User talk:Elizium23/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Reverted edits on some Percy Jackson universe pages

Hi, just wanted to let you know why I just categorized several pages in the Camp Half-Blood chronicles with the category "Rick Riordan". I did this mostly to make sure that the pages are monitored by the "Percy Jackson Task-force", because they are for some reason not visible on the watchlists the project uses and have thus been the subject of some recent and unnoticed vandalism. Couldn't really find a better way to do it; thanks for catching my mistake. I won't contest your edits reverting those changes, just informing you of my reasoning. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I just added Rick Riordan to the Category:Camp Half-Blood series, so perhaps they will show up now. Sorry I wasn't clearer in the edit summary. Elizium23 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

From the task force main page: "Any article related to this task force should be marked with "percy-jackson-task-force=yes" to the {{WikiProject Novels}} project banner at the top of its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax). This will automatically place it into Category:Percy Jackson task force articles." Elizium23 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, but I am a little worried that there are some pretty confused categories out there. For example, isn't "Rick Riordan" a parent category of all the Camp Half-Blood things? So how can that page fit under one of its subcategories? 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that now. I took out Category:Camp Half-Blood series which should not be a parent of Category:Rick Riordan. I'm looking into the rest now. Elizium23 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just went through and made sure every applicable page I could think of was tagged as under the scope of WP:PJTF. A surprisingly large number were not; maybe this was part of the problem. Hope it helps for your organizational purposes. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I went through the categories and restructured them. I possibly threw the kitchen sink at Category:Camp Half-Blood series, which consists of most of the categories I found in articles to be applicable to the whole series. See what you think of the new ordering. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Organization-wise, it seems perfect. The pages Vespers Rising and Percy Jackson's Greek Gods could stand to find a home in there, but I can't think of any other critiques to make. Thanks so much! 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Five Guys

Five Guys! Hi Elizium23! I am not good yet at making changes yet at Wikipedia. According to Five Guys american site, where you can swith to United Arab Emirates location.

http://www.fiveguys.me/ http://www.fiveguys.me/contact http://www.fiveguys.me/~/media/files/fiveguys/publicsite/arae/fguaewebmenu.ashx

Maybe you can update the Five Guys information correct.

Thanks for your concern and help/magnushal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnushal (talk • contribs) 06:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Catechism copyright

I got this link to the Catholic Catechism simply by Googling. It's very prominently displayed there, and apparently a stable listing. Yet the edition has no copyright info, but only a page ii anonymous note: "This book was extracted from the web by a humbled man in Christ. This edition is not for resale or monetary gain, only to spread the good news to all whom thirst for righteousness." I know the catechism can be purchased online, and am therefore wondering if the pdf therefore represents a copyright violation. I've thought of creating a link to it where it's referenced in the Sabbath articles, but am wary. Do you know if it would be legitimate to do that? Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I found an official online edition that's better. I'll link to that. Evensteven (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There are two official online versions offered in English: the Vatican and St. Charles Borromeo parish. I prefer the latter mostly because it's indexed and searchable. Elizium23 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I had found the one at the US Catholic Conference of Bishops website, which seems to have the same capabilities. Evensteven (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I forgot about that one. It is pretty fancy. Elizium23 (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You will want to check out {{CCC}} rather than doing it yourself. Elizium23 (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, nice. Didn't know about that one. Still, I may trouble myself to use the bishops' site: more flexible than the Vatican's, more gravitas than a parish church (if that really matters). Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film)

Hello Elizium,
The dit I made is not from another source, it is just something I noticed myself (and maybe a lot of other people as well). So, I think a citation is not even possible.
Kind regards, Meltrain~nlwiki (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Then it will not be possible to include on Wikipedia. Please see WP:Verifiability. Elizium23 (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the sources are both the book and the film and a comparison between those two can be made. It is just not mentioned in other books. Meltrain~nlwiki (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is called WP:SYNTH to take several sources and manufacture new data that they don't explicitly say. It is WP:OR to interpret primary sources in any way. What we need for inclusion are reliable, secondary sources which explain the differences exactly. Elizium23 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Abel Clarin de la Rive

Thank you for copy editing Abel Clarin de la Rive. I tried to clean it up as much I could when accepting, but it's always nice to see articles go their own way after one accepts them. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My improvements didn't last very long. But you're welcome. Elizium23 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

An editor with some competence issues

The editor we've been discussing with suffers from some serious competence issues. But, he or she doesn't seem to be an edit-warrior. My current feeling is that I'm going to ignore his or her strange talk page emissions about DRN and whatever else, so long as they don't result in any further bad edits. You are of course welcome to pursue the same strategy or not, as you prefer. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take that into consideration. Elizium23 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please cease posting scurrilous allegations of non-existent behavior to my talk page. So far in two days it is has been an imaginary "edit war", a "personal attack" that was not, and an accusation of "profanity" that was fictional. -- Eblem (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Catholic bishops of the United States, Los Angeles

That's why I notated them as Bishops-elect. Also, Bishop Wilkerson has resigned. Roberto221 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bishop Wilkerson's status should be updated, but as for the three Bishops-elect, they are not yet bishops and do no belong in lists of bishops; why not wait until they are ordained? Elizium23 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Better?

? 108.73.114.207 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's wonderful! I am not sure all of the changes are needed though. In my experience, there is typically no whitespace wanted between an infobox and the start of the article text. Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That IP is banned. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some other incarnations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality on Agee page

Hello, I would like to draw your attention to notes and comments on my Mary Cunningham's Talk page concerning neutral point of view my recent post. I am rather new at this collaborative process and am not certain whether I should have posted my questions and ideas here instead. Your help in learning the best way to communicate with you and your thoughts on the material that I have now edited would be very much appreciated. Thank you for your time.Realitycheck2 (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the talk section and respond there

There was nothing drive-by about this work, and you have done nothing to refute the analysis, careful analysis, that the article is in largest part in violation of WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There was a delay between the tagging and the posting to the talk page, and I wrongly thought that there would be no talk page post. If you'll notice, I did revert myself already. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your collegial response to the foregoing matter. Otherwise, please note, for a variety of reasons, I edit at times logged in, and at times not. (I have no interest in edit counts as a reflection of contribution, nor have I concerns at having the IP addressed from which I edit when traveling known. I never sock-puppet, and so I am not mis-using this option. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Unitarian and Universalist

I don't think that all Unitarian and Universalists claim to be non Christian. Why should just 2 be excluded? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I just went with what Nived 90 (talk · contribs) did, and frankly I don't relish being the arbiter of who is and isn't Christian, especially because my opinions are different from Wikipedia's. But I think in general, "Unitarians" might be Christian, "Universalists" might also be, but put the two together for "Unitarian Universalists" and they never are. So I have made another edit that divides them up along that line. The problem is that these associations and organizations are mxitures of all different kinds, so some are Christian and some aren't. It's got the potential for a real mess. Elizium23 (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Move of New Talk Page Section in WP:NCCL

What was the purpose of relocating the new Talk Page Section on the appropriate title/style conventions for Cardinals? There has been no Talk Page activity regarding WP:NCCL since June 2014 save for this, and the revision will only serve to bury a legitimate question of form. Interested in your reasoning here... UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not bury it, I unburied it. I placed it at the end of the page, where new discussions belong. Nobody would have found it at the top. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand the intention, but the idea of new discussions (especially on general WP guidelines) being best found on the bottom of the Talk Page seems contradictory to that same intention. Is there a page discussing protocols for this, that you know of? I'd be intrigued to start a discussion and gather some wider consensus –– it seems to me that especially where Talk Page activity that effects WP Policies & Guidelines has been dormant, new issues should be presented at the forefront.You and I apparently have a particular focus on issues regarding Church Institutions and thus quickly caught onto it, but this is not necessarily true of the larger community of editors. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. –– if no prominent discussion comes to mind, I'd be happy to start up a policy RfC and summarize what we've thus far discussed? UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:TOPPOST explains this guideline; it is part of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Elizium23 (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for directing my attention to this. I have initiated this policy/proposal RfC regarding Placement of New Sections in Dormant Policy Discussions. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert of Edits to "Songs from the Silver Screen" and "Jackie Evancho"

Hi. I noticed you had reverted an edit changing "Jacob Evancho" to "Jay Evancho" on the article Songs from the Silver Screen as well as the article Jackie Evancho, as "Incorrect information".

I'm sorry to say this, but you are wrong, dead wrong in fact. Jackie Evancho's newest cover song and corresponding video All of the Stars features a transgender theme, and Jacob has come out as transgender, now known as Jay or "Juliette".

You might ask how do I know this? Some random on the internet? No. I am a part of an forum which happens to be run by the Evancho's THEMSELVES (Particularly Lisa Evancho, Jay and Jackie's Mother.) http://jackieevancho.freeforums.net. We knew about the new song and were speculating, except for Lisa and 2 admins, we had no idea what it was going to be about. Jackie Evancho confirmed that the video had a transgender theme in a Q&A on her official Facebook today, and said that it was a matter close to her.

Register on the forum and contact user "lisaevancho", or even post your questions and she might answer them on the forum, IF YOU ARE LUCKY.

Thanks for hearing me out. Haseo9999 (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

We're going to need reliable secondary sources describing this, forum posts aren't going to cut it. Elizium23 (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of "From the Plant-Based Community"

Dear Elyzium, I just looked at the editorial guidelines to which you directed me, and I believe Saleh’s essay whose summary you deleted is covered by the Wikipedia guidelines under the section “Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.” Here’s why:

Nivien Saleh was a professor at the University of St. Thomas and the Thunderbird School of Global Management, and is a current adjunct faculty member at Arizona State University (See www.NivienSaleh.info). Her global political economy work has been published as a book with Palgrave Macmillan (“Third World Citizens and the Information Technology Revolution.”). In addition, she has peer-reviewed publications in academic journals and articles in Internet magazines such as The Atlantic or Slate or the Pacific Standard. Her area of expertise is global political economy, and she examines Laudato Si’ from a global political economy standpoint, using elements of discourse analysis. Plus, as a professor at the University of St. Thomas, part of her job was reading encyclicals.

She is an expert in the field relevant to her analysis, and her work has been published. That's why I believe her article falls within the Wikipedia Guidelines.

Please read her essay, and you will find that it it is high-quality work. It analyzes Laudato Si’ in-depth, not just cursorily. In addition it follows all professional standards for footnoting, quoting, and citing facts. Any interpretations of the original source material (Laudato Si) are marked as such. And the claims that Laudato Si’ supports a plant-based diet are bolstered both by quotations from the encyclical’s text itself and multiple sources of factual evidence.

For these reasons and since the essay builds a valid argument, I urge you to reconsider your deletion. Miraculix1 (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Mocking jay part 2

I wanted to make the page look neater 300Orrs (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

JBL

You seem like a pretty level-headed individual, Elizium, and I see that you have also experienced some of this guy's less than charming behavior. You may have noticed the latest here [1] which doesn't seem to have caused a stir but should have. I'm new. Any suggestions? Regards. Motsebboh (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to decide for yourself whether the IP editor is or is not trolling, based on a reading of the article and the editor's comments. Once you've come to the correct conclusion, you can make a post in that section (using no naughty words, if that suits you) in which you lecture the IP editor about WP:AGF. Possibly also you can teach the IP editor how to read, so that their future comments can relate in some way to the actual article here.

P.S. In the future I have exactly 0 interest in being pinged on conversations like this if it is not required by policy of some sort. I believe that it was intended as a positive gesture, and possibly other editors will feel differently. As it happens, I do not appreciate personal comments directed towards me in WP, as you can see by my response to the IP; if you'd like to make them, I request you do it out of my sight. I am unwatching this page after this message. --JBL (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of "From the Plant-Based Community" (part 2)

Elyzium, have you had a chance to review my talk comments in "Deletion of 'From the Plant-Based Community'" (above, posted a week ago)? What are your thoughts?Miraculix1 (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I remain opposed to its inclusion. But perhaps you should propose it on the article talk page and see if you can gather consensus for it. Elizium23 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Elizium23. I have done that. And sorry for misspelling your name earlier today.Miraculix1 (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

List of popes page issues

Hi. There have been recent edits made by user 艾德一世 on the "List of Popes" page which includes the addition of images that have not received general agreement on the talk page in addition to pointless additions - some of which are not factual. I hoped that perhaps you would assist in clearing this up. Any help would be greatly appreciated to get the page back to its appropriate format that was far better than it has now turned into. 115.64.163.13 (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Society of St. Pius X

I'm not going to revert you because I agree with your second edit, but according to everyone in authority in the Catholic Church, the SSPX does offer valid but illicit sacraments, so saying that they exercise "no legitimate ministry" is incorrect. In either case, having that be the first sentence of the article is a huge WP:NPOV violation. Thank you for removing it. --HGK745 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but I don't think the SSPX does offer "valid but illicit" sacraments. Certainly the eucharist as celebrated by SSPX clerics is valid same for baptism and ordinations, but I'm fairly sure this is not the case for absolution, confirmation, marriage or annointing of the sick -- except in emergencies. Moreover, I believe Benedict XVI made it quite clear that the SSPX exercises no valid ministry within the church. Lw (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Lustywench is exactly correct, except I think for anointing of the sick. The other three require jurisdiction. While the SSPX claims validity under "Ecclesia supplet", the Catholic Church denies this and has determined that the sacraments are of doubtful validity at best. All clerics are suspended a divinis from the moment of ordination, and as such, have no legitimate (licit) ministry in the Catholic Church. Because of this reason, every time they offer a sacrament, Mass for example, they sin gravely. Elizium23 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the letter from Pope Benedict XVI. "The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." Elizium23 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

A lot of sources, type on Google. 25 October is incorrect.--Ingenium 7 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. I'm looking at Catholic Encyclopedia and Butler's Lives of the Saints, which both say October 25. Elizium23 (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

Next time you remove content, try reading the source first. We are allowed to use actual quotes, but are encouraged to also paraphrase when possible. That's what I did. My wording ("a right-wing group specializing in anti-gay litigation") was mild compared to the actual source ("a far-right fringe group that specializes in anti-gay litigation"). -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It still violates NPOV. Acceptable usage would be "a group described by Slate.COM as specializing in anti-gay litigation". Not in Wikipedia's voice, you don't. Elizium23 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Better Disambiguation

I agree that the phrasing of the paragraph is not good and also that citing Wikipedia as a source is not correct. I am new to Wikipedia. What would be the best way to approach this disambiguation? It has already lead to some confusion (an Esquire article was published with erroneous information). Some sort of link at the top of the page: "For the Church associated with Kim Davis see..." Or the creation of a new paragraph: The False Association With Kim Davis, and then information about the Esquire article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enarche (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You will need a reliable secondary source that is better than Esquire that proves the Esquire article is wrong and an incorrect association has been made. Even then, I am not sure a denial or disclaimer would be appropriate for an article that is not related to Davis in any way after all. Elizium23 (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

RS on book article

Recently you notified me of your undoing my edits on Robert Spencer's book called "Politically Incorrect...". Thank you for letting me know and giving me a chance to improve. In the meantime, I tried adding content which reference a no doubter; a professor of religion and Islam at a major American anniversary: professor Carl Ernst whose work is always peer-reviewed by scholars. But, someone reverted that edit as well. And, the two remaining references are from very un-reliable sources: NRO and Daniel Pipe's publication. Neither one of these pass the WP:RS test on Islam. They are both self-proclaimed experts and their current writings will not pass any peer-reviewed process from an acceptable scholar. Am I missing something? If I am, please let me know. If not, please send an alert to the other editors as well and alert them to stop undoing my edits. I am following up with you under good intention assumption.--NiceAdam (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Reversion to previous version of "Apostolic Christian Church" and "Apostolic Christian Church of America" pages

I understand that Kim Davis is a current controversy, and in the long term, is not relevant to these pages. However, at the current time, her controversy is very relevant to these pages because media (news and social), are incorrectly directing readers to these pages and these churches websites. It seems like a service to clarify the inaccuracy as quickly and simply as possible. fritzmb1 (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(a) they're poorly sourced. (b) who is going to land on those pages by accident? what mechanism is going to send them there instead of Apostolic Church (denomination) which is linked twice from Kim Davis (county clerk)? Elizium23 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Kim Davis (county clerk) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

List of popes

Hi, regarding your edit to the above. This source is an article (in a magazine) entitled John Paul the Great. Is this sufficient, as it seems to be the opinion of one person? Regards Denisarona (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There are more sources available if needed. Several organizations such as schools have taken the name. It is prominently noted in the main article Pope John Paul II. Elizium23 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elizium23. You have new messages at Quibilia's talk page.
Message added 21:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am Quibilia. (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Reversion to previous version of "Vanity Theft" page

If you reverted the page back to the version which included "all girl" in the initial description, are you now going to change the pages of all of the all-male bands, other all-female bands and mixed-gender bands to include gender information -- e.g. The Pretenders are/were 25% female and 75% male? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealfig (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Being "all-girl" is a defining characteristic of this group. Moreover, there are categories on Wikipedia which fit this and other girl groups. Category:American girl groups and Category:All-female bands, for example. Likewise, there are all-male categories for when that is appropriate, such as Category:Boy bands. Why do you have an objection to accurately describing this band in particular? (I don't care what other stuff is out there.) Elizium23 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not have an objection to accurately describing this band in particular. I am not sure where you got that idea. It was just the first one which I edited among many which I noticed are inconsistent. It is not constistent if the adjective phrase "all-girl" is used for some all-female groups and not others -- e.g. The Bangles -- and if the phrase "all-male" is not used for all-male groups -- e.g. The Who. From what I know, being "all-girl" was not a requirement for being in the group; it was merely what it turned out to be, just as Led Zeppelin ended up always having been an all-male group. From the "Other stuff exists" page: "When used correctly, ... comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." I do not feel overly strongly about this; I waited a couple of years to make a change on the page for one of the bands in question. I am just trying to make the encyclopedia more consistent Nealfig (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Nealfig

List of people who have been considered deities

I am a little confused by the purpose of your template copyright violation warning. All three of the images are from the infoboxes of those entries. If you took the time to check you would know I clearly did not upload any of the images. I was not aware that you had just removed two of the images the day before. I added all the images in good faith to improve the article, I object to such an inappropriate warning, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The images in question are all with a non-free copyright, and that means they must comply with WP:NFCC. Among other things, the file needs to include a Fair Use Rationale specifically for the article including it, and these did not. Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Warhol

Thank you for your request to reinstate my comment on Warhol with a source. I will actually ask you to do that for me. I am a physician and upon reading the statement on Warhol's condilomata I had to amend it: please be aware that you can contract condilomata thru other means, not only sexual relations; its a scientific fact (therefore Warhol could have been telling the truth on being a virgin). If you could kindly find a source (easily available) and insert it for me I will appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll let the current misleading statement remain. Thanks.--Healkids (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Article for Deletion/Keeping

Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Index, indexes, indices

Spanish Inquisition. I'm thinking that Wiktionary:indices seems to suggest that the word is reserved for a mathematical pointer into a table, matrix, modern computer indexing, if you will. Indexes seems like the right word. Student7 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating. I accept your reasoning. Elizium23 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

sideline from EOC

Hi, Elizium,

Thanks again for your kind words. That's actually a really comforting thing for me to hear right now. I hope my replies did not come across as testy or irritable. And that's why I'm here now. Would you please give me feedback on that very point? I've been considering taking a Wikibreak just for that reason (but have resisted in order to finish up a couple of things, all of which seem to drag on and on. Argh!) I'd like to know if I'm doing ok in maintaining an even disposition myself, because I'm not feeling very even. I just hate contentiousness and bickering! And eventually, I need to step away. I'm two months past my return home during the summer, and haven't even been able to get back to my earlier project, because of stuff like this discussion. It makes me wonder why I came back. And now I need a break again. Well, I at least don't want to let the mood disrupt the civil pattern I want to maintain. But the strain shows when I need to ask a friend if I'm even managing to do that. So, I'd be glad of another word from you. Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the quickest advice i can give to you is Mark 9:38–48. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent advice, as always. Many thanks. Evensteven (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis AfD

This is the second AfD. You need to do some research before making such spurious AfDs. The first passed as SNOW keep. We also have several RfCs and the article is under constant development and discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Really, BullRangifer? He's not wrong about the article being about a 1E individual. What's more, it wasn't a snow keep nor was it an "overwhelming keep" (as the closer stated erroneously). There were weak keeps and enough deletes to keep it from being considered WP:SNOW. You need to do some research before you make spurious accusations and claims. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Trout

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For starting an AfD without being involved in recent discussions that had been taking place on the article's talk page, or without even being aware of current events that had recently occurred about the subject of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

w/e Elizium23 (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Change WP:PJTF scope to cover all of Rick Riordan's works?

Hi, Elizium23, hate to be "that guy" who keeps harping on this, but I'm hoping to get all the Percy Jackson Task-force members to reach a "final" decision about our scope so we can determine how and if to handle Riordan's new Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard. In my opinion, if we decide on a new scope which covers that series, then we need to begin work on applicable pages for it, since the first book has now been officially published. Do you think this project should become the "Rick Riordan" task-force? I'd appreciate your comment here. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Iglesia ni Cristo

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Iglesia ni Cristo. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.90.50 (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerical honorifics in articles

Hello, It does not seem to me that WP:HONORIFIC applies to all uses of clerical honorifics in articles. This interpretation of honorifics seems to me to be contradicted by other aspects of the MOS. My reading of things is only that clerical styles should not be used before a person's name in the opening sentence of articles on a specific person. I do not see any indication that it refers to other people mentioned in the rest of the article. Thoughts? Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea. I am simply implementing it as has been the consensus across articles I edit, which is to seek and destroy every honorific within sight. I would be relieved if it were not so strict as that, because it seems to me that this interpretation only serves to reduce information that should be available to readers. However, it is not me that you need to convince, but the community. Perhaps a discussion on WP:BLPN or somesuch is in order? Elizium23 (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Dear Sir or Madam:

I gather from your description of your recent revert that you consider my contribution to Wikipedia as "Vandalism." Please know good Sir or Madam, that my family-of-origin has a long history of honorable military and public service, that most of us have completed at least an undergraduate-level college program, and none of us has for any reason ever been arrested, and we have been self-supporting members of our community. That you would refer to a good faith contribution of mine as "Vandalism" is extremely offensive. I have never committed vandalism in my life; to do such a thing would bespeak a person without any positive contribution to make to society, which is a shameful condition.

I took a hiatus from working on Wikipedia some years ago, because it seemed and that unless the contributor relished a great deal of nastiness, animus and confusion, one wouldn't find it a pleasant workplace. Thanks to you, Elizium23, I see nothing has changed.

You, Sir, are a barbarian.

Ivain (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort, my friend. If you would notice from my edit summary and the content of my revert, I handled two problems in one edit. Someone ELSE vandalized the page, linking several terms to "Negroing" as a synonym for "Lynching". Herein was the vandalism. Your edit was simply not supported by the source you supplied, and that's what I said in my summary. There's simply no need to make a personal attack on me because you misunderstood something I did. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Really. Oh, I think I understand quite well indeed. I will now go through every page in Wikipedia and remove all of the information citing poorly sourced material (in my opinion), as well as unsourced material. And when people ask on my talk page why this was done, I will reply that the editor Elizium23 has shown me that this is how things are done on Wikipedia, and they should speak with you if they have a problem with that. Ivain (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, I would never do any such thing in real life, because that would be vandalism, and honorable people don't behave that way. Honorable vs. dishonorable behavior - something you wouldn't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivain (talk • contribs) 02:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't get all bent out of shape at me because I objected to your edit. You don't seem to understand the point of WP:CIVIL or collegial, collaborative editing. You can't justify your edit on any logical grounds so you've come to shoot the messenger. Stay classy. Elizium23 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Elizium23: I apologize for calling you a barbarian, and for addressing you in an angry tone generally yesterday. It was I who was behaving barbarically. My outburst of temper, rather than anything about you personally, was the cause of the invective in my correspondence to you. I wish I could take it all back. You won't be hearing from me for quite some time, because I'm embarassed at how I behaved. I have a bad temper, blow up like a volcano, say things I don't mean at all, hurt and offend people (naturally) and then cool off and am sorry. When will I learn? Sincerely, Ivain (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Dearest Ivain, certainly I accept your apology. We all have bad days once in a while. I hope that does not discourage you too much. Please know that I will be praying for you. God bless. Elizium23 (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Elizium23, thank you for your handsome reply. Much appreciated. Your behavior throughout has been as exemplary as mine has been . . . er, leaving much to be desired. I'm glad to know I'll be in your prayers, and you'll be in mine as well. May God bless you and yours richly. Ivain (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Narnia Heroes

I removed information that was redundant. We know from their photos whether they are male or female and that they are human. Also, another line mentions that they were born in England. Q43 (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Personality test

Sorry about the edit. I was traveling, and slipped up. Iss246 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. I observed that someone without a Wikipedia ID and no previous edits make the deletion. As a result, I thought it was an episode of vandalism, when it was not. Being on the road, and in a bit of a hurry, I thought I was doing the right thing. Sorry. Iss246 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That's perfectly understandable. Thanks for the message! Elizium23 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Re

Sorry, and you are? Cassianto ^Talk 08:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Help

I want to become part of the twinkle page, but I am new Wikipedia user. Would you be able to assist me with getting startedColo4breex79 (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Percy Jackson Task Force

Hello, I plan to be the "Magnus Chase" Expert within the Percy Jackson Task Force. So please don't hesitate on asking any questions relating to the Characters and the Series(Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard). I hope we have a fine time working together to better the information about Rick Riordan's books on Wikipedia. Yaohuijiang (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Society of Jesus reverts, November 16

In reverting my removal of red print from this article, are you advocating using this device wherever we wish to give prominence to someone? Or what is your intention here?Jzsj (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I explained on Talk:Society of Jesus. Elizium23 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mother Teresa Criticisms

Hi I am Gobechara. I am trying to edit an article in Wikipedia after 9 years. Hope this is the right way to leave you a message! I am slow and you were far too quick for me! The reference is now added. On the whole I find the article unbalanced, however. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobechara (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Christians in science and technology

Dear Elizium23,

I received the message below from you:

"Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Christians in science and technology, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so!"

The listing for me at this website said "born ????" Normally I don't think it would be appropriate for me to edit most information about myself that others put on Wikipedia, but I thought it would be okay for factual information such as my birth year. I assumed that I would be a reliable source, but I can see that my own memory would not be something others can check online. I was a bit puzzled as to how I could give a publicly accessible reliable source for my birth year. Should I look for my birth certificate, scan it, post it on the Web somewhere, and then give a link to that?

Fortunately, I found that someone else had given a link to a website giving an interview with me that gave my birth year. (Of course, this information also relied on my memory of my birth year that I had told the interviewer, but at least this information was already on the Web and did not require my uploading anything.) So I assume that I do not need to do anything further for providing a reliable source for my birth year.

Don Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donpage (talk • contribs) 16:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts Edit

Hi there!

Sorry about the confusion on the Fantastic Beasts page. I'm an American with a pretty thorough knowledge of American English, but I had never seen the word "instalment" before. I assumed it was a typo or vandalism, and I reverted it. My mistake. Again, sorry about that! Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Thanks,

Rob (rmaynardjr)

No worries, thanks for the note. Elizium23 (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Worlds together worlds apart

Several editors doing this, maybe a school project, certainly spam. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Elizium23. You have new messages at Grutness's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Jerome J. Hastrich, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. . If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grutness...wha? 06:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Hunger Games universe

Btw the 'nightlock' command sequence is actually in the book (in fact, as I have not yet seen the films, I would not know about it if it was not). The reference is right before Part III (have the ebook so I am not sure what page) in this quote:

"Once it's working, it responds to the other voices in the squadron so if, say, Boggs were kiled or severely disabled, someone could take over. If anyone in the squad repeats "nightlock" three times in a row, the Holo wil explode, blowing everything in a fiveyard radius sky-high. This is for security reasons in the event of capture." Not that Im mad or anything - just thought you might want to know.

I reverted myself, because a quick check of the Hunger Games Wikia proved that the Holo was in the book. Unfortunately I don't have the books at hand to check directly, but I like to use Wikia sites as a kind of cross-check in cases like this. Thanks for the note. Elizium23 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Re:St. Peter move

Maybe I wasn't clear. This is what I was trying to get at. You don't spell out Doctor when writing about a doctor. You write Dr. Oz, etc. You shouldn't spell out saint when referring to a saint. You should type St. Peter. I noticed that Dr. Oz's show's article title is Dr. Oz, not Doctor Oz. People might say Saint Peter in talking, but nobody writes Saint Peter when writing down his name. They write St. Peter. My name is Joel DiBacco, and I might be addressed as Mister, but when written down it would be Mr. DiBacco, not Mister DiBacco. That's how I think St. Peter's article should be titled, St. Peter not Saint Peter. NapoleonX (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Bishops in *

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Courage International. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Stalking

What do the articles Courage International, Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, John Tong Hon, Imprimatur (novel), Pope Innocent XI, and Robert Sarah have in common? Any ideas? Other than that they are all articles where Elizium23 has edited recently in order to directly amend or reject edits that I have made. To demonstrate that these edits have been made in good faith and are not personally aimed at me then I would ask Elizium23 to clarify whether they are a Roman Catholic priest or not. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 : Why is this a relevant question even if Elizium is a Roman Catholic priest? I have just checked his most recent reversion on the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article and it was completely justified as you added information to the article which was not in the cited reference. Doing so is not acceptable and any responsible editor would have reverted it. Anglicanus (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Because there is a potential conflict of interest. An employee of the Roman Catholic church editing an article relating to the Roman Catholic church carrys a serious risk of bias. I note that Elizium23 has not denied this. Someone familiar with greek and latin and an almost exclusive focus on Catholic-related articles creates a degree of legitimate concern. I ask again that Elizium23 clarify whether or not they are a Roman Catholic priest or has any official connection to the church. I am in favour of full transparency, and this is not an unreasonable request. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Elizium can answer for himself (or herself for all I know) if he wishes to, but being a Roman Catholic priest editing church-related articles does not in itself create a conflict of interest, even a potential one. Do you also believe that gay people should declare this about themselves if they are constantly editing articles on homosexuality issues and that being gay creates a potential conflict of interest for such articles? Anglicanus (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Junípero Serra

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Junípero Serra. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dave Dial (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Lady of Guadeloupe

Hey, sorry I reverted without leaving an explanation. The reason that the article does not belong in the observances category is that if we included every Catholic saint and Marian Title in the observances category it would become very bloated. The observance is listed on the article for December 12, and under December 12 in the article for December. If you want to make a separate article for the observance, feel free, but the article itself doesn't belong in the category. Asarelah (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba

Hello. Please stop removing my edits. You are simply making a fool of yourself by showing your lack of understanding of common grammatical devices. The article clearly describes the female historian as 'leading', so who are you to say she is not and then to cloth your objection using Wiki policy? Your shifty attempt wont fly past me. Unless you can prove she is not a 'leading' historian then you have zero right to remove it. Also, if you don't know what the purpose of 'however' is as a grammatical device then perhaps you should take the time to educate yourself before you pollute more Wiki articles with your ignorant editing. Good day. --49.195.22.157 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless you and your accomplice provide proof of plagiarism, by clearly quoting text, your new attempt to ignorantly stifle my edit will come to naught. If you continue upon this unceremonious path i may report your unethical actions. --49.195.22.157 (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please understand that violating copyright on Wikipedia is not acceptable. If you are going to add new content, it cannot be copied from somewhere else (without proper licencing). --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Society of St. Pius X

Hi Elizium23. The source you cite mentions seminarians wearing black birettas, but I can't see that it sources the statement "features of the pre-1965 pious devotional practice for hundreds of years". Did I miss something? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have added appropriate sources for the biretta and tabernacle veil. Elizium23 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

thx

thank you very much for your concern and im kinda new here although i used to have multiple accounts i stopped with Wikipedia for awhile because i was to busy moving to a different place to come on so i made a new account and this is the first account i have had for awhile sooo right this minute i am trying to make my profile page thank u again for ur concern have a happy new year

Wikipedia is not a social networking site. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Which articles or topics do you intend to edit? Elizium23 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

pope john paul I

is not british english. wikipedia however, is american english by default.

https://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us Meesalikeu (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Maronite Church

That particular paragraph was moved from the article about Saint Maron since, on the one hand, it did not appear to pertain to a biography of the monk, but, on the other hand, if I simply deleted it, somebody was bound to get upset. That's all. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Furore

Considering that Carrie (2002 film) was written in American English, furore would be considered misspelled, as that it not how the word is spelled in American English. That was why I put misspelling as my edit summary. And even if my reason didn't match what you thought, as you pointed out in your comment, it was still a correct edit. So leaving a comment telling me to be careful about what I "correct" was unnecessary. If you had just mentioned that you didn't think it qualified as a misspelling because of WP:TIES, that would be more understandable. But instead, you left a comment that sounded rude and condescending. I would recommend rewording your sentences in the future, as well as making sure your comments are relevant and helpful. Chickie4 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Engleham

Thanks for your support. It seems like they have been at this for a number of years. Even after they got blocked for repeated sockpuppeting, I received another personal attack in the form of being called a vandal. I don't want to redact it myself because I have a feeling it would snowball too quickly. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

...and now he's attacked you in one of his famous lengthy rants. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is insane... someone oughtta disable his talk page. Seriously. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

catholic.hierarchy.org

As you suggested, I started the discussion regarding catholic.hierarch.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.catholic.hierarchy.org Patapsco913 (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your commentary regarding the possession and title issues, while we disagree on some points, I agree that fundamentally you are correct. I will consider changing the practice on my main website. (Historically it was done in that way because the dates of consecration and/or installation were rarely available in a timely fashion outside of the US/Western Europe. That is no longer the situation.) I've also sent you a related email on wiki (or tried to - first time trying that!) --Dcheney (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, David! That is great nees. God bless. Elizium23 (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

List of religious slurs

Hello I see you have reverted my edits to List of religious slurs. Please kindly and promptly state your reason, otherwise I am afraid I will have to revert them.Messiaindarain (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

YahwehSaves

I'm not sure if you can facilitate, but I might also suggest keeping an eye on YahwehSaves, continuing to use 75.79.31.20 as a sockpuppet. I'm active-duty military, so I can't dedicate the time necessary to back-track/research all the uncited/unreferenced/original content edits made (Chesty Puller, George Armstrong Custer, Fergie Jenkins, "A" Device), some resulting in edit wars. He's been disruptive for years, I just don't have the time to pursue him anymore. Sorry for any inconvenience Bullmoosebell (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Primate (bishop)

Hi there ! It's Bert in England, I'm replying to the message you left on my talk page. The section in the page Primate (bishop) related to the title of Primate of Normandy was not accurate when referring to original French sources. That's why I modified this page. Concerning the fact I didn't leave any hint as for why I did so, it's because the box in which you can list what you've changed is a bit erratic : it only appears at times. Bert in England (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you removed my modification. I made it use the {{ill}} template as it should. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, "To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged. Exceptions: Wiktionary and Wikisource entries may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed), and {{ill}}, {{ill2}}, or {{ill-WD}} templates may be helpful in some cases to show both a red link and an interlanguage link." Please build on my work and that of others and collaboratively edit so that the best outcome can be achieved. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)