User talk:Elizium23/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Copy right violations

Kindly give the reference of the source of material which you have deleted in the name of copy right issues from Mar Thoma ThroneRoshyf2 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

marthoma lent festivals and fast

http://lamarthoma.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/7/2/3072254/faith_practices.pdf

given as citation no 86.. the uploaded data is a church document.Roshyf2 (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The uploaded data is not yours to contribute. Write in your own words, or you will be blocked from Wikipedia. We are serious about copyright here. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

Where do Marthoma church during Indian independence movement figure in the said document ? and it is my creation . fast and lents of marthoma church is a derived passage from the document not an exact copy. i have made it in my own word. there is no copy write issues involved here. It is a church document and free to use, moreover the necessary citation of the material is given in citation 86 .No copy rights is violated , you may kindly discuss with me which part you feel has infringed copy right violations before deletion for better appreciation Roshyf2 (talk) 03:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You need to prove that the document on the web is your own document and you have the rights to release it to a Wikipedia-compatible license. It is not under CC-BY-SA now and we have no way of knowing it is yours. Please see WP:OTRS for information on how to assign copyright to Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Elizium23

You deleted all most 17000 words on accusation of Copyrighted material. you have deleted many paragraphs which is not at all figuring in the document which you are accusing [1]. I already told you there is no copy paste editing. however the citation is added for better appreciation.I am not saying the document belongs to me. In writing about fast and feasts i took it as a reference or citation to give exact information of what are the fasts ,feasts and lents of marthoma church. The matter under that paragraph is details about festivals in church like easter , christmas, pesaha, hoshana, ash Wednesday etc and how can you say the description about that festival is a copy writed one and all these are univerasal facts. the document as such is not used , the document is used for referral or citation purpose only. even then Why did you delete

• 1. marthoma church during independence movement.
• 2. Abbeys and monastries and theological seminaries
• 3.bishop houses
• 4.Sacraments
• 5.Organisations etc which not at all figure in the document you accuse.

moreover what is the copy paste involved there. show me pls. I want the matter to be be reinstated as it gives completeness to the main article. if a sentence or word is problematic why do you need to delete the entire matter? as i already asked we can have a discussion on that. Who did the edit war . in spite of my request for discussion on the particular areas of dispute in your talk page ,you have deleted. Which is unjustifiable. this matter is created after spending many hours in front of the computer and it may be easy to delete it by a click. As i am new to editing ,you can take the matter for dispute resolution or WP:CCI ,let a third party decideRoshyf2 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox Church

Sorry, I see now that I misread my source on women as deacons. But the fact that only men can take holy orders in the Orthodox Church is widely-sourced, indeed it is perfectly obvious to anyone modestly familiar with the institution; I nevertheless felt that it was important to add a brief explanation of that for anyone unfamiliar with it. I have re-edited my post for accuracy and cited a source, but I disagree that citing such a widely-known fact is always necessary (sure not *every* sentence on wikipedia needs a citation.) I also think you could have been more helpful by simply editing out my incorrect statement about women deacons and leaving the correct information in place, presuming that you knew what part was incorrect and which part was not.104.159.151.38 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Indentation and what I meant

Re this. Technically, I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, hence the lack of indentation. I was commenting on the bizarre nature of the thread itself. If you want to discuss general changes to a large swath of articles on biblical topics, we have WT:BIBLE and WT:MOSBIBLE. An article talk page, especially one with low traffic, on an article that is not one of the ones that would be affected by such a change, is not an effective venue to discuss such things. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That's why I started an RFC at WT:BIBLE. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes you did. About three hours ago, an hour after I wrote what I did, and roughly eight years after the talk discussion in question was opened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

So what? My response on Talk:Psalms was about something VanEman did and wrote a few hours ago. The genesis of the conversation and its age are irrelevant. Elizium23 (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you alter and recontextualize my comment, then? Also, in my experience if you want outside commenters to join an RFC, already involved participants should limit themselves to one or two comments. I will respond to your questions and then refrain, and I recommend you do the same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Cbetheridge messing with the Institute of the Incarnate Word again

I've had trouble with supporters of this organization viewing the wikipedia page as a personal promotion page. I noticed that you were the other one who warned User:Cbetheridge on his talk page and he continued without even responding to both of our points. The latest is eliminating the controversies section (melding it inconspicuously into history) and adding content not relevant for a wikipedia page. What can we do? (You seem to know WP more than I.) >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 04:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Good morning Father. Yes, it is a difficult situation. I am not very familiar with the article history, but I'll try to comment on what I know. Cbetheridge is claiming there is information cited to blogs that shouldn't be there. He is correct in this. For example, Rorate Caeli is currently cited in the article (linked there, but attributed to Catholic Culture?) it is not a WP:RS and any statement it supports should be removed, or cited to a truly reliable source. Secondly, about the controversies section. According to WP:CRITS, it is discouraged to have a separate section. Now I will point out that this is only an essay with no force of law here, but it is probably a good rule of thumb. I often feel that if negative information can be woven in with the positive information, there is less chance of it becoming overwhelmingly lopsided. So in these issues he has a point. But he also seems to be adding large swaths of unsourced information to the article, in general pushing a POV, has started making veiled legal threats, and appears to have a conflict of interest being affiliated with the organization. So I'm going to warn him for the latter. I suggest looking at WP:DR to see if there is more you can do. I appreciate that you have attempted twice to engage on the article talk page. The fact that Cbetheridge will not is more evidence of disruption. Don't let it turn into an edit-war, because that will hurt your own reputation. So far you are doing all the right things. Elizium23 (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about the policy of not making controversies another section. I was taking this more from general practice on similar pages like Legion of Christ and Opus Dei that make it a separate section. (You can check my edits and 80%+ are about Catholic religious organizations and lay movements.) Rorate Coeli here is citing a WP:RS in Spanish. Even though a blog, I suspect RC probably is at least a borderline WP:RS because of how much it is used / cited elsewhere int he Conservative Catholic world as reliable. I guess that ref should be redone with Spanish first then RC as a "English Summary." (I read Spanish but I guess most readers would not.) I got a message from him on another medium where he was claiming The Independent was either unreliable or shouldn't have published the diocesan statement kicking the IVE out, so I think he may have an issue with WP:RS not just COI and NPOV. I assume it is just a lick of understand WP policies on his part. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Sorry, did not realize there was such a thing as a 'move' tab and one does not show up for me. Jgefd (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Jgefd You should see a tab next to the search box that says "more" and it has a down arrow next to it. Place your cursor over that and you will see the move command. Years ago it said move but that was changed through one of the up (down for some) grades that happen every so often. MarnetteD|Talk 03:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD I see it now, thanks so much. Jgefd (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome Jgefd. I should add that moves are tricky things and should be approached with caution. Elizium23s message on your page has one place where you can ask about the ins and outs of performing them. There is also the WP:HELPDESK. MarnetteD|Talk 04:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

RRTF update

Hey there! This message is going out to all active members of WP:RRTF. I just found this amazingly useful old template lurking among our pages. I decided to update it and create a new section on our project page that will hopefully inspire some more collaboration between members. Please go check it out, and feel free to contact me or make any improvements you'd like. Happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

RRTF request for comment

Hey there. Just wanted to let you know that the article Carter Kane is up for deletion. A discussion has been started here. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

RRTF Roll-call: August 2016

♦ Hey there, Elizium23! This message represents your invite to the annual WP:RRTF roll-call, August 2016 edition. It's been a year since our last checkup, and all members are being asked to quickly determine whether they wish to stay on for another one. Our current membership options are: Active Member, Supporter, and Inactive Member (see our members page for more information). You are currently listed as an Active Member. Please leave your response to this roll-call here. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC) ♦ WP:RRTF Aug/Sep 2016 roll-call Your name has been placed in the "unknown" section on WP:RRTF's members page. Feel free to move it as you see fit! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Welcome Back! Welcome back! I hope you are doing well! Many thanks-RFD (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Thank you. You're welcome. I am not sure I am back permanently, we will see how this goes. Elizium23 (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Don't do that again Templating people for reverting your POV edits is a really bad idea. Please don't do it again. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC) My edits are neutral and conform to Wikipedia policies. Yours did not. Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Your message on my talk page The normal cycle on Wikipedia is edit-revert-discuss. Editor BoBoMisiu does not appear to have heard of this, and prefers to revert without consensus. I warned him after three reverts, the fourth was the last straw. Read the rules. I find your warning quite offensive. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC) BoBoMisiu has been blocked, and you are next on the chopping block unless you gain consensus first before editing again. WP:BRD is not "bold edit-revert-discuss-revert-revert-revert-discuss-revert-revert-revert" and you are a party to the reverts just as much as he was. Discussion is oriented toward establishing a consensus so that the next iteration of BRD ends at B. Elizium23 (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC) The issue is about putting material back in without consensus. The rules are clear. Be careful. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC) ANI notice There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Dubious claims of having spammed Wikipedia My two cents: you believe [2] to be spam because it offends your religion. But it is to the point and it is solid Bible scholarship by a Harvard scholar. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC) You have reverted it in several articles: Does it discuss religious opinions upon masturbation in an article about religious opinions upon masturbation? Check. Does it discuss the church in articles about the church? Check. Does it discuss theological inerrancy/infallibility in articles about theological inerrancy/infallibility? Check. Does it expresses the verifiable views of a credible scholar in a reliable source? Check. So, I see no WP:PAG reason for reverting it, much less for claiming that it would amount to spam. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Is it WP:FRINGE? No it isn't. It is mainstream Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC) I have replied in WP:ANI. Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Your amendment request Your amendment request has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality#Amendment request (October 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Your Demand That Sources Be Cited You claim that I am not permitted to make changes to Wikipedia or add content without citing a source for each change. Yet a substantial amount of content on Wikipedia is not sourced. Please explain this inconsistency and why you are holding me to a higher standard than apparently 80% of Wikipedia participants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.19.121 (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC) I am not responsible for over 80% of Wikipedia, I only care about what goes on in my watchlist. I demand compliance with WP:V, which says, in part, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." If you are unable to provide a source in some manner, then please do not attempt to add information to Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Yeah, it is suspicious That a new user's first edits are to attempt to AfD several articles. However, stating that you think he's a sock in your first note to the user may appear bitey to some. To me, if he is a sock, he knows you know, but if he's a genuine new editor, he won't understand it, so no harm done. - BilCat (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC) I charged a bit too hard out of the gate there. Yeah. But my spidey-sense is tingling. Elizium23 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Understood. P.S. I've been on WP 10 years now, with over 100,000 edits, and I can't do AfDs without assistance! Thankfully I use Twinkle. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC) How much do you want to bet now that he will abandon that account, because an admin is on to him. If he's a sock then he will pop up elsewhere later, we may never notice. Elizium23 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Won't bother me any if I don't notice them again! - BilCat (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Galen Your edit was good faith, but "Von" should not be used as part of a surname standing alone. Other edits there include translation of "S" (Seite) to English "p." (page). Moonraker (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Yes it should be used. Have you read Clemens August Graf von Galen#Terminology note? Elizium23 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC) That has clearly been added in this article, but it isn't good practice, and I'm not aware of a Wikipedia policy which says that. Somewhere we do have something about not muddling pages up with multiple unnecessary vons, I'll see if I can find it. Moonraker (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC) It's eluding me, I'm finished for today but I'll look again tomorrow. In the mean time, if you doubt the standard English language and Wikipedia usage, you can read through any significant article here (or anywhere else in a good reliable source) which has the particle "von" in its name, such as Otto von Bismarck or Franz von Papen. Treating the "von" as undesirable in the abbreviated name is certainly the practice of Encyclopædia Britannica and the Oxford University Press. Moonraker (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Copyright Sir/ Madam I am Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath, the Judial Vicar of the Major Archdiocese of Trivandrum of the Syro- Malankara Catholic church. I have the cpy right of the website www.ctholicate.net. Kindly retrieve the changes made on the page Syro-Malankara Catholic church. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.208.28.239 (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC) I am completely unable to do that, Father. Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and follow the instructions there. You will have to prove to Wikimedia that you are who you say you are. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Help with adding a reference Thank you for helping me with adding references. I added two names to the list of notable Knights of Columbus. I am the grand knight of their Council. My reference for their membership is both my personal relationship with these men and their listing on the membership roll of my Council. How to I cite the membership roll as a reference? Thanks again! Arffmarine (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC) This is not among the possible methods for obtaining a reliable secondary source. It needs to have been reliably published somewhere. The membership roll is confidential information and not published material. What we are looking for is something like a newspaper article or book. Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Winter-Standard time you are mixing Daylight saving time with Winter-Standard time. Turkey is already in Daylight saving time and not switching back on November. The same is true for Hawaii and Samoa as well. They don't use the Winter-Standard time. 71.191.8.25 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the correction. I've been using "wreck" for this my whole life XD. I guess that isn't saying much as I'm 15 years old and not a native speaker of English. But I do wish to contribute information to this website. Thank you. Nahiyan567 (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Tobin If Tobin doesn't change his see until installed, why did you make this edit that gives him the title Archbishop of Newark? For that matter, any idea why the program for today's consistory identifies him as Archbishop of Newark rather than of Indianapolis? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Yeah, I just didn't look hard enough. I thought Newark had been added. I can't find any reference to the Cardinals or their names in that program linked. It's simply the Order of Mass. Elizium23 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry, my bad. That was the link for tomorrow's door closing. The link for the consistory is this one. The list of new cardinals follows the title page. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC) In the ceremony itself, available here ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4GRQoZfUJk ) at 32:25 Archbishop Tobin is announced as Archbishop of Newark (Novarcensis in Latin). Although clearly that is not technically his correct title (yet).--Dcheney (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC) SSPX Resistance websites violates USPTO copyrights 4,869,277 registered on 15th December 2015 and Circle crown logo. USPTO trademark Reg.No. 4,857,708 registered on 24th November 2015 Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.134.54 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, Elizium23. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Catholic cathedrals by church/rite Hi, the term «church» instead of «rite» can be confusing, because it is one church with several catholic rites or «particular churches» in communion with the Pope, this source for example combines the term rite, with the church, as equivalent http://www.gcatholic.org/churches/asia/3711.htm (Syro-Malabar Rite) http://www.gcatholic.org/dioceses/rite-Sb.htm (Syro-Malabar Church, Eastern-Rite sui juris Catholic Church) I would opt for rite that leaves no doubt that it is one church, this other source also calls them Eastern Rites https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2741 (The Popes and the Eastern Rites) this other source also calls them Eastern Rites http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/liturgy/rites/the-rites-of-the-catholic-church/ (The Rites of the Catholic Church)--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Catholic churches by sui iuris church, or Catholic churches by particular church Would be a better option because it distinguishes it from the categories of churches or denominations that are different churches--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Your changes to the Harry Potter film series article The Harry Potter film series article is about the eight Harry Potter films. Surely that's obvious? The Fantastic Beasts films will get their own film series article in due course. Do you see The Hobbit films integrated into the Lord of the Rings (film series) article? No. The Hobbit has a separate article because it is a separate film series. If you really want Fantastic Beasts and Harry Potter movie information in one article, then use J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World article. Doogooder (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Lord's Prayer Hello Elizium23. I have reverted your change here because the source linked to in the article very clearly does not include the lines that I removed. They were added by an anonymous editor on 16 October 2016 without changing any of the sources. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC) I took another look at the source, and it appears the lines do appear in a footnote. I apologize for the confusion. However, I still don't think we should restore the lines, since the source doesn't see fit to include them as part of its base text. Perhaps at most, we could include a footnote in a similar fashion to the source. Mz7 (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC) I apologize because I am typically vigilant about anons coming to add/delete/change the prose and make it go out of whack from the source material, and I had not realized that an anon had made the change that you were merely reverting. I do think there may be merit to including it, in italics or parentheses or as a note, yes. Elizium23 (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Your change of NARAL Pro-Choice America Your edit of NARAL Pro-Choice America included characterizing a position of the organization as "pro-abortion". That is obviously not something that most members of the organization would accept as being an accurate or neutral description. I suspect that you knew, when making that edit, that it does not represent a consensus wording that would be acceptable for Wikipedia. It therefore seems to be tenditious editing. Please don't do that. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Please see Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC) No one involved in that discussion has supported that wording, except perhaps you, but thank you for pointing me to it. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I am unaware of any guideline or policy which binds us to using terms which "most members of the organization would accept as being an accurate and neutral description". We are beholden to Wikipedia policy only, not that of the organizations which we document herein. Elizium23 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I'll agree with that much. If we're talking about some fringe group, we might describe it in a way that its members would disagree with. But I don't think that is the situation for NARAL. There is a clear difference between advocating the decriminalization of abortion and the hypothetical notion that abortion is somehow desirable, as would seem to be implied by the term "pro-abortion". It is not really a subtle point. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Then you will appreciate my object of having parity for both sides of the debate by using a term that does not disparage the goals and missions of either camp. Elizium23 (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you very much for your further comments. It's a very tough topic, and I'm not sure a perfect terminology exists that would be universally considered unbiased and adequately descriptive as well as adequately concise. To me, the term "pro-abortion" is a bit of a "third rail", since I don't know of anyone who would say they actually like abortion, but I will try to understand that not everyone sees the terminology in the same way. —BarrelProof (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Fantastic Beasts Are you going to post a reason for deleting relevant production information? Are you relying on the Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)#Country of origin thread for your rationale? If so, I suggest you think again. That thread starts with people saying there is no clear information from one of the institutes (the BFI is a cast iron source for this sort of thing); the remainder of the thread is given over to the language variant. Fair enough to remove any country from the opening line, but it is extremely questionable to mislead readers in the basic information in the infobox. - The Bounder (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC) I am going by the consensus which has consistently reverted the addition, including @TropicAces: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(film)&diff=751743770&oldid=751742481 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(film)&diff=751133387&oldid=751131436 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(film)&diff=751538106&oldid=751532486 I can see that the Talk page arrives at a slightly different opinion. Perhaps that conversation needs to be un-derailed and rekindled in order to better form consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC) I personally I am fine with including the United States, but technically only production company involved is purely British, so by its very definition the film is simply a British film, despite Warner Bros being a distributor. TropicAces (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)tropicAces Sorting by one letter instead of entire word Hi. I just replied to your query on my talk page. Eagle4000 (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC) I just replied to your reply. Eagle4000 (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC) José Sánchez del Río Hi, Elizium23: I don't understand why did you revert my changes in the article of José Sánchez del Río. I quoted the only official document (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20051115_beatification-messico.html) in which is affirmed that his feast is celebrated on November 20. Where is it said that his memory is on February 10? I am looking for a newer official document, but in the meanwhile I don't think that one can guess something like this in Wikipedia because "it sounds like it should be so". --Castaliensis (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC) His feast day is cited here and here and here as February 10. It stands to reason that his feast should be different since he was canonized individually apart from the companion group in which he was beatified. Your link dates only from his beatification and does not cover his canonization. Elizium23 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC) But then you should put a new section inside the arthicle discussing about the feast. "Some people and Catholic groups say this because..." You cannot put as an "official" date something that is a guess. In the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church the only authority is for the Calendary the Holy See. Look, for example, in the case of St. Theresa of Calcutta: they said explicitly the new date. --Castaliensis (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Edits to Kirill page Thanks for changing the article body but in the process You erroneously changed a quote (in a source tag, not the article body)KevinCuddeback (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I missed that, thanks for catching it. Elizium23 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC) December 2016 Thanks for reminding me! If i do have problems regarding editing page i will ask you, please help me. Thanks Elizium23 Baracudas44 (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I'm so sorry I did not noticed that I removed that notice. Thanks for reminding me. Elizium23 Baracudas44 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Silence (2016) and Wikipedia copyright Thank you so much for your guidance. I'm working for Paramount and simply wanted to update the synopsis with the approved synopsis as evidenced on the webmaster page which I linked to. Can you please let me know how to do this? Paramount does have copright permissions to use this synopsis as depicted but want to make sure I'm following Wikipedia protocols. Your guidance is greatly appreciated. XochitlRuiz (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Hello. The links you will want to read include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar Thank you RFD (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Greetings And Merry Christmas, a bit early! Sorry about my revert. Somehow I was seeing things backwards, until I checked the results of my own efforts. No wonder I couldn't understand how you did what I had thought. You hadn't! May you have joyful seasons, both now as we look ahead to Christmas, and after, as we celebrate His arrival. Evensteven (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the note. May your seasons be joyful as well. God bless. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Merry Merry Season's Greetings, Elizium23! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Marnette! Merry Christmas to you! Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "Entitled" Eh, I think both words are correct. Some people like to use “titled.” Other people like to use “entitled.” Both have been used for a long, long time and all the dictionaries I’ve checked say that both are OK. That said, I won't be challenging you to a revert tennis match. Bluesphere 15:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Stalking You follow me around these articles like a bad smell. Don't claim please that it's just a coincidence. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Indeed, Elizium23 it is trivially easy to see that you are simply stalking Contaldo's edits looking for a fight. I suggest you stop and move onto something with a more productive future. You lost your content disagreement with Contaldo. The best thing to do is learn from the process and use it to help us all make a better encyclopedia. Thanks for you efforts thus far. --Adam in MO Talk 18:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC) I have 37,470 edits under my belt. Since a topical change about six years ago, I have edited chiefly in the broad topic area of the Catholic Church, and with a special concentration on bishops. It is most unfortunate that Contaldo chooses a topic area that coincides with mine, but his Alinskian tactic of trying to blame me for his own WP:TE is not going to fly because it is utterly baseless and without merit. I first edited the article in question here three years ago for a Latin Church/Latin Rite disambiguation project I had started. I fail to see how his raising a dispute 3 years later now implicates me in a stalking. I simply follow my watchlist and my topic area. I try to ignore Contaldo80 as much as possible because his presence is bait for me to violate WP:CIVIL and I, for one, uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines because I value my status here as an editor in good standing. In the future I would encourage third parties to WP:AGF about my intentions, rather than jumping to conclusions based on a shallow reading of contributions. I had to dig into eight years of article history to find the chronic problems in the Spellman article now coming to light. I have done quite a lot of work toward building consensus and dispute resolution and I resent being insulted and dismissed as somehow editing in bad faith. I, for one, choose to retain comments on my talk page until they are duly archived, so that all can see the kind of venom spewed by people who resent my presence and activity here on the project. Elizium23 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Merry Christmas Thank you! And a Merry Christmas to you! --Zfish118⋉talk 21:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Exhortations to Assume Good Faith on Talk:Institute of the Incarnate Word We have a history: years ago I conceded to you an "I stand corrected" for politeness' sake. Not so now: I have no rash contribution to correct. I came to the aid of an editor's express request for talk comments. In perusing the material under consideration, I noted obvious inconsistencies in choices of content included -- and traced its provenance for better comprehension of the material -- while drawing attention to characteristics of laudable content (from readily verifiable sources) curiously excluded from one language version but not another, ie hiding it from certain Wikipedia readers for no apparent good reason. This isn't a lapse in "assuming good faith" rather it is trust in the good faith of prior contributors to the German page to have the confidence to transfer their good work and integrate it under an appropriate subheading as suggested by another editor. I prudently made no change to the article itself. Process my analysis as your see fit, or not, all in good faith. Can we agree to avoid any occasions of "exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others." in our common, freely-willed pursuit of intellectual honesty, auch auf Deutsch sollte es Ihnen besser gefallen? MrsKrishan (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Season's Greetings! Hello Elizium23: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers. Sorry, too late. IreneTandry (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC). Thank you. And a very merry Christmas to you as well! Elizium23 (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Just ping me with "@IreneTandry:" I don't know if you replied my greetings. I see your talk page between you and The Bounder. I also have edit warring to him. Maybe the Bounder is British, so this Wikipedia used English with British version. IreneTandry (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, Elizium23. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed Hello Elizium23! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 20:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Ichthus April 2018 ICHTHUS April 2018 Project News By Lionelt Belated Happy Easter and Kalo Pascha! We're excited to announce the return of our newsletter Ichthus! Getting this issue out was touch-and-go for a while. Check out what's happening at the Project: There was a lively discussion about the Easter Did You Know nomination Christ the Lord is Risen Today RFC at Knights of Columbus regarding a question about having Prop 8 in the lead In anticipation of being nominated for Featured article, Presbyterian Church in the United States of America was put up for Peer Review by Ltwin The death of Billy Graham on February 21 was a profound loss for many. For the Wikipedia reaction see this discussion. Graham received a blurb. And... Order of Friars Minor--nominated by Chicbyaccident--is still waiting for a GA reviewer. Please help out if you can. Achievements Hedy Lamarr as Delilah In March the Project saw four articles promoted to GA-Class. They were the oh-so-irresistible Delilah (nom. MagicatthemovieS) (pictured), Edict of Torda (nom. Borsoka), David Meade (author) (nom. LovelyGirl7) and last but not least Black Christmas (2006 film) (nom. Drown_Soda). Black Christmas? How did that get in there lol? Congratulations to all of the nominators for a job well done! Did You Know Nominated by The C of E ... that some people know Christ the Lord is risen today from Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch?" Featured article Nominated by FutureTrillionaire Jesus (7–2 BC to 30–33 AD) is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament. Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Christians generally believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return. The great majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of three Persons of a Divine Trinity. A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural. In Islam, Jesus is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah. (Full article...) Help wanted We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here. And if the publication of this issue is any indication, you're in for the ride of a lifetime! Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here Delivered: 00:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Ichthus: May 2018 ICHTHUS May 2018 Project News By Lionelt Last month's auspicious relaunch of our newsletter precipitated something of an uproar in the Wikipedia community. What started as a localized edit war over censorship spilled over onto the Administrator's Noticeboard finally ending up at Wikipedia's supreme judicial body ArbCom. Their ruling resulted in the admonishment of administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise for his involvement in the dispute. The story was reported by Wikipedia's venerable flagship newspaper The Signpost. The question of whether to delete all portals--including the 27 Christianity-related portals--was put to the Wikipedia community. Approximately 400 editors have participated in the protracted discussion. Going by !votes, Oppose deletion has a distinct majority. The original Christianity Portal was created on November 5, 2005 by Brisvegas and the following year he successfully nominated the portal for Featured Portal. The Transhumanist has revived WikiProject Portals with hopes of revitalizing Wikipedia's system of 1,515 portals. Stay up-to-date on the latest happenings at the Project Watch Achievements Four articles in the Project were promoted to GA: Edict of Torda nom. by Borsoka, Jim Bakker nom. by LovelyGirl7, Ralph Abernathy nom. by Coffee and Psalm 84 nom. by Gerda_Arendt. The Psalm ends with "O Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee." Words to live by. Please support our members and send some WikiLove to the nominators! Featured article Nominated by Spangineer Operation Auca was an attempt by five Evangelical Christian missionaries from the United States to make contact with the Huaorani people of the rainforest of Ecuador. The Huaorani, also known as the Aucas, were an isolated tribe known for their violence, both against their own people and outsiders who entered their territory. With the intention of being the first Protestants to evangelize the Huaorani, the missionaries began making regular flights over Huaorani settlements in September 1955, dropping gifts. After several months of exchanging gifts, on January 2, 1956, the missionaries established a camp at "Palm Beach", a sandbar along the Curaray River, a few miles from Huaorani settlements. Their efforts culminated on January 8, 1956, when all five—Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Peter Fleming, and Roger Youderian—were attacked and speared by a group of Huaorani warriors. The news of their deaths was broadcast around the world, and Life magazine covered the event with a photo essay. The deaths of the men galvanized the missionary effort in the United States, sparking an outpouring of funding for evangelization efforts around the world. Their work is still frequently remembered in evangelical publications, and in 2006, was the subject of the film production End of the Spear. (more...) Did You Know Nominated by Dahn "... that, shortly after being sentenced to death for treason, Ioan C. Filitti became manager of the National Theatre Bucharest?" Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom• Unsubscribe here Delivered: 19:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Ichthus June 2018 ICHTHUS June 2018 Project news By Lionelt Here are discussions relevant to the Project: Liberty University has an RFC regarding the university's relationship with President Trump; see discussion Is Genesis History? has an RFC regarding acceptability of movie reviews for inclusion; see discussion United States pro-life movement has a requested move to United States anti-abortion movement; see discussion The following articles need reviewers for GA-class: Type of Constans nom. by Gog the Mild, Tian Feng (magazine) nom. by Finnusertop. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Stay up-to-date on the latest happenings at the Project Watch Did You Know Nominated by Gonzonoir ... that in 1636, Phineas Hodson, Chancellor of York Minster, lost his 38-year-old wife Jane during the birth of the couple's 24th child? Featured article Nominated by Cliftonian The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara The Mortara case was a controversy precipitated by the Papal States' seizure of Edgardo Mortara, a six-year-old Jewish child, from his family in Bologna, Italy, in 1858. The city's inquisitor, Father Pier Feletti, heard from a servant that she had administered emergency baptism to the boy when he fell sick as an infant, and the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition held that this made the child irrevocably a Catholic. Because the Papal States had forbidden the raising of Christians by members of other faiths, it was ordered that he be taken from his family and brought up by the Church. After visits from the child's father, international protests mounted, but Pope Pius IX would not be moved. The boy grew up as a Catholic with the Pope as a substitute father, trained for the priesthood in Rome until 1870, and was ordained in France three years later. In 1870 the Kingdom of Italy captured Rome during the unification of Italy, ending the pontifical state; opposition across Italy, Europe and the United States over Mortara's treatment may have contributed to its downfall. (Full article...) Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom • Unsubscribe here Delivered: 11:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)