User talk:Pbritti/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

William and Mary

Hey there Pbritti!

I was the person who made the original edits to William and Mary adding Marshall, Washington (Bushrod), and Wythe to the Notable People section that you removed. It's a shame that Bushrod Washington and George Wythe can't be included, WM is already a pretty small university and there are a plurality of incredibly infleuntial people that are noteworthy (Harvard's Notable People wiki section is absolutely brimming!).

I think removing Wythe and Washington (the former an Attorney General, the first law professor in the country, and mentors to Madison and Marshall; the latter a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and a Founding Father) is a mistake. These incredible alumni should be given at least some representation on the relatively small and quaint WM Alumni Section.

Regardless, I respect the decision for removing my edits and I'd just like to voice my civil disagreement here.

P.S. Thanks for leaving in my addition of John Marshall, I was pretty amazed that he wasn't included on there already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianH (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@GuardianH: To start, I greatly appreciate your edits and your interest in increasing awareness of The College of William & Mary's history on this platform. I think you raise a good point: Harvard's alumni section is large–too large. There are separate alumni pages for both The College (here) and multiple for Harvard (here and here). Since a collegiate encyclopedic page already addresses the alumni separately, it is better to present a small cross-section that establishes the variety of notable graduates. If you wish to improve reference to the alumni you added within the history section, that portion of the page can always benefit from improvement (as can the page devoted to The College's history here).

As a final note, I would contend that the article on The College is actually fairly outsized for its student body population–a quite justified thing! Thank you for your edits and cordiality. Let me know if I can help with any projects you might want a second pair of eyes on, from a recent grad (Class of '21). ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for your stellar expansion of Book of Common Prayer (1979)! Eddie891 Talk Work 02:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Wow! Thank you so much! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Henry Clay

Hey there Pbritti,

Thanks for responding to my previous message. I was wondering if we could place Henry Clay, the witty statesman and former United States Secretary of State, in place of Thao Nguyen?

I feel like Clay would fit nicely into the already existing alumni list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianH (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@GuardianH: I think the inclusion of Clay would be very good (he arguably was the most important politician in the early republic period), however removing Thao would mean we have neither a woman nor a 21st-century graduate included on the list, something of a significant oversight from an encyclopedic perspective. I say just add Clay but we cap it there. We can discuss this further on the article's talk page if need be so that we can cite the discussion, should the need to reference this decision arise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Alright, I added Clay and kept Thao. I agree the section looks good for now. Thanks for being genial and adding these figures of American history to the W&M wiki! ~ GuardianH

@GuardianH: Thank you! Let me know if I can help in any other way! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Indian residential school gravesites - Whistleblowers

Hey, I don't understand what happened. I think you deleted the libel suit reference but it is still there? I tried to just revert to the 1st Nations mention w/o the reference as you had removed it... Anyway, I was thinking we should either delete him altogether OR put him in a section like Culture or something where he doesn't sound official.Skingski (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

See my discourse on the Talk page.Skingski (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, I corrected my grammar error on the libel suit thing - ignore that first comment. I blame my incompetence on fatigue. Skingski (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! I was exhausted too and was editing stream-of-consciousness. Glad you added those details. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Scottish Prayer Book (1929)

On 4 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scottish Prayer Book (1929), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book is the Scottish Episcopal Church's current version of the Book of Common Prayer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scottish Prayer Book (1929). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Scottish Prayer Book (1929)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Book of Common Prayer (1979)

On 8 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Book of Common Prayer (1979), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1979 Book of Common Prayer contains a Star Wars prayer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1979). 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 (1979)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Lake Matoaka

On 1 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lake Matoaka, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the College of William & Mary's Lake Matoaka is named for Pocahontas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Matoaka. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lake Matoaka), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious

common prayer

Thank you for quality articles around the Book of Common Prayer (1979), for Walsenburg, Colorado, Lake Matoaka and Traditionis custodes, in well-organized projects, for "I'd welcome the opportunity of a hat tip", - Patrick, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2708 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, Gerda Arendt! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Colorado Coalfield War

The article Colorado Coalfield War you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Colorado Coalfield War for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, Goldsztajn. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti My apologies for not being able to review the McGovern/Guttridge source within the time I had indicated. For the record, I personally did not actually close this as fail, that was done by @BlueMoonset, but it appears in my name. Nevertheless, I had earlier expressed a desire to close given the problems with the use of the sources, so I believe this is for the better. If I haven't tarred my reputation with you, ping me if (when?) you come back to work on the article; I wouldn't try to review it again (ha!), but would be happy to work on a renomination. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Thank you again for your help. I would love to talk to you about the matter in the future; you're clearly invested in making sure this article looks as best it can. Let me know if there is ever a project I can help you with in the future. Also, know your reputation is absolutely not sullied with me and I am looking forward to running into you again! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Moved discussion

The below was erroneously placed on my user page by Skingski

Whistleblowers in Canadian Indian residential school gravesites

Hey, wondering if you thought about revising the Whistleblower part as discussed? (discussion here: [1]) Skingski (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church

Hi @Pbritti: please have you look at the discussion going on in Talk:Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church and kindly share your opinion. Thank you. Jude Didimus (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Praedicate evangelium

Hello! Praedicate evangelium has been released today. I have attempted to give the WP article a good structure and the information I found in one CNA article, so as to give the WP article a good kickstart. Could you give me a hand in improving the article? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: I can not wait to help–except for the part that I have to for finals. I will work on it as soon as I can, probably some cursory edits tomorrow afternoon! Thank you for pinging me and happy hunting for some more great RSs!. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuous edit warring using ignorance

Explain what is the significance of 1663. You must make it clear. What happened in 1663. Don't dump stupidity. Deal with good faith first 2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: For starters, "stupidity" and "ignorance" are generally offensive terms that suggest a lack of good faith, so refraining from usage is preferred. Secondly, I gave you a source, Attwater's text, that describes the disestablishment of the Syro-Malabar hierarchy within the Catholic Church. Similar churches that dissolved or remained outside of communion with the rest of the Catholic Church have their date listed as the date of the establishment of their current hierarchy. The source you provide indeed supports this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

What else I must say!! You seem to be behaving so. It is your responsibility to show that the content you add is sourced. You haven't even explained what happened in 1663. Nothing happened in 1663. That is why I called your behaviour stupidity. If you are sure you must explain it to others. No Eastern Catholic hierarchy has been established in 1663 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: I have a source that states as such. You, on the other hand, provided a source that supports the statement that the Syro-Malabar hierarchy was dissolved prior to 1662 and resurrected afterwards. Again, using insults is inappropriate and frankly disappointing, as I am assuming that you, like me, are Catholic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: Also, I would encourage you to cease editing as an IP and make an account. It is an easier way to edit with more functionality and ease of communication, as I can see your edits trace to multiple IP addresses. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not roman catholic or popish. I am traditional east syriac catholic who wants my church to dump popery as soon as possible. That is my personal matter. Here what I am asking is the significance of 1663. You are repeatedly failing to explain it. What happened in 1663 Pbritti ?05:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: Ah, I see: your edits might then be in violation of WP:NPOV if your intent is to insert your personal matter on here. Additionally, we generally refrain from insulting polemical terms as often as possible. As I have already explained three times and will again, 1663 is the date of the Syro-Malabar Church's hierarchy being received once more into the Catholic Church as a recognized autonomous hierarchy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: Again, I encourage you to please make an account. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not going against NPOV. I only answered your comment //as I am assuming that you, like me, are Catholic//

I have repeatedly asked you to prove what happened in 1663. I have also made it clear that the Syro-Malabar Church has no connection whatsoever with 1663. Nothing happened. No hierarchy established in that year. 05:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: Here is another source for 1663 (first post-schism bishop appointed). If you refuse to acknowledge sources I provide you and refuse to make an account, I will presume you are the same IP editor that was already dealt with by arbitration and revert your edits once more. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You are apparently proving my accusations. Where does the source say that the Syro-Malabar hierarchy was established in 1663 ? The bishop appointed in 1663 is Alexander de Campo. He was indeed a Syro-Malabar bishop by ethnicity. But his posts were Apostolic vicar of Malabar, Coadjutor of Archdiocese of Cranganore, Auxiliary bishop of Cranganore, and titular bishop of Megara. There is no de-establishment or re-establishment there in 1663.05:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: Hey, look, that's what I've got in the Attwater source. Unless you can absolutely refute it and also standardize the dates of all the other Eastern Catholic churches to the date that Christianity first arrived in their region, you really have nothing here. Again, I'm fairly certain you're the same IP address that got other pages locked previously and I'm unwilling to go through this with you again unless you make an account. Otherwise, anticipate it reverted once more. Additionally, repeating your insults will result in a request for arbitration. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have asked you a question. Where is the source for 1663 ? First complete your responsibility. It is your responsibility to prove that the hierarchy was established in 1663. Again, I am not interested in diverting the issue to silly arguments like //Again, I'm fairly certain you're the same IP address that got other pages locked previously and I'm unwilling to go through this with you again unless you make an account. Otherwise, anticipate it reverted once more. Additionally, repeating your insults will result in a request for arbitration. // You still haven't given source for your content addition. You have responsibility over everything you add, even if it is a restoration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: For the very last time, it is Attwater's text as cited on the page before you reverted it (three times, I may add, in violation of edit war rules!). If you can't find it, here it is: Donald Attwater (1937). Joseph Husslein (ed.). The Christian Churches of the East: Volume I: Churches in Communion With Rome. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company. Again, I have provided a source, while you have provided nothing that legitimized deleting it and replacing it with one wholly inconsistent with the rest of the article. Further, it's not diverting to acknowledge you appear to be the same toxic editor as previously. Please either provide a proper explanation or leave my talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Again I ask you where is the source for 1663. What do you mean by //Hey, look, that's what I've got in the Attwater source// It is not there. There is no mention of any hierarchy established in 1663 anywhere in it.06:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk)

Don't try to fool me Pbritti. I have read your source and nowhere in it is mentioned 1663 establishment of hierarchy. You are actually contradicting your content. First do some reading with the that book.06:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: Page 213, you can clearly see that the hierarchy is reintegrated as an independent structure into the Catholic Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. Are you trying to fool me?? There is no mention of 1663 establishment of hierarchy in page 213. And there is no mention anywhere else in it.2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: Sorry, dude, I can't teach you to read if you can't see it. It's right there–I have the book in front of me. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have read the book. There is no mention //the hierarchy is reintegrated as an independent structure into the Catholic Church// in page 213. First do some reading with the book. And stop these attempts to mislead others.2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't care what you have with you. The book doesn't say that the Syro-Malabar hierarchy was established in 1663. If you want to add the content you must provide source and the quotation. No misleading information must be added Pbritti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5: Yeah sorry man it's absolutely in there. You provided an errant date with an improperly formatted source, and you violated the 3RR rule following reversions on me and another editor. We're sticking to the version prior to your edit warring, name calling, and abusive behavior. In the future, make edits from an account–it makes these discussions easier. Adiós ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not there. Hence you must provide another source. Otherwise provide the quotation. Let me see. You do not know and you are pretending to be all knowing2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have provided source for First century. You have provided nothing, except a misleading and incorrect reference. Nowhere in the book you provided say that the Syro-Malabar hierarchy was established in 1663.2402:8100:3908:8C0B:214C:8BBE:2CE6:48B5 (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Book of Common Prayer (1962)

On 15 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Book of Common Prayer (1962), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1962 Book of Common Prayer has been translated into Cree, French, Inuktitut, and Mohawk? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1962). 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 (1962)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

BCP 1662

Hey just saw that you had created the article. Looks good! It's so important to Anglicanism articles to have good information on these books. Ltwin (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I had intended for you to review the page before pushing it, but got some friends offline to do it. Thank you for all your hard work on this topic. If you have additions regarding the actual contents of the text, I am always looking for more! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Bean-10

My best guess is: There is already an A-10 meme which refers to "Brrrrt" as the cannon sound. Perhaps the flatulence effect of beans would be the link. e.g. A-10 makes you go "brrrrt" and so do beans. (Hohum ^@) 18:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hohum: Ah. Haha. This lines up. Thank! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Seraphim Rose

Please avail yourself of the extensive discussion on the issue of inclusion of the disputed content on the Seraphim Rose page. Citing unsourced or anonymously written internet articles which merely repeat second hand information does not constitute the addition of "new sources". Moreover, as I have pointed out, the content in question lacks topical relevancy, as Seraphim Rose never identified as LGBT, nor is he known for anything relating to LGBT issues. In addition to this, as a religious Roman Catholic you have a blatant conflict of interest, as Seraphim Rose was a harsh, open critic of your particular religious persuasion. In view of this, any further attempts to force a new revision by unilaterally adding disputed content which has been previous rejected in (talk) on explicit and extensively articulated grounds, will result in a report to Wikipedia moderators pursuant to WP:STATUSQUO and WP:COI. Classical library (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Classical library: Your reference to a consensus seems far more spurious than you believe. There was never a consensus reached, merely other editors recognized your unwillingness to accept their edits and moved on. Assuming your edits also include the numerous unsigned IP edits on that talk page, you seem to engage in WP:TEXTWALL with great frequency. Further, your assessment of my edits as violating POV and WP:CoI are exceptionally silly and indeed uncivil, as that would suggest that no one but the more ardent of Orthodox adherents could edit Fr. Seraphim's page. Lastly, this seems like a stereotypical instance of WP:SPA. I encourage you to accede that there is a consensus not in your favor. That multiple reliable sources accept an original piece of research as acceptable definitionally makes that material acceptably citable. Further baseless accusation, removal of cited material, and reference to non-existent consensuses will achieve little. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing silly about your blatant conflict of interest and repeated edit warring in obvious pursuit of a one sided agenda. Adding ostensibly discrediting information of a salacious and irrelevant nature to an encyclopedic article which is based on a single spurious source, while advertising your adherence to a body of religious dogma which has notoriously come under negative scrutiny at the hands the personage who is the very subject of the article, poses a very obvious and blatant personal conflict which any reasonable person can see. Such a POV clearly presents a significantly greater motive for bias than simply not sharing the subject's religious views. Furthermore, you have done nothing to demonstrates that these "new sources" you blithely cite are themselves reliable; rather, you have simply asserted it with neither adequate basis nor warrant. In fact the articles you have adduced in favor of the disputed edit don't even cite any source for their information, and even where they do, they only repeat what had been already been written by Cathy Scott, a known sensationalist author of tabloid journalism and assorted tawdry potboilers. Needless to say, attempting to establish the veracity of a source by citing the blind repetition of its claims by secondary sources which rely on the primary source for their material in the first place, is utterly invalid and unsound. It is, in fact,an entirely circular form of argumentation. On the contrary, there does not appear to be evidence of any consensus "not in my favor", and the fact that previous editors acceded to the previous edit and have subsequently allowed it to stand for so many years after the fact, is prima facie evidence of the existence of a consensus in favor of the previous revision, which you are now attempting to undo via edit warring. Random people coming along and attempting to inject their personal prejudices into the article with nary a hint of argumentation or critical nuance is evidence only of their own desire to impose their bias, much as you are doing now, and not the existence of any well reasoned body of facts in opposition to what has already been stated in talk, by several different users. As for your claims about "baseless accusations" and references to a non existent consensus, you would do well to take a page from your own and advice, and therefore cease and desist from any further attempts at user vandalism in connection with the Seraphim Rose page. Classical library (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Classical library: Damage to your keyboard and thesaurus aside, you have been previously blocked for your belligerency and bullying behavior before. Continuous discrediting of other editors on the sole basis of their beliefs, rather than the merits of their edits, can result result in further disciplinary actions. You never attained a consensus (your self-stated "thousands of words" a consensus does not make) and have repeatedly reverted well-cited edits. No amount of verboseness will change this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Courtesy notice: You are mentioned in the ANI report WP:ANI#User:Classical library and ad hominem attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There is quite a bit more that goes into the proper selection of material suitable for use in an article meant to serve as a neutral reference than mere citation of sources. The fact that some random person publishes a novel claim in a book, which is then subsequently repeated in an uncritical manner by a handful of online sites, some of unknown authorship, does not automatically make it appropriate for inclusion. The revision you have been trying to force is totally inappropriate for all the reasons already propounded in talk, none of which you have thoughtfully engaged with or addressed. Also, I find it curious that while you loudly and sanctimoniously protest against the alleged personal attacks you think I have committed against you by simply pointing out your obvious conflict of interest as an admittedly devout Catholic (Seraphim Rose was notoriously anti-Catholic in his published works),you resort to a string of cheap ad hominems and insinuations uttered in a snide, scolding, supercilious tone; rather than meaningfully interact with the actual arguments presented. That is quite telling of the projection which you have been engaging in up till now. In any event, and invite of what has already been said and of the existence of the previous long-standing status quo, there appears to be no basis for any further revision in the direction you have proposed. If you like, we can have Wikipedia moderators settle the matter. You cannot just come in and demand that everyone accept such a radical and controversial addition after so many years, without proffering some significant support in its favor beyond what has already been put forth--and found wanting. Classical library (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Classical library: Since you are very intent on narrowing in on my faith (which has fascinatingly never informed my opinion of Fr. Rose), do you wish to disclose any reason for your interest in the man? Also, generally, when a source is approved by others who are expected to engage in due-diligence (such as an academic institution or Orthodox priest) before dissemination, we accept that they are operating as reliable sources until proven otherwise. Unless you can point to explicit evidence that contradicts the material they examined and determined was legitimate, we defer to them. As far as I can tell, you have yet to supply a source to contradict this material–material that you dismiss out of hand, against not only the policy of this website but knowledge more generally. Also, an ad hominem attack from me has not occurred nor will come. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. So if a priest or religious institution writes an article which uncritically repeats claims published by a specific source commenting on the life of a religious person, those claims are thereby granted automatic credibility. But if I point out the significance of your openly stated dogmatic commitments vis-a-vis the likely possibility of bias playing a role in ones personal view of, and intentions toward, a person who was a notorious critic of these very same dogmatic commitments, then I am engaged in a "purely personal attack on an editor's religion." Is the rank hypocrisy of such posturing totally lost on you? You have, in fact, engaged in a sustained ad hominem attack, by deliberately avoiding actual discussion while forcefully suggesting that my arguments should be ignored based on "past behavior" and alleged 'belligerency". I'm the one behaving badly and being belligerent? Tu quoque, anyone? Classical library (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Classical library: I have addressed your points and demonstrated why I feel they are deficient (there is positive explicit evidence in support of the claim from reliable sources and only inferred and assumed evidence to the contrary). Please focus on that aspect of the discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I cited a published letter from Fr. Lawrence Williams, who knew From Seraphim personally over a period of years, vehemently contradicting the homosexuality claim. I cited the absence of any similar claim in any of the acknowledged major works on Seraphim Rose's life and teachings. I brought the disreputable and sensationalist nature of the "literature" characteristically trafficked in by the originator of the claims, Cathy Scott, to the other editors' attention. I also put forth an argument based on topical relevancy. Seraphim Rose never identified as LGBT and nothing about the reasons why he has been given a Widipedia entry have anything remotely to do with LGBT issues. So you are being shamelessly dishonest in alleging that no compelling argument has been sustained contra inclusion of the stated material. Classical library (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Classical library: Having used Wikipedia for at least 7 years, you must understand that an inaccessible Yahoo blogpost is not itself a reliable source unless adopted into a reliable source. Additionally, by your own metrics, this source is woefully troubled when it comes to conflict of interest—the writer claims Fr. Rose as his spiritual father—something that is far more indicative of someone being partial than someone subscribing to a creed that the subject of the article found disagreeable. "Relevancy" is established by the inclusion of this information in the already noted secondary sources. Exclusion of that information from your preferred source does not automatically exclude it from discussion elsewhere. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, there is no positive explicit support from reliable "sources", plural, there is only Cathy Scott's book and some unsourced internet articles that basically plagiarize her work. What are your reasons for thinking Cathy Scott is credible on the subject, given that she admittedly wrote based on second hand material and plies her trade, hardly knew Seraphim Rose, and plies her train as a sensationalist crime writer? This is the same person who has published claims that Tupac Shakur was murdered through a nefarious conspiracy involving the police and FBI. Does this strike you as a credible biographer of a religious figure? And even if she could be considered credible (which she decidedly is not) what reason is there to mention details of alleged past sexual relationships of a religious figure in a reference article about his life and significance in that particular capacity, from before they were ever recognized as such? Why not just as well include a section on his personal dining habits and choice of furnishings and dress? Obviously, these things would be considered as trivial to the basic focus of the public's interest and thus lacking topical relevancy. So it is with claims of improprieties and behaviors of a personal sexual nature which may or may not have occurred. Classical library (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Classical library: I would encourage a review of how Wikipedia’s theory of historiography operates, especially in light of the piece most recently added as a reference on the talk page. Your personal disgruntlement with Scott, while entirely acceptable, bears little relevance when other writers with more scruples have deemed the material suitable for inclusion in formal works. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Which other writers? Sarah Riccardi-Swartz? She is openly biased. Not credible at all. And Yu our other "sources" are plagiarized directly from Scott? Is this how historiography now works on the internets? You just take your own confirmation bias and run with it? You our have not even begun to seriously address any of the arguments put forth. But why bother when one can simply run and hide behind an army of professional bugmen employed in the minutia and drudgery of micromanaging official narratives and wielding an imaginary cudgel against unwelcomed opinions on an internet site. Classical library (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Classical library: In a remarkable twist, it is your own belligerent actions that led an administrator review of your behavior, not your perspectives. Further, to dismiss an academically accepted source because you find their methods disdainful does not make their material any less true. Even your reviled Fordham has standards they must maintain. In any case, I would encourage you to edit topics that don't inflame your passions so greatly, also encourage you to cease editing a user talk page when you are unwilling to engage in legitimate conversation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Your statement is quite disengenuous and laughable, considering that you are literally on a one man crusade to publicly flog the alleged homosexuality of a priest who was a strident critic of your religion, and have unleashed a torrent of backbiting and fatuous collection of transparently quibbling rationalizations in pursuit of this sordid end. All the while wielding the overbearing, condescending tone of a stereotypical priggish, fart-sniffing phony of characteristically outsize mediocrity and ridiculous self-importance. "Academically accepted source"? A lumpen pseudo-academic who goes undercover at a Church to punk old Russian babushkas and young converts, in order to produce a grotesque hit piece for a subversive gay Jesuit funded department? That is your idea of acceptable academic bona fides? In any event, repeating a claim from another prior source does not, in fact, effectively result in multiple sources of attestation in support of some fact. This is a point that any sophomore undergrad would be expected to grasp. It is grade level stuff. So please stop the BS because you aren't fooling anyone with such statements, just making a fool of yourself. I'm the one unwilling to engage in legitimate conversation. Have you even bothered to read my posts in talk? I honestly have not seen any comparably sincere effort on your part to pursue discourse on the matter, just a lot of deceitful double talk, ad hominems, childish running to administrators, and outright flim-flam. So please try and take an honest look at yourself and your own churlish behavior before hurling such distasteful accusations at others. Classical library (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Classical library: On Orthodox Pascha, too, man. I'd encourage reflection on your treatment of others and seek an increase of charity. You don't need to change your beliefs, just your behavior. Sorry it ended this way. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this your idea of meaningful discussion? You piously virtue signalling about my "behavior" for a hours on end, while studiously avoiding the relevant issues? Thanks for letting me know you think that God is displeased with me on a wiki talk page. Now, how about some serious self reflection on your own palpably rotten motived and behavior? I'm not the one running around ratting you out to a bunch of unfunny Wikipedia pointy-heads. Classical library (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)