God has appointed to punish his people: but he shows that it is but for a time.”
• Exodus 1:19 — To the Hebrew midwives lying to their leaders, “Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil.” (You keep removing this one, The source that you you say doesn’t include this scripture says about this scripture… “ The GB says that their disobedience in this act was lawful (though it qualifies that their deception was evil). Tricking the tyrant is allowed by the law. McGrath draws the parallel to the seventeenth century, “As radical Protestant factions, such as the Puritans, began to view James as their oppressor, the suggestion that it was lawful to disobey him became increasingly welcome to Puritans and worrying to James.”[37] “ …this comment is very objectionable to authority, which is the point to give the reader context to the inflammatory nature of the commentary)
• 2 Chronicles 15:15-17 — King Asa “showed that he lacked zeal, for she should have died both by the covenant… and by the law of God, but he gave place to foolish pity and would also seem after a sort to satisfy the law.”

Additionally, why do you want to remove the links to the source text? I am just curious why you feel it would be in the best interest of the reader of the page to remove citations to the original translated scripture; remove relevant commentary from the Geneva writers that solidify the point that King James had objection with the Geneva, and why there are claims that material that is clearly in the cited source is not in the cited source?

I know that this is a controversial Bible translation, especially for our Catholic brothers and sisters, but isn’t it important to provide the most clarity and context for the reader? Please let me know how these points are invalid! Grace to you. Ep289 (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ep289: I answered on the talk page. Veverve (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Versus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if there was a particular reason you've been looking around some of the articles I've created or substantially edited? Obviously not a problem, but it has been kinda funny just seeing you pop up in my watchlist on articles only really connected by involvement on them. If you want any help with these articles, you can always ping me, but otherwise I've been glad for your revisions (especially catching that slip-up of "1929" that you corrected to "1928")! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: I have been improving the categorisation of the images you have uploaded on WCommons, because they were in dire need of it (better and less redundant categories, creating new categories, linking categories to WP articles, etc.). Hence, I had a quick glance look at some of the articles where the images were.

Glad you liked my help! Veverve (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, swell! Glad you've taken up the category project there and have been working on improving/fixing the errors I've made not only there but on enWiki. If you would like any help on the Commons, you're more than welcome to ping me over there as you did with that one image already. Thanks again for doing these little edits–they really do add up! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited God is dead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

~ Pbritti (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: thanks! Happy New Year to you too! Veverve (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I added the interwiki link to the wrong article. Wikidata can be used for this purpose only when there is an article or redirect in the target Wikipedia. Apokrif (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokrif: je pense que le mieux à faire est de créer une redirection sur WPfr puis de la lier à l'objet Wikidata wikidata:Q115941150. Veverve (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You think this doesn't mention homilies?

In this it was typical of Francis' homilies at special events, preaching from the readings while hardly acknowledging the occasion.^[1]

Quote: "But will he? Pope Francis has a homiletic style that may prove a challenge on for him on this occasion. The Holy Father prefers to take up themes from the biblical readings, with minimal comment on the occasion at hand. His canonization homilies — including those for Popes John XXIII, John Paul II and Paul VI — only contain a few scant lines about the new saint. He has even preached at canonizations where he has not mentioned the new saint at all. Such rhetorical reserve on this occasion could be interpreted as lacking for Benedict’s funeral." Rutsq (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Rutsq (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rutsq: the article cannot discuss an homily which had not already taken place at the time. You stating that the homily which took place days after the article was published fits this analysis made before the homily was pronounced (or revealed in text form), is OR. Veverve (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article can certainly discuss Francis' typical homilies and that's exactly how I used it. It's context and precisely on point. Rutsq (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rutsq: We are not talking about typical homilies of Francis, but about whether the 5 January homily is a typical homily of Francis or not. You are making the OR of stating that the 5 January homily is a typical homily of Francis; the article does not mention this (and it cannot, unless the author is a time traveller). Veverve (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Williamson (bishop), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Croix.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the {{semi-retired}} template is more suitable in this case. A retired template often meant the user would never edit Wikipedia ever again, but it is obvious in your contributions that you are actually really active :) CactiStaccingCrane 16:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too have noted that you (Veverve) are, in point of fact, a very frequent editor still and absolutely not 'retired' (not 'semi'). As such the hatnote at the top of your user page is very misleading to other editors and should be removed asap. --AlisonW (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making such a request just after blocking me, thus preventing me from editing my user page... Veverve (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veverve! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Heresy in the Catholic Church that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you come at this the other way. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have nominated Category:Irvingism for speedy renaming to Category:Catholic Apostolic Church, which I think makes sense. I think Category:Catholic Apostolic Church denominations should be renamed to Category:Apostolic denominations and be the parent category of Category:Catholic Apostolic Church, what do you think? That would be consistent with Category:Catholic denominations and Category:Catholic Church. TSventon (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: "Catholic Apostolic" (the current name of the category) is good and should not be changed. "Apostolic" is way too vague to be used on its own, and it is an adjective used by many denominations. Veverve (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that Category:Catholic Apostolic Church as renamed should be a subcategory of Category:Catholic Apostolic Church denominations? The name of the category would need a CfD discussion. TSventon (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: no, it should not be a subcategory: the category should be a broad one, where all things related to the Catolic Apostolic movement are put (not everything fits in the Catholic Apostolic Church denominations category). Veverve (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: now that I think about it, maybe Category:Catholic Apostolic Church should be renamed to "Category:Catholic Apostolic movement". I have withdrawn my renaming proposal for the time being. Veverve (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think a fuller discussion would be useful. Can you ping me if you have further suggestions and I will do the same for you. TSventon (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not going to assess the content of the TST article, one of AEF's complaints appears to be that you haven't been using enough edit summaries to explain yourself when removing content. Please don't take this as criticism, but it would definitely forestall that argument if your edit summaries were more detailed.

Next time there's an issue, post on the talk page, wait a week to see if there's a response, and if not, implement it with "as per talk page". DS (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: thanks for your sympathy.

As for the content: I tried to reach out to the user, via the article's talk page and their own talk page, to no avail. I did mention to them WP:BURDEN numerous times, a policy which I cannot explain in a better way than it is currently written. Veverve (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you use edit summaries more often, they help other editors. 43% of you recent major edits lacked an edit summary, as did 90% of your minor edits.^[19]

Thank you for the useful links you placed in User talk:Karma1998#Stop adding unsourced material!. I did not know about WP:CHEWINGGUM and WP:FICTREF.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people excommunicated by the Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Per se.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's not only vandalizing that page, but also the disambiguation page for canon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, don't want to ask too much and if you can't do it easily, don't feel like you have to do it. However, would you be able to make a Wikidata item for me? Specifically, for the subject Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: done. Veverve (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacques Grolet: Hello, I am knew to English wikipedia so I don't know how to answer on a specific edit. I am the person who tried to modify the Catholic–Protestant relations page; I have many sources to back my claim up (it's not a debated fact, which is why I didn't find necessary to quote a source, my bad). I can't find the book quoted by the article, so I can't check what exactly it is saying. What should I do? Thank you! Sorry for being a newbie ;) Jacques Grolet (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacques Grolet: préférez-vous que je vous réponde en français, plutôt qu'en anglais ? Français ou anglais, les deux ne me posent aucun problème. Veverve (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veverve. It looks as if you are working hours each day on Wikipedia. You don't appear to be retired! Keep up the good work as long as you enjoy it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: you did not restore the page to WP:QUO. Veverve (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the moral "sometimes edit-warring bear fruit, if you try hard enough your version can also become WP:QUO"? Had I been the last to revert, would my version have been the one to be kept? Veverve (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unsourced information is not valuable, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unsourced information is not valuable and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Unsourced information is not valuable during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, being blocked, I can neither revise nor defend my article, nor state what I would change if I could (and I am pretty sure if I complain I will get told "your fault, you should not have gotten blocked"). Quite unfair, is it not? Veverve (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can make comments here and someone can copy them into the MfD discussion. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[20]. Veverve (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Hmm. I'd much rather suspend the MfD then until such time when you can participate. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, I'm sure that the blocking admin would recognize that posting a response in accordance with policy processes would be acceptable. That said, @WaltCip: I agree that holding off on the deletion discussion is the best choice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you reverted my edits -- I'm not trying to edit war. In any event the wording and meanings of the quotes and cites are not changed. This is a WP Manual of Style edit. Same idea applies to fronts used, size of fonts, or hyphens vs. endashes vs. emdashes. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am applying these warnings after the fact since you have engaged in WP:DISRUPT and WP:VANDALIZE by gutting a large portion of the articles Maria Valtorta and Poem of the Man-God.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Maria Valtorta, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Poem of the Man-God, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary: I did. Removing large parts of articles is not vandalism per se; vandalism has a specitific meaning. Stop trying to POV-push. I have explained to you at the talk page why those sources are not reliable, yet you insist. Do not come again with your bogus warnings, otherwise I will have to take this to ANI. Veverve (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed large swaths of the original articles representing many weeks of work. I asked you to take it up on the talk page so we can discuss your concerns. Instead you reverted my reversion of your disruptive edits. I am giving this additional warning after the fact.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Maria Valtorta, you may be blocked from editing. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Poem of the Man-God, you may be blocked from editing. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trinita Obu is model of an influential Nigerian youth, who has touched the lives of many positively within his Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria base and beyond.

He is a tech expert and broadcaster, whose services are sought after by different media houses across Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda, South Africa and some other Central and East African countries.

Trinita, as he is fondly called is also the CEO of a start up brand QUICK SERVICE; an online platform that connects skilled service providers to clients who need their services on the-go. The brand is made to give the needed visibility to both new businesses and already established ones across Africa. It is also created to help young freelancers have a wider reach for more patronage.

As a young entrepreneur with big dreams and a mission to lead a growing African business concern, he is the CEO of Vescovo Enterprises, which covers different business areas such as: V-Estate (properties development), Vescovo Entertainment (events, shows, party planning & celebrity management). ElRabbi (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... what are you refering to? Veverve (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Best to ignore that kind of thing and delete it. Usually just spammers seeking out someone who can publish their autobiography. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand not wanting blog posts as sources, but you removed a lot of what had been on the page for the last year, since the last time you edited even. 152.61.42.63 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... eh, yes, I did. Veverve (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note your edit comment "but it is false: the question of which councils they accept a ecumenical is an ongoing debate" for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthodox&diff=prev&oldid=1154627371 .

Both before and after your reversion, and both before and after my edit which you reverted, the number of "accepted Ecumenical Councils" for both denominations were the same, i.e., I did not introduce what you claimed as the reason for your reversion, and your reversion left the same data that were your reason for the reversion.

While I re-did the edit to your satisfaction, I did so in such a manner as to remove content that had long been there, and I ended up stating the difference far more verbosely that I feel is necessary. Please consider re-instating something along the lines of the edit herein noted.

I thank you. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lipsio: ah, yes you were right! Sorry, there was a lapse in my judgement. Veverve (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to revert to using the numbers of accepted councils? That is my preference, but I wish to avoid anything resembling an editing war. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lipsio: no, I think the current version is better. I maintain that the question of which councils they accept as ecumenical is an ongoing debate. Veverve (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve:Please note, in case you haven't, the changes made by another editor [21]; personally, I very much dislike the changes, but don't have the time and energy to get involved. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk)

Hello, hello, hello! I have a "work in progress tag" per talk and and you are already reverting me! Please WAIT until I have finished, then we discuss. That is what the talk page is for. Else we end up reverting each other and run over the 3 revert. Please WAIT until work in progress is done, as on talk. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yesterday, all my dreams...:

The model states two important things:

• "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well."
• "If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session." (my emphasis)

Veverve (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, technical details aside, may I please have your kind permission to finish my work in progress without fanfare and then we discuss the issue oon the talk page before we revert each other. We had discussed this on talk and I was hoping for a calm and orderly progress. That is not too much to ask, is it? So please wait 30 minutes, then discuss before reverts and a whole pile of unnecessary aggrevation. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yesterday, all my dreams...: no problem. I would advise using the proper template. Issues of reliability can be discussed later, so please do not remove any of the current sources. Veverve (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Veverve! Thank you for reaching out to me regarding the edit that I made to the article on "Papal selection before 1059". Can you please elaborate on what "point of view" I expressed in my edit? To the best of my conscience, my edit was perfectly neutral. Please join the discussion on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Papal_selection_before_1059#Why_was_my_edit_reverted_per_POV? Nikolaj1905 (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a 3rd opinion on our disagreement at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Veverve, i know you are the person behind most of the content of the True Orthodox Page as well as the creator of the graphic of the schisms inside the russian church.

I found a chart made by a person from the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (Suzdal) that did a quite impressive chart of the divisions and bishop trajectories, including new informations compared to yours.

His main source seems to be russian speaking wikipedia, as well as various TO newsite and official websites.

http://orthodoxie-libre.over-blog.com/2023/04/les-scissions-de-l-eglise-orthodxe-russe-hors-frontiere.html

Here it is, it might interest you Haidouk1453 (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Haidouk1453: thanks! I do not plan on updating my timelines on WCommons, nor to study the topic of EOrthodoxy's many schisms: it is too much work and confusion, and I think the timelines are already good as they are.

If you find mistakes in any timeline, please report them at the individual WCommons discussion pages of the timeline you want to discuss. Veverve (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Haidouk1453: due to the much needed simplification that the abolition of the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric is, I plan to ask in July for an update for the canonical territories map on WCommons to be made. This update will adde the MAcedonian Orthodox Church and remove the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric. Veverve (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Haidouk1453: Someone else has created it before I did: c:File:Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions (2022).svg. Veverve (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you have strong views about religion, however removing an entire section, "in popular culture" is unacceptable and is far from the 'trivia' you suggested on my talk page. This is not a religious text, it is a place to discover information, as such the section is entirely appropriate. --AlisonW (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AlisonW: it has MOS:POPCULT section that is literally about such sections and why they should not exist.

Also, the 1-month block is to me clearly unwarranted: if you disagree with my edits, then you can debate them. Veverve (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is we don't do In popular culture sections any more. It's a crap magnet. Secretlondon (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse: Initially I noted the massive deletion of a whole section on one article (Metatron), which this user then undid without, in my view, a proper explanation as to why they believed such a substantial amount of detailed and referenced content should be removed. Because of this undo I reviewed but this talk page and their recent activity (far from their statement on their user page that they aren't active one glance as user contribs shows they are *massively* busy) and that they have been blocked in the past for such unwarranted activity. I haven't reverted all of their deletions as some will require manual action, but even those I have done already amount to *27,988* characters over less than a week of their editing! This is detail that shouldn't be removed, some needs sourcing, some needs additional articles, but redlinks and one person's opinion(declared in edit comments where they exist) that they content isn't important in Veverve's view led me to conclude that another block was required to stop this disruptive behaviour. Maybe one month is too long, however it is clear that this editor has continued to act wildly despite other admins asking them to control their behaviour. --AlisonW (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@AlisonW: While some of Veverve's edits should have probably been reverted and discussed, I think you may have been too close to involved in this content dispute to block unilaterally. AIV may have been a better middle step? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this was about an edit I'd agree with you, but this isn't about 'content' so much as the removal of substantial WP content just because the editor concerned doesn't like it or feels the content isn't important. I didn't block for longer though, given their past history, it would be justifiable imho. --AlisonW (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not paint it as if I had simply acted whimsically: some parts were WP:TRIVIA, some things were not notable organisations, other things were OR from primary sources, others were unsourced (WP:BURDEN, that you violated), and one was a cherry-picked quote from Mother Theresa unrelated to the article. Most of the 27,988 characters are from one single article that was bloated by unencyclopedic information and unsourced, and clearly needed some work. It seems like an overreaction to me. Veverve (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ignore that I wrote AIV, I meant ANI. Sorry, still waking up Again, I think you were far too involved in this to make the block unilaterally. Per the litany of prior blocks, any block is probably justified as starting at one month in length (at least initially). Those are all my thought on the matter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @AlisonW: I'm not seeing a user conduct issue here. Ververve removed content he felt was inappropriate, which is generally allowed per WP:BOLD. It was likewise reasonable for you to restore that content if you disagreed, and to pursue other steps in dispute resolution if necessary, but it seems a reach to call this disruptive editing. And you blocked him without him having edited since your warning. Is there some aspect I am missing here? Otherwise I am inclined to unblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AlisonW and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: thanks for the notice. Still, I have some questions that I would need answers to before giving my statement.

Should I make a statement at this ArbCom case, or is my involvement purely procedural ("exceptional circumstances" says your second link)? If I have to make a statement, what should I add in it? Sorry if it is a question that is difficult to answer while staying neutral, but it is my first time being involved in ArbCom, and the two links you provided do not give clear guidelines on the content a statement should contain.

Or should I not intervene and let the admins speak? Veverve (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely up to you. If you feel that everything that needed to be said or covered is already out there at the AN discussion, then you can either leave your comment space blank or just post a short note to the effect that you are aware of the requested case and think the facts speak for themselves. Or you can make a statement if you think something needs to be mentioned not already covered or maybe a point needs a little more emphasis. This is not a legal proceeding. As long as any comment you make is not wildly off topic or obviously inappropriate, you are free to speak your mind. I was mentioned as a party in two Arbcom case requests. I only commented in one of them because I felt in the other case I had nothing of substance to add. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I am once again a bit confused. What should I do? Should I copy-paste what I have already written at the request page? Veverve (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing new to add I'd just add a note to that effect along with "see my comments at the AN and case request discussions." That's pretty much what I did. It's up to you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veverve, in the open AlisonW arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your issue with extending the already cited quote from William Jurgens and adding the following citation:

THE DECRETUM GELASIANUM. Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913) pp. 469-471. Available at: https://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm 50.110.175.67 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• extending the already cited quote from William Jurgens: undue
• adding the following citation: you use this to support your OR and possible POV.

Veverve (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the quote provides necessary context from Jurgens on his conclusion.

The additional citation from the Journal of Theological Studies provides information on more recent scholarship.

You removed it to continue promoting your POV which is based on modern apologetics, not the scholarly consensus. 2607:FB91:161A:C113:51E0:3248:24FA:1A53 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Veverve (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PorkyPowerPeanut (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:

• For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commissioning the SVGs of the new Vatican flag and coat of arms. Do you think that File:Flag of the Vatican City.svg and File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg should likewise be updated with the new graphics? Most countries have the "default" Wikimedia emblazonment of their insignia at "File:Flag of [name].svg", and I don't see why we couldn't follow this in the Vatican's case. In general, this would minimise the amount of updating needed across various articles (although I see you've already done much of it). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenpuff: thanks!

Do you think that File:Flag of the Vatican City.svg and File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg should likewise be updated with the new graphics?: absolutely not. Different images must be kept separated.

If you want the default behaviour to change, here is my proposal:

• move File:Flag of the Vatican City.svg and File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg to File:Flag of the Vatican City - 2001 version.svg and File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City - 2001 version.svg respectively
• change the target of File:Flag of the Vatican City.svg and File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg that will have become redirects, to target respectively towards File:Flag of Vatican City State - 2023 version.svg and File:Coat of arms of Vatican City State - 2023 version.svg

Veverve (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Why not use the template for missing link instead of reverting on the page Pope - Wikipedia Pope Francis? The list of popes in the article Pope shows that what I wrote is correct. Knubbe kub 13:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knubbe kub: the template for missing link: you mean Template:Citation needed? I do not use it because the WP:BURDEN is on you. Veverve (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndreasMar (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made some edits that are not correct, but I am not going to push on the issue. I was doing good faith edits, but yours and your comments have not been very helpful. Also, if you go to the official webpage of the "Ecumenical Patriarchate in America" [22], there is no mention of Canada and/or Mexico. "America" has several usages, even within Wikipedia, and the articles should reflect the sources, which is why I made my edit. Good luck with your edits! Coquidragon (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you read the article on Mount Athos, you will see that it deals with the mountain itself. In the first paragraph of the article you can read: The mountain and most of the Athos peninsula are governed as an autonomous region in Greece by the monastic community of Mount Athos. In fact, the hatnote in the article reads: This article is about the mountain in Greece. For the Eastern Orthodox monastic community and the autonomous region of Greece, see Monastic community of Mount Athos. Of course, the note in the Schengen Area article deals with the autonomous region, not the mountain, so the right wikilink is Monastic community of Mount Athos. The article title may be misleading, but the contents are not. Gorpik (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point now, sorry for the mistake on my part. Veverve (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you are of the opinion that the canons of the Council of Nicaea are subject to copyright? Styx (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Styx & Stones: after checking, the translation is from a book which is in the public domain. However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTREPOSITORY and large chunks of verbatim copy-paste like what you did is thus not accepted. Veverve (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't the creed, which is quoted in full in the article, also be removed since Wikipedia is WP:NOTREPOSITORY? Styx (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Styx & Stones: its removal could be argued, yes. Or maybe the shortness of the creed means it could say; I have not given much thoughts about removing the creed from this article. Veverve (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah guess so. Sorry for the confusion. Freescott (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really get many reliable sources on the ingredients of flavored chips, but if you do, it's sure to tell you that prawn cocktail, much as the real prawn cocktail itself, contains vinegar, vinegar powder (which again contains real vinegar), or vinegar-based sauces. That's what gives it all its zesty flavour. Do you really doubt what I am saying? Freescott (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freescott: things must be sourced by WP:RSs, see also WP:V. Veverve (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore him. He was a sock of a longtime banned user Evlekis who engages in harassment of editors who revert his stuff. I'm telling you this because he's likely to target you now that you know and have called him out. oknazevad (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've accused me of citing sources and using original research in a recent edit of mine that you've reverted twice. Can you please explain why you think sources I cited that are NOT the Church Fathers' own words are primary sources about the Church Fathers? As I posted in my revert of your revert of my edit, nine out of thirteen of the citations I added are secondary sources (ie, Strong, Duffy, Sullivan, Brown, The Catholic Encyclopedia, and Bavinck) while the few primary sources I cited give the context of those secondary sources' discussions and research (hence it not being my original research but their research). If you still think my citations are original research, I'd appreciate you detailing to me about why you think that.

Also, again, you keep reverting my added clarify tag. Please get back to me on this, as well, when you can. 174.66.234.150 (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the OR use of primary sources (i.e. do not quote Church Fathers from primary sources), I can accept your edit. Veverve (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop your nonsensical reverts?! The statement you keep referring to was made in relation to his health issues shortly before his death, whereas the sentence you keep reverting relates to his resignation as Pope nearly ten years earlier. You are wrong here! Tvx1 17:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this question because I am way behind reading the archives. It appears the time has come for you to do what you wanted to do with the file.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: thanks a lot for your utmost attention and your care.

This is quite the coincidence, beause I have asked recently on WCommons if doing a restoration and a transfer was acceptable. Apparently, I have to wait until the year after the person has been dead for more than 70 years do to so, so this means waiting until 2024. Veverve (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: I have chosen to upload another version of the image, with better colours and a higher resolution. You can see it here: c:File:Margaret Rope's "Lumen Christi".webp. Veverve (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on 4 Jan 2024 was unecessary. You claim the citations are a problem. How so? There are more citations in the article I posted than the one you reverted to.

Primary source citations are necessary in this context because it is a small church and there aren't many second-hand sources on doctrine. In any case, primary sources are most appropriate sources for what an organisation professes. Secondary sources are correct for descriptions baout historical events, of which there are few on the page.

If you have a problem with a particular source, please cite "dubious source" or something like that so it can be addressed. Complete reversion to the very short and vague article is actually unhelpful and that short version is totally unhelpful. Please see my comments made on "talk" pages to previous people who are have been extremely vague in reveting to this highly suspect shortened version. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eol Gurgwathren: there aren't many second-hand sources on doctrine: this is an argument for deletion for lack of notability, not for using non-WP:RS. Please read WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. There is nothing to add.

If you have no reliable source to support a claim, then you do not add the claim. Addition of information which is not supported by a WP:RS consitutes an infringement of WP's policies I have cited. Veverve (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the doctrines of the Liberal Catholic Church, the following is applicable from the page you redirected me to.

"The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for medical claims")."

Websites representing the church are are authoritive. They are the author of those doctrines.

The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical claims").

Websites representing the church with any news sections are like this. The church is to be taken at its word in stating what it believes.

You have not addressed the quality of the reversion. It is short and misleading in scope. The Young Rite is section is a diversion from the title. The comment on Wedgwood's personal life belong on the page linked to the article about his personal life, not on the church's page.

The article I reverted it to attempts to actually describe the church, which is the point of a Wikipedia page. Please soecifically state how one of the sources is inappropriate for the claim it is attached to and relevance of the claim. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Websites representing the church are are authoritive. They are the author of those doctrines: they are various random blogs and websites of small religious goups with no notability nor any way to know if they are real groups and real websites and not hoaxes. They can in no way be used for historical claims, or for other claims that are about something else than themselves. The LCC is not those groups, websites and blogs, nor are those groups, websites and blogs able to speak for the LLC; therefore, they do not qualify as primary sources.

2) It is short: since when are short WP articles to be looked down upon?!?

3) and misleading in scope. The Young Rite is section is a diversion from the title: this section has but a small paragraph.

4) The comment on Wedgwood's personal life belong on the page linked to the article about his personal life, not on the church's page: but it is relevant to the topic so this information can stay.

5) the point of a Wikipedia page is to provide relevant (WP:ONUS) and reliably-sourced information

- Veverve (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Those websites are actually church websites and not random. It's fairly simple to check up on themm. Get contact details supplied and use them. Cross-reference against other is you must. Unless you are claiming the church doesn't exist at all.

2) No it is TOO short. There needs to be more description characterising the church.

3) Given how short you make the page it is far too long. The page is about the Liberal Catholic Church. More than half the text is about The Young Rite. There is an issue if balance here.

4) It is biased and needs context which can be found the oage about his life.

5) Exactly relevant INFORMATION. That short article has almost no information about a 100-year-old church. The very I placed up gave a lot more context which useful sources. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yeah, random websites attributed to alleged small religious groups. The fact your argument is for me to start a personnal investigation to even prove those groups exist, suffices to prove your position is untenable.

2) Which WP policy are you relying on to attack small articles?

3) The paragraph is very short and that is acceptable to me.

4 and 5) It sounds like you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and have erroneous preconceived ideas on how an article's content is to be evaluated. Veverve (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's not random. You can verify through all of their contact details who they are. They aren't "alleged". These are very easy to track. I had a suspicion you were editing with malicious intent. I can see a pattern in your preferences and you're not denying your agendum here. It's becoming obvious.

2) Please don't play dumb here. The previous articles you eviscerated were far more informative. This is starting to seem malicious. You will see the longer article from 2021 is largely translated from a German one with lots of sources in German. So there is a reasonable chain of evidence. This isn't guesswork, and it looks like you are interpreting Wikipedia's standards as in strictest possible way.

3) It's too short.

4) You are interpreting Wikipedia's standard in bad faith here. Everyone has preconceptions. Mine happen to not be wrong. You are doing everything you can to suppress content on this topic. Eol Gurgwathren (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Pope Francis and LGBT topics regarding a reorganisation of the article. The thread is Article reorganisation proposal. Thank you.

I am seeking consensus for a significant reorganisation of the article. I would be grateful for your comments, as an experienced editor who has contributed to this article before. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:ANEW-notice}}--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though we disagree, I appreciate your commitment to Wikipedia standards and preventing edit wars, and I apologize if I gave the impression of one. As your most recent edit retains the language of *some* holding it to be a reversal of the 2021 statement that I added, I find it to be an agreeable statement consistent with the body of the article and the cited sources.

Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia a great place, and for your commitment to the enforcing of good standards! Ysys9 (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my edit on Leipzig Debate. My edit made it look as if Luther made the literal statement, which is what I thought, but it is a restating of a perceived "error" on the part of Luther. But I think we still have a problem with the statement as it stands ...

"Also, Luther's position (also supported by Erasmus) on burning heretics was later summarized as one of the statements specifically censured in Exsurge Domine "Haereticos comburi est contra voluntatem Spiritus" (It is contrary to the Spirit to burn heretics).

I don't think it is clear to say "was later summarized as one of the statements specifically censured in Exsurge Domine" then followed by a statement.

I think it would be clearer to say "was later summarized as one of the positions (or errors) specifically censured in Exsurge Domine".

Thank you.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobsd: I agree with your proposal. Veverve (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the consensus, I'll make that change.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was told my changes in the Arianism page didn't have reliable sources, but I did provide direct references and citations to the information provided from the direct websites to provide evidence of their Arian type beliefs.

Is there a specific problem with those references provided? 92.7.184.45 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer before Veverve does, the Arians United doesn't appear to be a major organization and is hosted via Wordpress, indicating that the content of that website is likely not reliable source material due to its blog-like nature. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Very well that's fair. May I request that the rest of the article be restored, minus the Arians United addition? 92.7.184.45 (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP: you have added either unsourced claims or claims sourced by non-WP:RSs. Thus, none of your additions can be restored. Veverve (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. Why would all the other sources which are reliable according to Wikipedia's standards, be grouped equally with the same treatment if only one of the sources were considered "non-WP:RSs"? 92.7.184.45 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All your sources are primary sources and blogs. Veverve (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, I didn't realise primacy sources could not be used. I have seen many other references in articles on wiki use direct primacy sources (for example, references to the JWs link directly to JW website articles, as I did with sites such as Unitarian Christian Alliance, Bible Students and Assemblies of Yahweh".

Are you saying only "secondary" sources 'about' those groups, but not those groups themselves and their own websites cannot be considered as a trustworthy reference to showcase these groups have modern Arian beliefs? 92.7.184.45 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources are to be used to establish the notability of information. This is to ensure that only noteworthy information are mentioned.

As a general rule: reliable secondary sources are to be preferred to primary sources.

Primary sources from a group can be used for information about a group itself as long as said information is mundane. However, using primary sources can lead to the unclusion of non-notable information, and to WP:OR through users' extrapolation of said primary sources. Veverve (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't follow your logic in reverting my edits for Holy Name of Jesus. They seem illogical to me. Would you care to elaborate? (Terot (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@Terot: see WP:EL. Veverve (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? I didn't found anything on that long, long page that would be in conflict with my edits. Surely you are not reverting my edits from purely subjective whim? (Terot (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@Terot: More specifically: WP:NOBLOGS. See also: WP:PROMOTIONAL. Veverve (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veverve :) I've read your userpage and noticed that have you retired (but that you still edit occassionally). While I understand completely if you do not wish to participate, I'd value more perspectives from people like you. Essentially, I'm interviewing people about their experiences editing Wikipedia and there's a question that focuses on whether or not someone plans to edit for the forseeable future. Given the nature of who is likely to respond to my invitation in the first place (active Wikipedians), I don't often get the opportunity to ask people who are at the point where their answer to that question is some degree of "no". So if you'd like to, I just wanted to say that I'd really appreciate your perspective there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Easter Joy
	Happy Easter to a fine editor! May you have a kind and joyful Paschaltide! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you taking a WikiHatchet to many adequate articles and public domain information across the entire spectrum of Wikipedia's Discordian collection. Let's revert most of those and have a full discussion with all of the editors who work on those pages, thanks. You've spent two days in removing and putting items up for deletion, etc., and expect other editors to time-sink these things, especially on a weekend. Please both slow up and revert, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've taken me to ANI using the above message as one of your talking points, without answering it and having a reasonable conversation? More time sinking of both the topic and, apparently, of editors who question your WikiHatcheding of the topic. With your hundreds of edits and deletions and deletion attempts over the last two days or so you seem to be trying to guarantee that your edits stand using swarming-the-zone tactics. Not the way most Wikipedians operate, although I've seen it done a couple times (not many, literally once or maybe twice over the years, this tactic is actually fairly rare on Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Veverve is deleting a lot of information from Discordian articles instead of posting citation needed. So I will do what I can to satisfy both of your points of view. I'm adding many cuts back but also adding sources for them. I hope that will seem good to both of you! :) Vajzë Blu (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vajzë Blu: I have nothing against reliably-sourced (by secondary RS) relevant (WP:ONUS, WP:FRINGE, WP:DISPROPORTIONATE) information on any topic. I wish you good luck in your endeavour. Veverve (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you support! I'm working on Principia Discordia now. I'll look at other Discordian articles later. Vajzë Blu (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to remove an active under construction tag and then remove parts of the article while I am working on providing sources. There are third-party sources to support the removed material, and you are editing disruptively. Instead, please use tags or the talk page to direct me in providing needed sources. Skyerise (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a difference between {{in use}} and {{under construction}}: the latter does not require that I be actively editing, but rather indicates that I am not done and will continue within 24 hours. No need to jump the gun, I will remove the tag when I am completely done. Remember, there is no deadline. Skyerise (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "under construction" tag gives me "several days", not just 24 hours. Please read the tag - you falsely claimed the tag said it could be removed after two hours - that's the in use tag, not the under construction tag. Skyerise (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise and others are clearly actively interested in this and other articles at the moment. This is an obvious occasion to add "citation needed" tags to questionable claims. That would be helpful, indicating to editors what needs to be cited. Deleting material, right now, is not helpful,however much chaos it generates... Furius (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at Talk:Discordianism. Veverve (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly not retired and I've removed the misleading banner on your user page to that effect. Skyerise (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not give you the right to edit my user page Veverve (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) you don't really have the right to make a change like that. If a user wants to have a banner that says they no longer actively edit, it doesn't need to be correct. You are free to do what you wish with your own user page, provided it doesn't break our rules. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. Apologies. Wishing you a happy retirement! Skyerise (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just went over to the RFD page and notices that all the ones you nominated were closed in about four days. I noticed you left a message over at Okmrman's talk page [23] about one of these RFDs. But really they all need to be reverted somehow. This seems to be disruptive editing to me. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that I also left a message on Okmran's talk page saying that he should reopen all of them [24]. Oakman, Skyerise, and Furius are quite the clown show regarding these RFD and Discordianism pages. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, just a reminder that when discussing users by name on a talk page that they should be pinged, even if they show up in funny hats and long shoes. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a section on the Admin Noticeboard to essentially request that the RFDs be reopened. Another editor joined the discussion who mentioned your username and actions. So, I am just letting you know you came up on the Admin Noticeboard. Here is the link to that discussion [25]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:ABOUTSELF and consider tempering your removal of sources under WP:SPS for which this exception may apply. Skyerise (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]