User talk:TheLionHasSeen/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Oneness Pentecostalism Article

Hello, TheLionHasSeen! I just wanted to clarify my reasoning behind the removal of "(Theophilus of Antioch is the first notable Christian figure to use the term, against this theory)" in the "Oneness views on the early church" section of the Oneness Pentecostalism article (my bad on not giving it sooner):

It seems unnecessary, as it breaks the flow of the sentence and the information being conveyed. This sentence gives a theory from Bernard, then provides a bit of background on the person that is key to the theory. I think that it is enough to say that Tertullian was one of the first notable Christian figures to use the term without also giving who was the first. The added information just makes the article harder to read and does not really add any value.
It contradicts something not being said. Bernard claims that a majority of Christians were Oneness until Tertullian, not that Tertullian was the first to use the term "Trinity." When the article said, "Theophilus of Antioch is the first notable Christian figure to use the term, against this theory," it seems to say that Bernard claimed that Tertullian was the first to use the term "Trinity," which is not the case.

I hope this makes sense! I do want to let you know that I'm not going to remove this again unless you agree with my reasoning, so let me know your thoughts! Once again, I want to apologize for not giving my reasoning sooner. I also want to thank you for all you're doing on this article to improve it! I appreciate your diligence in ensuring this article is as good as possible!

-JParksT2023 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, in clarification, I have to posit the following: 1) Bernard would actually be suggesting that according to Chapter 11: "Tertullian, the first prominent exponent of trinitarianism, taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father and that the trinity is not eternal." Therefore, I would argue that the information must remain in such a tone. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Bernard says that, which is exactly my point. He does not ever claim that Tertullian was the first person to use the term "Trinity," but only that he was the first prominent person to use it. By saying that Theophilus of Antioch was the first to use the term does not contradict anything Bernard is claiming, which is why it doesn't make sense to include it in the article, especially since, as I noted, it seems unnecessary and breaks the flow of the sentence. JParksT2023 (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Stating he was the first prominent (synonym for notable) person to use it, Theophilus, as the truly first notable person, does contradict. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, how about we change the language to make it a little more clear. Possibly change it to this?

Bernard believes that Tertullian was the first prominent exponent of trinitarianism and theorizes as such that the majority of all believers were Oneness adherents until the time of Tertullian. (Theophilus of Antioch was the first notable Christian figure to use the term, against this theory.)

JParksT2023 (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Or, in keeping with what you have, it could be changed to, "Bernard theorizes that the majority of all believers were Oneness adherents until the time of Tertullian, who he believes was the first prominent exponent of trinitarianism (Theophilus of Antioch was the first notable Christian figure to use the term, against this theory)." JParksT2023 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Those two recommendations negate that being the first notable person, Tertullian still applied the word alongside Theophilus; so it would have to be "Bernard theorizes that the majority of all believers were Oneness adherents until the time of Tertullian, who he believes was the first prominent exponent of Trinitarianism (though Theophilus of Antioch was the first prominent figure, against this theory). - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with this. I'll put it in! JParksT2023 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed that you seem to have this article on your watchlist, and have taken some sort of responsibility in ensuring that no one makes any changes to it that you disagree with. However, let me remind you that we all own wikipedia, and we all get to make edits. I understand that according to your user page, you affirm the Nicene Creed, which would definitely put you at odds with the Oneness Pentecostal beliefs. I myself am a Oneness Pentecostal, and therefore have my own biases. However, I'm attempting to make a correction that is neutral. The part I'm trying to edit is written as Wikipedia's voice, and is very biased. I removed it at first because it is also redundant. There is a neutral sentence that says the same thing in the section "View of the Trinity". Instead of using "most" it uses "some", and it clearly states that is is an accusation by "some". I can agree with that. The other statement seems to be located in the incorrect section because the statement has nothing to do with "Accusations of Modalism". It also appears to be a quote from a Trinitarian pastor and should be placed in a blockquote or reworded to not be in Wikipedia's voice. It probably should also be moved to another section if I'm honest. I've tried to make those edits, but you seem to have taken full responsibility to leave it written as is without reason (other than accusing me of vandalism). This would leave me to assume is has something to do with your bias. We are all biased. I get that. I'm fully aware that "SOME" Trinitarians accuse Oneness Pentecostals of being a cult. However, to say that most do is not true even if it is quoted from a "reliable" source. I would argue that most Christians do not even know we exist. I could further argue that we do not meet any of the requirements of a cult since Oneness Pentecostalism is a theological movement comprised of many organizations around the globe that anyone can freely join or leave. There is no central cult leader, communal living, or forced membership. No one is manipulated into hurting themselves or drinking Kool-aid. We have a different opinion on the Godhead and then we are accused of being a cult. I disagree with the accusation, but am willing to admit that, yes, we are accused by a some of being a cult. However, you can't put a quote from one Trinitarian pastor stating that most protestants view all Oneness Pentecostals as a cult, and call it fact. It needs to be quoted in someone's voice besides Wikipedia's. Not just cited, but blockquoted. That is 100% an opinion of someone with obvious bias, and should be written as such or removed. Also, edit warring is not vandalism. You and I both have a difference of opinion, and it is clearly in your favor for people to read the those lines as they are written now even though I have stated reasons why they should be changed. I'm willing to compromise, but it needs to be rewritten in a neutral voice, or blockquoted. I can't blockquote it because I'm not buying the book to do that. Removing it is probably the best solution since the same idea is already stated in the article in a neutral voice, but I'm willing to discuss other options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordsWithFriends (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

WordsWithFriends, you notice how commenting on a discussion on over a year ago is a hilarious mistake? This isn't about changes I "personally" disagree with too, so do not make unfounded and silly accusations, nor have I claimed WP:OWNERSHIP which none of us have for Wikipedia. Further responding to your commentary, it is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. I suggest you read about them. Your contributions, while appreciated, didn't really contribute much to the article other than verbiage which was unnecessary and trying to semantically WP:ADVOCATE. Most of Christendom adheres to Nicene Christianity, which is guess what, Trinitarian. To the largest Christian denominations—Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, anyone that doesn't teach the Trinity is an anathematized heretic. As for you personally, I don't care what your religious or political beliefs are, but do not come and suggest that I am some crusader knight. Let me also add, not every cult is centralized, and some Oneness bodies are cults as much as some Trinitarian bodies are according to the Federal U.S. Government and Southern Poverty Law Center. So, let's not go there. And also an edit war, that was between you and that random IP address. Try again, and I'll have this escalated. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. I'm sorry for the accusations. I do agree that "some" Oneness and Trinitarian "bodies" are considered cults. However, applying that label to an entire theological movement is illogical, and unfounded. Nevertheless, anyone can hold that opinion if they want. It should just be stated as an opinion, and not written in Wikipedia's voice.

Being labeled heretics is irrelevant to this discussion. That is very different from labeling an entire movement a cult. WordsWithFriends (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I forgive you. Now, Wikipedia doesn't have a voice; the information isn't even written by verbatim stating, "Oneness Pentecostalism is a cult." The verbiage used has been neutral and stood as such, even before I began my involvement with the article, if I am correct by memory. Nonetheless, it stands there through reputable sources, properly cited. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's voice" is referring to any statement that is written to sound as if Wikipedia is saying the words. You can do this if the statement is neutral, but this statement is clearly biased and should be written in the voice of the person that holds that bias.

Biased Statement in Wikipedia's Voice:

Today, most conservative Protestants view Oneness Pentecostalism, in all of its iterations, as a theological cult akin to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (i.e., Mormonism) or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (i.e., Jehovah's Witnesses).

1. One (or 3 or 4) Trinitarian pastor(s) cannot speak for all conservative protestants, but he can state this as an opinion.

2. We both agree that there are "bodies" of cults that are both Trinitarian, and Oneness, but to say that all Oneness Pentecostals are in a cult like all LDS and JWs, is an opinion.

For these reasons, the statement is a biased opinion, and Wikipedia can't have a biased opinion. The Trinitarian pastor can have a biased opinion, which is why it should be blockquoted.

Also, there is a neutral statement that expresses the same sentiment without bias in the section "View on Trinity":

Acceptable Statement with Redundant sentiments

The Oneness position as nontrinitarians places them at odds with the members of most Christian denominations, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as cultists.

To me this is acceptable because:

1. It is true that we are at odds with most Christian denominations

2. It says "some of whom have accused", instead of "most Conservative Protestants view". This is a more accurate statement. WordsWithFriends (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

If a few people's opinion, rightly cited as reliable sources with them having the backing of the majority of conservative (Evangelical) Protestantism, as can be seen with WP:COMMONSENSE, the statement isn't biased. You merely do not like it, no more than an Independent Baptist aligned with Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't like to be called a fundamentalist, from these observations. Nonetheless, I digress yet do see your reasoning behind redundancy for something just stated before. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

How do you propose the redundancy issue be resolved then? If not removing it, then what?

Here's one idea, we move it up to the previous section since it has nothing to do with Modalism anyways. Then word it in a way that flows with the other statement.

Example:

The Oneness position as nontrinitarians places them at odds with the members of most Christian denominations, some of whom have accused Oneness Pentecostals of being Modalists and derided them as cultists. Some conservative protestants hold the opinion that Oneness Pentecostalism, in all of its iterations, is a theological cult akin to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (i.e., Mormonism) or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (i.e., Jehovah's Witnesses). Oneness clergy consecrated into the Joint College of Bishops are also at odds on grounds of their claims to apostolic succession (being that documented consecrators in succession were Trinitarian from the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern churches, alongside contradicting records). WordsWithFriends (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, while you were typing I already did that. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It still sounds redundant to me.. but maybe you have an idea. WordsWithFriends (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant, what I wrote on this page sounds redundant. Not what you wrote on the article in question. WordsWithFriends (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jean Lafitte, Louisiana logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jean Lafitte, Louisiana logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Vague MOS mentions

Please be more specific when referring to the MOS than this. The main Wikipedia MOS page (MOS:LAYOUT) does not give specifics for arranging main sections in the body of articles. Certain Wikipedia projects may provide a recommended order for main sections, such as Aircraft project at [[WP:Aircontent]. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read

Talk:Mount Ebal about the inscription. Doug Weller talk 21:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So, I've had a chance to read through this discussion and research the further policies and guidelines. Thank you for your correction; I do add that I misunderstood the "lol" at the beginning, however. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Learning our policies and guidelines can be a real learning curve, especially for certain types of articles. The "lol" was in reaction to the first link I saw that was pushing the Creationists who found it and the comments about "Bible deniers". Doug Weller talk 07:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Archiving notice

Hey! During your moving of Talk:State church of the Roman Empire, you forgot to update the archive location. All you need to do is adjust the |archive= parameter in the {{User:MizaBot/Config}} template to the new page name. Don't worry, I've fixed this for you. Just keep this in mind if you move a page in the future. Thanks! Aidan9382 _(talk) 17:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about ratings of states

You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Vermont#CNBC rating of states. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Lafayette, Louisiana flag

Hi, I see you undid my removal of the flag from the Lafayette, Louisiana article. As I explained in the talk page [1], this flag is entirely ficitious, and it's pretty rude to just revert something like that with no rebuttal. I'm removing it again because, to the best of my knowledge, it's misinformation, but feel free to explain why you want it included in the talk page. 128.59.179.15 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

I resized most of the images at Pennsylvania, as nearly every one was oversized. I removed a few as well. The photo captions could use a trim as well. Thanks for pointing out the photo issue. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll have to be on the lookout however, as it appears one of the main article contributors reverts some contributions like this which may interrupt their flow of work; they see to be working in entirely good faith, however! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Coptic Catholic Church. This edit summary is unacceptable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me, however I have been known for engaging against a plethora of WP:POV cases throughout the years—all of which have led to actual conflicts of interest per my archives, etc. I merely responded in good faith, perhaps, however, with a "Wikipedian PTSD" from having dealt with patterns of alleged advocacy confirmed in others. Am I blaming you for this in discussion now, no? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Mississippi. The edit summary[2] for this revert is simply unacceptable. You may indeed be correct about the content dispute, but that's not an excuse for accusing editors of bad faith. In the future, if a change is reverted attempt to discuss the issue. Nemov (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Has the other user likewise been warned, Walt Yoder? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen is in good faith, @Walt Yoder. But there's no need to merge together Protestantism + Catholicism + Mormonism into a general "Christianity". We don't do it to other religions because PRRI doesn't ask the question. It's also likely that their % of their population makes an accurate sample size hard/impossible to get with PRRI's methods. KlayCax (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, then is there another survey that would be better suited? The Pew surveys are all over the place and a complete mess, so it's down to PRRI, and ARDA, but ARDA misses the irreligious population and generally only measures by adherents reported and attendance per 1,000. This is so complicatedly annoying since religion isn't on the U.S. census. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No, Public Religion Research Institute is (to my knowledge) the only one to do it at the state level frequently, and is generally considered to be the best. It's almost impossible to get a proportional breakdown (in %) branches of other religions. (e.g. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, et al.) They don't compromise enough of the U.S. population for most surveys to include a proportionally representative sample. That's why it's left as "Judaism" instead of "Orthodox/Conservative/Reform Judaism" in the PRRI American Values Atlas.

As the vast majority of religious Americans are Christian: it's much easier to get a proportionate sample. I realize why that might seem "strange" at first glance. But it would be a disservice to artifically blend together all branches/denominations into "Christianity". Utah and Alabama's pie charts would look pretty similar... And you'd lose a lot of information by doing so.

I think the previous version is fine. KlayCax (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How would it be a disservice to artificially blend together all of them into "Christianity" when by common-sense measure, they are all Christian? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Because you lose a significant amount of information surrounding religious affilation that way for no reason. (e.g. Utah and Alabama would show similar statistics.)

Branch/denomination is overwhelmingly used as well in other articles. See Hungary, Poland, Canada, Mexico, France, Italy, Germany, et al. KlayCax (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better explained for denominational affiliation through the body of the text, right? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki consensus has always been that it should be in both. (Pie chart and body of the text.)

Pie charts almost always include branch (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) as well. If PRRI releases new data showing breakdown by other religions: then we add it.

As you said: There's no official U.S. census data. PRRI's information is the best we got for the moment. KlayCax (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Demographic history

Why are you systematically removing demographic history from entries? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, hello FloridaArmy!! Information removing demographic history from entries is in accordance with keeping demography up to date, especially when most Wikipedians updating demographics tends to be incredibly lazy and mess up the format of articles for settlements according to manual of style; I also recall information on one Wikipedia guideline for settlements somewhere that denoted, information from 2000 U.S. census should either be adjusted and brought up to format, or removed. As no one truly cares to do so for every single article, it would be better to remove them altogether and maintain the most up to date statistics. This is prevalent in many articles which even I have no relation toward. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

How does removing history make something more up to date? For these entries we can no longer see how the demographics are changing. This is not an improvement. Please restore the demographic histories you removed. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, this has been done by over 10 editors on articles for majority of the 50 U.S. states articles, and is an improvement which many of us have collaborated on in accordance with instruction we've seen to cull 2000's census information for articles and bring them up to date with 2020 census information; if they want a full catalog, that's what the U.S. Census Bureau's websites are for as Wikipedia SUMMARIZES information. It should be a given by common sense to even denote that most articles still have 2000 census information, which is long out of date. Now, begone before you are addressed administratively for trying to push others around as if I and others are nothing more than simpletons, with your passive-aggressiveness as seen by your talk page's logs and other logs. Go hound at someone else with aggressive and unnecessary foolishness, F-L-O-R-I-D-A. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you summarize the historical information or just remove it? You think only current census stats are significant in understanding a community and it's history? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't discuss anything with me until you can check your attitude with those you demean whenever your Wikipedia articles are not accepted in drafts. Go apologize to UtherSRG, since I called you out and you reverted me calling you out, yet you want to try and call others out. Begone, your belligerency. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I also recall information on one Wikipedia guideline for settlements somewhere that denoted, information from 2000 U.S. census should either be adjusted and brought up to format, or removed. Can you please provide a link to this guideline you're citing to make all these changes? That would be a step in the right direction. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Who are you? Also, I responded after it seems you two chose to WP:HOUND at me. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll ignore the WP:ASPERSIONS. Are you interested in answering my question? Nemov (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Checkmate. Re-read the above, and go look where you've recently tagged me. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I have a barnstar for doing this and bringing articles up to date. Go elsewhere with these trivial matters showing the increased DIVERSTY of population. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Keystone18

You’re basicly gonna have to go on an edit war with him and take it to the MOS talk page before he stops. Already had to do it once. Good luck! Famartin (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to play devil's advocate again for someone to get the point. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

His contribution summary was very hilariously bad; he stated I moved the template to the sports section, when the section is verbatim called, "culture." - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

47thVols request on my talk

If you feel it necessary to accommodate him, by all means, but I am leaving it alone. Famartin (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

We both left the conversation alone two days ago, and we both operated in good faith; whereas their behavioral similarities and article affinities were questioned for the purpose of a sock investigation. I clarified with some final responses, and left them be. If they choose to come here and escalate anything, they will be reverted and ignored like the plague; I do not have time for combative, explosive conversations and demands for discussing another editor in good faith, and assuming—in good faith—similarities between the two. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fort Worth, Texas

These multiple images in infoboxes make everyone crazy, and push the infobox half-way to Florida. Look at San Francisco. Does it really need all those images in the infobox, or just one nice one of the bridge? And all the fights over which ones are prettier. How do you resolve it? Put 12 photos into an RFC and let editors vote? What a time-taker that would be. I love a well-done collage, but I'd be happy to see them outlawed too. I also prefer your choice of photos at Fort Worth. Hey, cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As we say in church, I'm trying to keep my religion right now. As for the current San Francisco one, it looks nice in contrast with others which added 15 something images. Nice top and bottom imagery. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

US => U.S. in Michigan

Hello, and thanks for your many recent edits on Michigan. I'm wondering why you felt it necessary to change all the instances of "US" to "U.S.", most especially in this edit. I had just changed a bunch of the "U.S." instances to "US" for consistency on the basis of MOS:US (the article had been mixed). Why didn't you just leave it consistent as it was when you found it? Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Michigan articles

I'm not sure why you're restructuring numerous municipality articles to combine the communities into the geography sections, when that is not the established format used throughout the state. The communities are typically listed as the first section in a municipality article and not combined with the geography section, which is usually placed under the history section (if there is one). Also, can you explain why you are removing census maps from county articles? You might want to have a discussion with some of the more established Michigan editors before you make such radical changes, although any restructuring ideas and edits are always welcome on Wikipedia with consensus. -Notorious4life (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! Communities are being combined into the geography section because by wp:commonsense, these communities form an inherent part of their geography. Next, they have been typically listed as the first section in a municipality article, though it goes against typical styles for settlement articles. Additionally, the climate was placed below demographics in so many articles which is hilariously bad. Census maps have been removed, but re-added pending your contributions, for the sake of some articles having too many images and pushing content down; Wikipedia summarizes, and isn't a mere directory. Pertaining to discussion with "more established Michigan editors," that can be easily disregarded as I have a track-record of working throughout multiple state and county articles on Wikipedia—all of which have gone overwhelmingly approved of when cleaning up this encyclopedia. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Archbishop J. Delano Ellis

The reverting of recent changes made to that page should be reviewed by an independent third party. It seems that the reviewer who has reverted the changes may be relying on general comments or may have a personal view. I believe the changes made were theologically and ecclesiastically correct. Can anyone comment on where such arguments about changes on Wikipedia can be taken further? Is it down to the opinion of a single reviewer? Deltango (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Three Georgia counties"

No, this phrase is total "common sense" in the introduction to the article Savannah metropolitan area. Savannah lies on the border with South Carolina, and most metropolitan statistical areas straddle two states, with counties in both. That's the case with two other Georgia metros, Augusta and Columbus, which also have counties in South Carolina and Alabama, respectively. Savannah's metro area doesn't, so its three counties (Chatham, Bryan and Effingham) must be identified as being only in Georgia. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, TheLionHasSeen. Thank you for your work on Metropolitan Spiritual Churches of Christ. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TheLionSeen. Do you agree that we should separate christian sects and established churches separately because it would create confusion and the wiki should not be biased or subjective on what churches are more important?!

Doyou agree with this? MaxAfton (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There has been no confusion within the article. The information is in plain English, and it seems the only overt bias on "importance" comes from those who choose not to read. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Augusta metropolitan area

Just a stylistic note regarding your recent edit: In U.S.-related articles, Commonwealth English expressions such as "Georgian and South Carolinian counties" are inappropriate, as this is not American usage. When a state is used as an adjective, it is always "Georgia and South Carolina counties," "California cities," etc. Second, please do not use the term "metropolis" unless you are referring to a large city of a million or more inhabitants. Thanks. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

2020 and 2022 population statistics

I also noticed that you are replacing updated estimates for 2022 in the infobox with the old 2020 census figure. Those are updated estimates, which are normally added by editors in the years following the decennial census (and they are official figures from the U.S. Census Bureau). I encourage you to review these articles and return them to their latest estimate. Finally, all general population statistics come from the U.S. Census Bureau, never the American Community Survey (ACS); the ACS is strictly a survey of language use and other social statistics. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have added those estimates and census figures in the MSA articles; on another note, who are you and why do you continue to be WP:WIKISTALKING me? You have left for a long time, and then return with a seeming spirit of expertise, and I do not like the seeming ignorance to the fact that the ACS is used in a plethora of U.S. articles and includes yes, population data. While it seemed as though you operated in good faith, if you continue to WP:WIKIHOUND at me by stalking my contributions and then offering commentary, I am going to have no choice but to report you to the administration through the noticeboard. I am tired of feeling uncomfortable by your demeanor, Mason.Jones. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

ACS statistics are not used for city and metro populations in U.S.-related articles. They must match List of U.S. cities by population and Metropolitan statistical areas, where the latest official figures are listed and ranked. No discrepancies. I will take these issues myself to an administrator for adjudication. You continue to add inappropriate text, conflate (and confuse) demographic concepts, insert false information, and replace valid figures. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been laboring to the best my ability for months, and you may escalate this as you wish. I simply read the sources given, and do not intentionally insert false information. I operated in good faith as several other state-wide articles have used the ACS when referring to population tables too, alongside broader characteristics. I am going to continue contributing to this encyclopedia. As for valid, where? I am the one who has overhauled roughly half of Georgia's articles with the most up-to-date information, properly sourced. As observed with the Albany metropolitan area, Georgia article, I even began replacing with the cited information. You only reverted the Hinesville metropolitan area contribution and didn't even bother to add a citation. So, who would be more at fault here when an administrator does become involved, Mason.Jones? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to add this further remark: I am only human, so give me and other contributors here time to work and further improve the encyclopedia, rather than hound, suggest, and go back-and-forth with stalking other contributors edits on Wikipedia. So, as I have decreed, escalate as you wish. But, I am for the most part done conversating with you because of your demeanor and rude accusations, further necessitating my feelings of being stalked on Wikipedia. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Karma1998 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

March 28

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Oriental Orthodox Churches, you may be blocked from editing. Logosx127 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Logosx127 (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheLionHasSeen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Two wrongs never makes a right, and I didn't keep track of the timeframe. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you're concerned about the time frame, you're edit warring pretty much by definition. The three revert rule isn't the problem, it's just the symptom. The edit warring is the problem. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Hoaeter

Greetings User:TheLionHasSeen, I hope you are doing well. Do you know if User:GastonN'estPasBon might have any connection with User:Hoaeter? I noticed that this user rearranged the List of Christian denominations article completely to duplicate certain denominations under a separate "Evangelical" heading, which included a subsection for "African Evangelicalism" and "P'ent'ay". I have reverted his changes, but this seemed suspect to me. If you know that the two are connected, I would appreciate it if you could kindly file the appropriate reports, as you have been doing. Thanks for your help. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest opening a sockpuppet investigation. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)