User talk:Pbritti/Archive 9

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Kasun has been accepted

Robert Kasun, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 21:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Surf Curse

On 22 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Surf Curse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite their song "Freaks" going platinum after becoming popular on TikTok, members of Surf Curse said they neither understood nor used the app? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Surf Curse. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Surf Curse), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Rosary

Can you take a look at the recent IP edits at Rosary, e.g.[1] and the two previous, adding "Roman" to "Catholic" in several instances. I'm not totally up on the WP consensus regarding Catholic/Roman Catholic viz-a-viz Anglicanism and thought you might be able to clarify/act on whether these additions are appropriate in regard to that consensus. I don't see them as adding much value, myself. Jahaza (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jahaza: beyond just non-Catholic bodies, the Rosary is formally practiced at more than a handful of Eastern Catholic Churches (whether that's a good thing or not isn't for me to comment on). I'll take a look in the next hour, thanks for bringing to my attention! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Would you know about Nietzsche?

Hello. Merry Christmas! I ask you this since WT:PHILO appears to be mostly dormant.

I have worked on the Zarathustra's roundelay article. The article seems to be lacking most of what is expected from an article about poetry and philosophy: explanations and the context within the work. I have not checked if the name 'Zarathustra's roundelay' is what is used in academic to refer to this text (at least, this is how the text is called once in Thus Spoke...).

By any chance would you have the competences and knowledge needed to improve this article? Veverve (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Regrettably, I don't know a thing about Nietzsche. I might try helping if I can tomorrow, though. Merry Christmas! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Review a few articles

Hey Pbritti, Merry Christmas!

You helped me with AFC review on Joseph Dabrowski and contributed significantly to Robert Kasun. Thank you, again!

My goal is to ensure the Canadian auxiliary Bishops that are genuinely notable all have articles. However, I'm concerned that a few aren't up to the same standard to which we held Robert Kasun (even prior to your edits). John Anthony Boissonneau and Vincent Nguyen are two good examples of this. How did these articles get past AFC, and should we submit them to AFD for not passing notability? Ethamn (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing has to "get past AFC" which is an optional process. No, you should not submit them to AFD, you should improve them. They don't even encompass a lot of basic sources that are available. Jahaza (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Book of Common Prayer (1604)

On 30 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Book of Common Prayer (1604), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that use of the 1604 Book of Common Prayer was authorized by the king of England, but later outlawed by Parliament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1604). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Book of Common Prayer (1604)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Maintenance templates, such as those you have a tendency to add when someone disagrees with you, are for tagging issues. Improperly using these templates constitutes vandalism. Please refrain from using this strategy; it's unhelpful and is an unfortunate clutter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
It signifies a dispute to be resolved through talk, not edit-warring. Until someone neutral can settle the dispute then the maintenance templates must remain attached. Elizium23 (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Elizium23: Correct: dialogue helps. However, I have found you unwilling to engage with sources that disagree with you in conversations with myself and others. In response, you have followed me to other articles and tagged my edits with spurious templates. Continued badgering will be reported. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Not only is this templating annoying under the rubric "Don't template the regulars." You've more than once used inappropriate templates. You did not, in fact, revert the edit. Jahaza (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Pbritti!

Happy New Year!

Pbritti,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Abishe: Thank you! A happy New Year to you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Pbritti. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Your Edit Reversions on Frank Pavone

Pbritti not sure why you hastily reverted my edits without posting on the talk page to discuss first. Pavone is a well-documented pro life activist in addtion to being a well-known anti-abortion activist. Deleting my edits and claiming "POV issues" is biased activity and violates WP:NPOV among other rules. It seems the liberals who advocate for abortions (a position with which by the way, I agree, more people should have abortions) is not a POV issue. The POV issue seems to be that my edit doesn't agree with your POV so you deleted it. You also deleted my additional additions stating that Pavone states that he will work to be reinstated, which was derived from a credible source. You're removal of these edits is inappropriate. GoWithChrist (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoWithChrist: The manner in which you phrased your edits were the issue. On the article for Priests for Life I saw you inserted essentially the same passage. There, since that article does not inherently need to meet WP:BLP standards, I felt more comfortable adjusting the phrasing. If you feel the information is relevant, an option is to copy-and-paste the modified passage to Frank Pavone. In the future, questions about edits on a specific article are best suited for the talk page of that article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Benevacantism

Due to a very recent explanation of Benevacantism by The Pillar, I have created a section at Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI#Benevacantism. Veverve (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll see what I can do, but I'm backing off of Wikipedia a bit (not entirely!) for a few weeks while I focus on some personal objectives. My apologies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Eastern Catholic liturgy

On 13 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eastern Catholic liturgy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Second Vatican Council tried to undo the latinization of Eastern Catholic liturgy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Catholic liturgy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eastern Catholic liturgy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

TLM rumor + possible new antipopes

Hello.

1) Rumor has that Pope Francis is preparing yet another document to restrict the Tridentine Mass. It would better be published very soon, for in a few months I should normaly not have the ability to devote as much time to Wikipedia as I have done in the past.

2) From what I read on this very militant blog, two rival Beneplenist groups may soon elect each their own pope as B16's successors. Veverve (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: Hadn't heard the first thing, so I will try to find some channels to monitor that thru. The other stuff has been on my radar and I will definitely try to work with you and others on dealing with whatever notable material comes from that. Thanks for the heads up and best wishes on your off-project activities. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Welp, the choice was both surprising and anticlimactic: https://www.fromrome.info/2023/01/30/53048/ Veverve (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Slovakian Greek Catholic Church

The Slovak Greek Catholic Church has been made a sui iuris church by pope Benedict's apostolic constitution Spiritali emolumento in 2008 ([2]http://www.grkatpo.sk/?jan_babjak_menovacia_bula - unfortunatelly I couldn't find it anywhere in English). Therefore the RGCC lost all of it's territory in Slovakia. The CNA article is simply wrong. --Pan Někdo (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pan Někdo: This report from the RGCC in the US refers to their visit to a Ruthenian seminary in Slovakia. The trip was in 2018. The CNA article is accurate; there are still Ruthenian jurisdiction sites in Slovakia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Still I believe that both are wrong. The official website of Catholic Church in Slovakia doesn't list "Ruthenian GCC" as a part of Catholic Church there, it lists only the Slovakian GCC (besides the Latin Church) [3]https://www.kbs.sk/obsah/sekcia/h/cirkevne-provincie/ (once again I don't have any English source). The problem has emerged probably because this particular church isn't unified and hence it's hard to find really reliable informations about it (especially in English, so English sources can have outdated knowledge of the current situation). --Pan Někdo (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
One more note to the report: the only part of it that supports the idea of Greek Catholic church in Slovakia belonging to the RGGC is "Pilgrims visited the Ruthenian seminaries in Ukraine and Slovakia." which (IMHO) is really weak. --Pan Někdo (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Pan Někdo: Since we have positive statements that the Ruthenian GCC is in Slovakia, we need to stick with that sourcing until we have positive statements to the contrary. If you find something not in English that says so, don't worry, I have friends who can confirm any translation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I can find it stated explicitely. But the official website of the [4]visit of the pope lists only the Roman and Greek Catholic Metropoly with link to [5]"Gréckokatolícka cirkev Sui Iuris". And to me this seems way more trustworthy than one article (despite being from well-known CNA). And even the Vatican News speak only about Slovakian Greek Catholic Church [6]. If there really was Ruthenian GCC in Slovakia wouldn't it be mentioned? --Pan Někdo (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Need of feedback

Hello!

I have tried to improve Heresy in the Catholic Church. I would like to have your feedback on the article in its current state. Feel free to improve the article if you feel like it, too. Veverve (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Since I have posted this message, I have expanded the article even more. I really would like to have your feedback on the current state of the article. Also, I lack inspiration for the very first paragraph of the lede, so your help is welcome. Veverve (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Veverve: I like the article thus far. Anticipate me adding just a touch more from similar sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

RSN

I was thinking about how strong your opinion about my use of RSN the past year was and I wanted to circle back to that. Is the issue you perceive limited to taking Catholic sites to ANI or does it also extend to the milhist sites? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If you could rephrase the question, I would appreciate it, just in case my response doesn't actually address what you're asking—I'm not sure what you mean by bringing up ANI in this context, sorry. If you mean the RSN discussions about "fansites", yes, I think your approach is unwise. You often recognize obviously unreliable sources (OrthodoxWiki the best example) but take them to RSN both unnecessarily—policy and the WP:BOLD standard means you can just go ahead and delete these sources without discussion—and phrased poorly. If you need further explanation, please let me know. To be perfectly clear, I have been really impressed by your general editing practices outside of noticeboards, and have no real gripe with you or your desire for reliability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, that ANI should be RSN. Sometimes the sheer volume of abbreviations around here scrambles my brain. IMO there doesn't appear to be such a thing as an "obviously unreliable sources" because its all subjective. For example to me EWTN is obviously unreliable and I'm not sure why we'd even waste five minutes talking about it, but some violently disagree so it clearly is not obvious to them (Hawk for example, someone I almost never find myself disagreeing with). To me there are two honest paths to follow in that scenario, one is taking the source to RSN and the other is trying to get the editor(s) who added the source banned for incompetence (as they should be if it is truly an obviously unreliable source, there is no excuse for such a source being used in the first place). Of those I almost always choose the one based more on community building than community culling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Off topic but Hawk is great, glad you get to interact with them and agreeing with Hawk most of the time is a good sign. I think your tactics could just use more tact. I have yet to find a reason to distrust your intentions and doubt I will. If you ever want help setting out a case regarding a regularly used Catholic/Christian source, I'll help you get the ball rolling even if I disagree with you. It's in everyone's interest that consensus is achieved once a discussion is begun, otherwise we just kick the can down the road. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
We have the same #1 mainspace (Uyghur Genocide) and #1 talk page (Talk:Uyghur genocide), socialist reddit thinks we have adjoining cubicles at the CIA. In general I lack tact when it comes to sensitive topics, I approach all topic areas pretty much the same and don't make much of a distinction whether the subject is agriculture, reality TV, military history, religion, human rights, or roads/highways (ordered least sensitive to most sensitive according to my experience so far). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, yes, the acronyms are infuriating sometimes. I was once in a role that was essentially only acronyms and Wikipedia is somehow even worse. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible DYKs?

Hello. Do you think Excommunication in the Catholic Church and Heresy in the Catholic Church that I have expanded by a lot over the past few days could be good DYK candidates?

Also, if you think they do, feel free to propose them as DYK. Veverve (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: Sorry to say but probably not. The excommunication article was expanded over too long a period of time (usually the limit is 7 days) and much of the expanded text is from a merge, so it's disqualified on both. The heresy article has not been expanded five-fold in terms of content, but you have two more days to do so if you can find cause for that (I don't think it's worth it). If you're looking for something to DYK, I'll forward you some article desperately in need of expanding clean-ups. That said, both articles are in far healthier condition than earlier this month and I commend you for acting on them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In case you need this

Here is Category:Traditionalist Catholic writers since you said you wanted to search for authors or this type. Veverve (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting

Wikipedia users in the United States Mountain West and High Plains will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, articles, or photographs of our region is encouraged to attend.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Page

Dear friend,

May I know how the changes that I made has to do anything with violations. All the edits have been cited to books. Do let me know what mistake I made. The only edit which was not cited were the name of bishops and their dioceses which I created as a table.

How is that not helpful for wikipedia? I'm trying to restructure the the page that feels like a lot of junk more systemised. Randomscholar1996 (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randomscholar1996: Much of the material you removed was reliably sourced independently from the church. Much of what you added is cited to books entirely unsearchable online (which is permitted but discouraged) and cited to sources from the church (sometimes permitted but with limitations). You may want to raise further inquiry on the article talk page if you feel your edits should stand. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank You for the pointers. Fair enough, it is hard to provide all the books online from which I've put down as source. I'll try to put it in the talk page. That being said, it is a sad fact that many pages are forcefully biased. For example: In the World Council of Churches the Central Commitee consisting of Protestant,Orthodox reps and Catholic observers, put the Mar Thoma Church and the Assyrian Church as seperate confessional traditions/families outside Orthodox and Protestant worlds. Sadly these citations were also removed by the user Macinderum. The opportunity of making an article better is pushed aside. Randomscholar1996 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
As a user's talk page is not the appropriate venue for discussions, I have commented in Talk:Mar Thoma Syrian Church.--Macinderum (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarification

Thank you for reaching out on my talk page - I’m not sure if I replied correctly there, so I’m also leaving the message here. I have not edited under another account. I don’t know who either of those accounts are. Could we discuss, on the integralism talk page, some way to improve the article? As it stands, it doesn’t paint an accurate picture of the subject matter, but if my edits are not solving the problem, we could find some other solution. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Ritual family

On 18 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ritual family, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the particular church to which one belongs determines the right rite and the use to use? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ritual family. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ritual family), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Use (liturgy)

On 18 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Use (liturgy), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the particular church to which one belongs determines the right rite and the use to use? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ritual family. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Use (liturgy)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)