User talk:Veverve

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Veverve}}), so that I will be notified. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

What consensus would that be? Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: the various recent and regular reverts, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. I agree there has been no talk page discussion to establish consensus, unless one considers Talk:Septuagint/Archive_3#BCE,_CE to be a discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So no consensus at all! The article was certainly BC when started in 2001, & still in 2010. But by 2012 Doug Weller was reverting to keep BCE. That one person changes it, and another reverts, does not indicate a consensus - quite the opposite. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: two other users recently along with Doug Weller seem to support the current use. Maybe discussing it at the talk page now would be a good idea to settle the matter. Veverve (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ie they revert three other users who don't. So much for "implied consensus"! Yes, there should be a discussion. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: WP:EDITCONSENSUS does not need to be written in talk pages to exist. Veverve (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow you (and please stop pinging). Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, it seems a bit disingenuous not to mention that this very issue is the subject of an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style where you are a very active participant (not pinging per request, so really this is more Veverve, who should have been informed). Generalrelative (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how that will help here (haven't they in fact commented there - I didn't check), especially if we do have a discussion, & it is now a very long read, and seems to be gridlocked. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty much preoccupied and sometimes certain things transpire of which I have no knowledge of, thank you for your edits on Olumba Olumba. Celestina007 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to express my gratitude, but got sidetracked and remembered just now. Thank you for going cross-wiki in your concerns about neutrality. I believe your persistence played a part in helping us reach, what I would call, a sensible editorial decision. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You already added the synth banner - and that seems to be what you're objecting to - so it doesn't need a citation tag as well. StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check the article Moscow Theological Academy. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Чръный человек: sorry, I cannot as I am under a topic ban concerning Russia on WP en. Veverve (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hilarion (Serafimovski), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! During your moving of Talk:Macedonian Orthodox Church – Archdiocese of Ohrid, you forgot to update the archive location. This is just a reminder - don't worry, I've fixed it. Thanks! Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements 70.24.86.150 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to add to the siblings dispute, it seems that he had two daughters but I can't be sure. The Brotherhood article is a terrible mess. There are reliable sources available but it's been edited mainly by adherents. Bishonen has cleaned up a bit. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[4][5]. Rowland another son? Doug Weller talk 14:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: sorry, I am afraid I cannot help: I have no expertise on the life or belief of this person and their organisation. Veverve (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll help update the siblings ElRabbi (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following some close AfDs that nearly preserved non-notable ecclesial bodies due to difficult if—not entirely impossible—to verify details in Melton's, should we attempt a referendum to determine if that source can be deployed to determine notability? It does not provide significant coverage in most cases nor are its contents independently supported. Could we seek to add it to WP:NCHURCH the same way the historic register is? ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti:

It does not provide significant coverage in most cases nor are its contents independently supported: I am not sure what you mean. The coverage of most denomination is often significant, details are given on the denomination's origin, history, etc. The Melton is not simply a telephone directory. I do not understand what you mean by nor are its contents independently supported.

We could decide that Melton covers denominations which are for most of them insignificant (e.g. only Melton discusses some of them), and that therefore this encyclopedia cannot be used to establish GNG, but can be used as a RS. With the way Melton is currently being used by some users ('being in Melton = free pass'), WPen might as well have an article for each entry this encyclopedia has.

However, I suspect that there is a will, an inclusionist effort to preserve articles of insignificant denominations on the part of some users, and therefore said users grasp at every straw to get those articles preserved. I mean, Peterkingiron has been advocating for at least the past 13 years, more or less consistently, that a denomination claiming on its website to have 20 parishes or ever hundreds of parishes accross the globe, was a notability criteria (2009, 2022). If I am right, I do not see any policy which would prevent those users from WP:IGNORE and vote keep.

@Ad Orientem: what do you think? Veverve (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an inclusionist.[6] -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree with you in an academic sense about the depth of some Melton's but considering that inclusion on historic registers traditionally includes public documents that feature blurbs of somewhat greater lengths, the comprehensiveness of Melton's articles seems to be insufficient by the guidelines to constitute establishment of notability. As for that second bit, yes, I can imagine an inclusionist pushback. However as something of one myself, I hope other inclusionists can see that some material is simply not suitable for encyclopedic reference.

@Ad Orientem: I think Veverve was seeking your input as a respected fellow editor. Glad for more insight. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I was only asking for your input on the issue Pbritti had raised.

Sorry if it came off as me accusing you of what I described, I know you are not part of that. Veverve (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any links to AFDs or the questionable source(s)? Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not familiar with Melton's. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: The source we are talking about is Melton's encyclopedia of American religions. You can read its penultimate edition (2009) here. The source is clearly reliable (academically published, and written by an expert in the field, Melton J. Gordon); the problem raised by Pbritti is this encyclopedia's use when it comes to GNG debates, since this encyclopedia catalogues even the smallest, most insignificant religious groups.

As for my experience, you can see this use of Melton at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Old Roman Catholic Church and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Charismatic Church of Canada by the same user. In both cases, the articles were deleted anyway.

I do not know what Pbritti's experience was. I can tell you that it is likely he opened this discussion here due to the 'keepers' at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Episcopal Church (2nd nomination) who considered that having as sole sources Melton+another RS, was enough to establish notability. Veverve (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Knowing what that is would probably help. This is the mentioned Melton's. See the current AOSEC and SEC AfDs as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Life Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, my view is that a single source, even a highly reliable one, is rarely sufficient to ring the WP:N bell. There are a number of variables here. How deep is the coverage? If it's a few sentences that won't do. If it's several paragraphs, that might. If it's a page or longer that almost certainly would count towards SIGCOV. But Meltons would still be just one source. If a denomination got substantial coverage from there and also the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, then I think you could make a reasonable argument that it passes our guidelines. I may glance at the AfDs when I get a few minutes but will likely not directly comment there out of an abundance of caution and deference to CANVASSING. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Regarding your correct revert on Spiritus Domini (Pope Francis), I believe that @Instituted's large edits have been close paraphrases or copy-pastes of documents, and therefore are copyright violations. I'm on the lookout now for similar problems. Elizium23 (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: long time no see! I hope you are doing well.

Thanks for warning me. I have also noted a copyright problem from another user, at Talk:Dicastery for Evangelization#Copyright violation, in case you want to have a look at this user's edits. Veverve (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit I made today to the article "Second Vatican Council". The edit consisted in adding the following to the reflist:

• Komonchak, Joseph A. (1977). "Modernity and the Construction of Roman Catholicism". Cristianesimo nella storia (18): 353–85. Available online at https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/jak-modernity-rcism.pdf.

You gave as your reasons for the revert: "it is not a source (the article makes no reference to it) and it is not properly formatted; it has its place in a 'Further reading' section)"

(1) "The article makes no reference to it". If one is going to add a short footnote to an article, the source must already be in the reflist; otherwise the short footnote has nothing to point to. So the order is: (a) add title to reflist; (b) create short footnote. You undid my addition to the reflist 12 minutes after I had added it. This is typical of your trigger happy behaviour in the past few months targetting my edits. When you did this, I was in the process of creating the short footnote pointing to the source I had just added to the reflist. As an experienced Wikipedia editor, you should have known better.

(2) "It is not properly formatted". On the contrary, "Komonchak, Joseph A. (1977). "Modernity and the Construction of Roman Catholicism". Cristianesimo nella storia (18): 353–85." is a perfectly formatted source. I added an explanatory sentence that the article was also available online. If you think this additional sentence was inappropriate, you could have removed that single sentence. You had no reason to remove the complete addition to the reflist. Again, typical trigger happy behaviour on your part.

You are basically a Wikipedia bully, as you have proven many times in the previous months with your reverts to my edits. Wikipedia says: before reverting, discuss the matter and/or propose an alternative. This is something you never do. Your talk page shows you have been sanctioned in the past for abusive editing. I will be seeking arbitration, with the ultimate objective of having you blocked from my edits. MDJH (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You gave no indication you were to use this as a source later.
• The URL should be inside the ref.
• The last of my reverts of yours is from November 2021, I can hardly see how it is a trigger happy behaviour in the past few months targetting my edits
• Feel free to seek arbitration.

- Veverve (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on this page are making it unreadable, boring, and a pointless source. You're deleting everything, even when sources are already in the article. You may as well ask to have the whole page deleted, as you seem to expect every sentence to have a source attached directly to that sentence. Please don't sit on pages just to delete sentences when a source is not directly attached to each sentence. For example, his connection to the Blue Army is noted in the body of the text, but you deleted reference to the Blue Army in his description. This is his primary claim to fame, and it's the notable achievement of his life along with founding the CMRI, which you also deleted, which every source connects him to the founding of the CMRI. G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@G4wa5r4gasag:

• you seem to expect every sentence to have a source attached directly to that sentence: outside of the information in the summary which are found in the body of the article, I do expect every sentence to have a source attached directly to it. See WP:V; it is not simply my own caprice.
• This is his primary claim to fame: according to whom?

- Veverve (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@G4wa5r4gasag: By the way, I have finished putting the article on good foundations, using a reliable source you can read freely on Archive.org (The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism). This source I used has much more information, but I really do not think I will continue adding them as I lack the time and motivation to do so. Feel free to add the other information from this source. Veverve (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Long time no see! I see you have had a slight interest in the topic. If you want, feel free to complete the Francis Schuckardt using the source I described above. This source can also be used for Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather go to WP:AFD, since I'm beginning to doubt that Schuckardt enjoys WP:SIGCOV or can pass WP:GNG. But let's assume for now that we can't delete it entirely, so I'll lay down some WP:TNT, light some incense, and see what happens in the coming week. Elizium23 (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, I have misgivings about paring the articles down so much that they rest chiefly on a single source. Since I am not so eager to view the Smoke of Satan myself, what is your judgement about the length of the piece on CMRI and how much of an article can be supported solely by Cuneo's work? Is it really only two pages long? Elizium23 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: In Cuneo's work, the part on Schuckardt (the person) is only two-pages long (p. 102 to 104). The CMRI history is from p. 102 to 113 (due to Schuckardt being part of its history as its founder).

I feel both Schuckardt and the CMRI are notable. You can find numerous news reports here.

As for the length of the piece on CMRI and how much of an article can be supported solely by Cuneo's work: well, both can be supported solely by Cuneo's work, but Schuckardt's article would be quite short. Maybe using the news reports I linked could help flesh out both articles. Veverve (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those media reports are good citations and clearly demonstrate significant coverage. They're 100% dead links, but cited specifically enough to be recoverable. They may be accessible through Newspapers.com, where I hold a paid account. Elizium23 (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted the ENTIRE CMRI page, despite nearly 100 references, many hours of work, including newspapers, books, and outside studies. You are an absolute troll, and this is exactly why wikipedia is a complete joke. Thankfully I downloaded all my work, and will host it on my own website. Hopefully you're getting paid to be a troll, otherwise you really need to re-evaluate your life. 98.146.177.153 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page watcher) I've warned for LOUTSOCKing and personal attacks at User talk:G4wa5r4gasag § Three notes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit to consecrator within 10 minutes of its being posted, saying there was no cite (I was finding one). When one was posted, within the hour, you reverted that, citing the self-reference policy, which has to do with references to Wikipedia, etc.

The passage in question is:

The presence of the additional bishops also ensures apostolic succession.^[1]

Where is the self-refence in that? Or is there something deeper going on here? Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piledhigheranddeeper: My bad, I got it wrong: it is a WP:SELF-PUBLISHED, not a WP:SELF. Veverve (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this feels like blatant discrimination and selective permission designed to eliminate any knowledge or information about our church and it's history and relevance.

I am sorry you will have to explain why all the other churches exist on wikipedia but we are not allowed to exist

I made some edits to one of the entries and put all the websites in of the lineage of ALL russian orthodox churches and their branches and that was also deleted

We exist as a historical fact ... whether you like it or not ... Nazi's burned books ... wikipedia is doing the same with information ... only a select few get to be in wikipedia the selection criteria? Haydukovich (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Haydukovich See WP:N, WP:NCHURCH, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See also Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Haydukovich: I am under a topic ban concerning Russia, so I cannot answer you on those. Sorry. Veverve (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if you were notified about this, but could come and talk about your changes to G3neral Roman Calendar please? → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General_Roman_Calendar#WP%3ANOTDIRECTORY 7otto (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fiddle to impose your drive-by preferences like this. Both styles are fine. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I tried to message you earlier but the page it took me to said you were "retired". My question is, why did you completely gut this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960

It is supposed to show the 1960 version of the Roman Calendar. Now it only makes references to the Calendar but shows nothing. The same was done to other Church Calendars before 1960. They all need to be restored. If minor details need to be fixed that's one thing, but entirely gutting it so it is no longer meaningful is vandalism. I undid that one edit myself since it said you were retired, in an attempt to walk the page back one step at a time to the August 16 version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960&oldid=1104648537

which was the newest one that was still a useful Calendar, since I could find no way to get it back in one step. Since you obviously know how to do this stuff better than I do, can you please restore it back to the original Calendar format before doing any needed technical edits? The same needs to be done for the 1954 Calendar, the Tridentine Calendar and any others that were demolished in the same manner.

I use these pages for reference daily and know others who use them regularly as well. They are all now unusable.

Thanks.

- Gary Megalonzerg (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalonzerg:

It is supposed to show the 1960 version of the Roman Calendar: how so? Wikipedia is not supposed to show the full content of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen at the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen article; the Quinisext Council page does not display all the numerous canons approved by the council. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is why WP:EL sections exist.

All those dates and feasts were also unsourced (WP:V).

Even if those were sourced, WP:ONUS applies. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most words on Wikipedia are not sourced. Only controversial things need to be removed while waiting for someone who has time to add intimate sources. Obvious things should be left alone unless you see an error and have a source to refute them. They you should correct them with your own source. If you want to improve something that is "unsourced" then source it, or give a source to refute it, and then correct it rather than removing it. What you have been frantically doing the last week or so to all the Church Calendar pages is pure vandalism. What is wrong with you? What is your purpose anyway? Do you hate Catholicism or Church history, or do you simply hate all Catholics? If all you want to do is destroy things why don't you just go away and stop bothering people. I'm wondering if you are live streaming your "editing" of people's lives, like the Memphis shooter last night live streamed his "editing" of people's lives. Maybe you just get thrills from killing? Megalonzerg (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalonzerg:

Most words on Wikipedia are not sourced: and it is a very bad thing! WP:CITOGENESIS is something which should be avoided at all cost. I do not remove things which are unsourced just [to] get thrills, I do it because I feel compelled to do so. Citogenesis is really something bad, both for Wikipedia and for the scientific community as a whole. I do not edit articles just for fun, I do it to improve them.

Obvious things should be left alone unless you see an error and have a source to refute them: WP:BURDEN, also this philosophy can only lead to citogenesis.

I will not answer your personal attack and ridiculous claims. Veverve (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Citogenesis" is like "injustice". It is an easy, alarm-signalling, word to throw around when you are trying to justify objectively bad behavior. If a building has rusty hinges on the doors, tearing the building down with no warning or discussion is not a good solution, no matter how compelled someone feels to do it. Leaving the building in place so as not to waste thousands of hours of other people's time, and not put people out on the street, and, instead, oiling the hinges might be a better solution. Megalonzerg (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, your user page says you're retired, but you've edited every month since you became a member. And your edit frequency is increasing. Maybe you're not retired? Not a big deal, but just wondering. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Glane23 I have had some free time lately, and found work to do on WP and a bit of motivation to accomplish it. Veverve (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have you among the very active editors. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not nice at all. He is a vandal. He is a destroyer, not a builder. He is also very fast, efficient, and dedicated at it, so there is no way to repair the damage he does. It's like having a raptor loose in your house. You just have to hope he somehow doesn't notice your next child. Megalonzerg (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently edit-warring across a wide swath of liturgical calendar-related articles. You are fighting multiple editors who disagree with your unilateral decision to gut all of these articles of their usefulness. Could you please cease and desist the edit-wars, firstly, and secondly, consider that your decision goes against consensus and that you should permit others to hold contrary opinions about this? Elizium23 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Elizium23. Unfortunately it apparently doesn't matter if a thousand people try to stand in front of a narcissist driving a bulldozer. Logic and reason are not relevant. It is so much easier to destroy than to build. Megalonzerg (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I do have the policy in my favour. Others at the Teahouse, as you know, have weighted in, which gives me the confidence to continue attempting clearing WP of its long lists of calendars of saints and feasts. Veverve (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any consensus there or even any strong opinions in your favor. I am also not seeing any policies that favor your blanket removals of large swaths of sourced information. In fact this information is the main source of utility for the articles you're gutting. Elizium23 (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: see WP:NOTDIRECTORY (and also WP:NOTGUIDE) for the policy. As for the consensus, see here and here. Veverve (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus. I hardly even see anyone who agrees with you!! How can you possibly read a consensus into this sort of hue and cry over your deletions? Elizium23 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I, @Pbritti, Cullen328, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: agree on the removal, from what I read. Veverve (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is wrong even when you are right. One must follow WP:BRD-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: what kind of nonsensical accusations are those ([7], [8], [9])? Have you heard of WP:NOATTACK, WP:AGF, WP:V and WP:BURDEN? The latter two also go for [10] and [11]. Have you even read the banners you have yourself added? Veverve (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF says “This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism).” And I never personally attacked you. I’m just reverting obvious vandalism. I💖平沢唯 (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: I henceforth assume you are perfectly aware of violating WP:BURDEN, on top of accusing me of vansalism (based on nothing, with no argument to your reverts). You have not read the banners you have yourself added either. You can reverse those changes, or I can open an ANI. Veverve (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not violating WP:BURDEN and I have no reason to listen to your threats because you’re just a troll (and banned), but just to make you happy I’m gonna add more citations to the Coptic and Ethiopian calendars. Just promise to stop blanking pages when you get unbanned, orelse I’ll open an ANI I💖平沢唯 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: you are clearly violating this policy. I am not the only one who does that as you can see by this very recent example, removing unsourced content is perfectly normal. Complying to WP:BURDEN is not about making me happier. Veverve (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007: about this: I answer here since I am blocked. I think List of Catholic saints already fulfills that role. Maybe adding reliably sourced footnotes to this list to indicate which saint is in which GRC would help. Therefore, I oppose the creation of the list you proposed. As for creating the page: in case you still create the page anyway, you must indicate which edition of the GRC you refer to and provide reliable sources. Veverve (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve Thanks, I appreciate the response. I'm going to experiment with List of Catholic saints in my sandbox and then make a proposal on that page. Spartacus007 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: in this edit you made a typo ("]]" instead of "}}"). I would fix it myself if I could, but am currently blocked for a few more days. Veverve (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spending the time to figure out what the redirect status was supposed to be, I could only discern that whatever the situation was supposed to be, having the article and the talk not in sync was not it :) Ljleppan (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: what "edit-warring" are you referring to? Veverve (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really have to link the articles? OK, here's one: Calendar of saints (Church in Wales) has you edit warring back and forth with another person, and there's an empty talk page. Literally minutes after you block ended, you raced to that article to resume your edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is states "Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring." The user was blocked, so my revert cannot be described as edit warring. Veverve (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. That only applies to editors who are evading a block or ban by using a sock puppet account. You don't get a free pass to revert any edits you want after someone has been temporarily blocked for edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: this is clearly not what the policy says. Otherwise, it would state "Reverting edits of users evading a block or ban by using a sock puppet account is not edit warring." There is nothing in the section which implies it is restricted to the cases you have described. The hyperlink to Wikipedia:Blocking policy of this policy defines block as the the moment an user is technically prevent[ed] from editing Wikipedia. Veverve (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Veverve, you are misinterpreting the policy. Edits that have been made in violation of a block or ban can be reverted. Your wikilawyering is doing nothing to help your cause here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: you might want to change the wording of the policy to add that nuance. First with my tban then that: I am getting tired of receiving sanctions and admins not AGF due to me interpreting poorly-worded policies with the obvious meaning they have (yes, I fully have the right to blame the wordings, and I will stick to it). Veverve (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity, it literally states in violation of a ban in the sentence you were relying on for the exemption. The policy also states If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Your edit summaries stated "same reason as before" which is a clear continuation of the edit war that led to your block and makes no mention of any type of exemption.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to weigh in here, but you guys are talking past each other: Wikipedia:Edit warring says "Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring" (without qualification, as Veverve says) and then in another section further down it lists "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users" under Exemptions (as Ponyo notes). StAnselm (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words - yes, there is considerable ambiguity in the policy and it should be changed. StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: so, you do not accept that I acted in good faith by reverting those edits, some of which were also a clear violation of BURDEN? Veverve (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of repeatedly pinging me, why don't you just make an unblock request? As far as edit warring to enforce content policies, it's a difficult situation. Everyone occasionally reverts a bit more than they should, especially when they know they're right. The problem is that most people think they're right during an edit war. One way to resolve that is to post to a talk page. Even if you just post a perfunctory "I'm just doing this to say that I did" note on the talk page, that goes pretty far. If nobody responds after a while, you can revert "per talk page". That gives people a chance to make policy-based objections. It also shows that you're willing to engage in communication beyond edit summaries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Indyguy, Pbritti, Elizium23, Jdcompguy, and Manannan67: I am pinging you since you are regulars on WProjects related to Christianity.

Absolutely all edits by an IP has been vandalism of numerous pages by restoring obvious POV and unsourced data.

Another IP different has done roughly the same here (maybe it is the same user? it seem the Traditionalist POV is for both).

I would take care of those myself if I could, or contact you via WProject Christianity, but I am blocked for a bit less than two weeks. Veverve (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Also, that is a very odd Tban they handed down. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is not a tban, but a full-on block. I cannot edit anything outside of my talk and personnal page; I cannot sent "Thanks" either (see the section just above). Veverve (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. Well, you are absolutely welcome to ping me until that expires–especially when notifying of such egregious vandalism. Hope to see you back to fighting fit as soon as that expires. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: thanks a lot for your help! Veverve (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007 and Pirripok: by the following edits, you have violated WP:BURDEN, despited the very clear mention of this policy as a justification for removal in my edit summaries of those articles.

Spartacus007: [12], [13],

Pirripok: [14], [15]

Either you a) revert your edits, or b) source those claims in a reasonable time period (one to two weeks); otherwise I will c) open an ANI against you for violating this policy. Veverve (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions I made were specifically ones the community came to a consensus on, in Talk:General Roman Calendar#WP:LISTCRITERIA. Of course I would be more than happy to improve the sourcing on those edits I made and I intend to do so. Spartacus007 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007: I am glad to know the lack of source will be fixed as soon as possible.

Nowhere in this discussion do I see a consensus to ignore BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007: you have also restored unsourced content at [16]. You have also removed my external links. You have simply ignored all my rationales in my edit summaries, and have blindly restored the page as it was before my edits. Veverve (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the revisions I made were specifically ones the community came to a consensus on, in Talk:General Roman Calendar#WP:LISTCRITERIA. The consensus was to revert to a specific version of the page and then make edits from there. I suggest moving this discussion to Talk:General Roman Calendar#WP:LISTCRITERIA, since that was where the decision was made and that is where the community of editors, experts and users of General Roman Calendar and related pages discuss these issues. Spartacus007 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007: The consensus was to revert to a specific version of the page and then make edits from there.: no, this is but Bob Tarver (an user whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to restore those articles, WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA)'s opinion, as well as yours. This is not the consensus, and it is still a violation of WP:BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already informed you that I plan to address the issues with the pages that need to be fixed due to Wikipedia:BURDEN and I explained why I took the first step of reverting them. If you have disagreements about this, the Talk page of the article is a much more appropriate place for them, so the community can have a chance to discuss. Thanks. Spartacus007 (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: your accusation of WP:BURDEN is specious. You really, really, really need to stop claiming that we're adding unsourced material when the feast days are all clearly verifiable by the primary source, the calendar itself. Being implicitly cited, there is no particular need to footnote each and every line in the article. You're blocked, (and your userpage still claims you're "RETIRED") and so stop trying to litigate this stuff on false premises from your user talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I had removed what had not inline source and clearly stated BURDEN and V, and this content was restored. To me, this violates BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve Your actions violate the guidelines of Wikipedia:Content removal.

"Removing a section of an article needs to be at least explained and in some cases discussed. Unexplained content removal (UCR) occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted."

You removed the majority of several articles with no prior discussion on the talk pages and nearly no explanation. Those edits were open to being promptly reverted.

"If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template {{fact}} ({{cn}} will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information."

Rather than requesting a citation, you made major erasures and began to edit war.

I also found, when I went back to add citations, that there *were* citations on the pages for that info! They just weren't inline citations yet.

You chose the most destructive possible solution to the problem of a lack of inline citations and engaged in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, threatening users who made edits you disagreed with instead of opening up good faith discussions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints or the pages in question. Spartacus007 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Truewhit: my warning (in the very beginning ot this thread) also applies to your edit. Veverve (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as noted by @Elizium23 there are several problems with how you went about removing this content. (see below)

"'Removing a section of an article needs to be at least explained and in some cases discussed. Unexplained content removal (UCR) occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted."

You removed the majority of several articles with no prior discussion on the talk pages and nearly no explanation. Those edits were open to being promptly reverted.

'If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template ^{[citation needed]} (^{[citation needed]} will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information.'

Rather than requesting a citation, you made major erasures and began to edit war.

I also found, when I went back to add citations, that there *were* citations on the pages for that info! They just weren't inline citations yet."

On my part, I added a single in-line citation to each of the two calendars to show where specifically in the books referenced the calendars are located. I hope that this addresses your concerns. Truewhit (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartacus007 and Truewhit: I have no idea why your messages are so similar, but since they are I will answer both at once.

"when the reason is not obvious", nearly no explanation: but the reasons were obvious, and explained at lenght in my edit summaries, e.g. by linking policies.

You removed the majority of several articles [...] You chose the most destructive possible solution to the problem of a lack of inline citations: you are implying that even if I had let a [Citation needed] for 2 months and then removed, you would have objected; I am therefore not sure why you are bringing this point. See also: Wikipedia:Unsourced information is not valuable.

threatening users who made edits you disagreed with instead of opening up good faith discussions: I did warn you on my talk page. If you violate BURDEN after being called out, it is your choice. The person I disagreed with, on the thread just below, has got an admin warning for not respecting BURDEN, so the 'wikilawyering' accusation falls flat. Veverve (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: despite the warnings you received stating that When someone removes unsourced content, you must add sources to using inline citations before restoring it, you have not reverted any of your edits for which this warning was issued. For information you have added back and which has not been sourced by an inline ref in the meantime, either you a) revert your edits (or remove the information you added back), or b) source those claims in a reasonable time period (one to two weeks); otherwise I will c) open once again an ANI against you for violating this policy. Veverve (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will I💖平沢唯 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveHirasawaYui: you still have not.

You have also POV-pushed and disregarded a reliable source which states "Racial segregation has appeared in all parts of the world where there are multiracial communities, except where racial amalgamation occurred on a large scale as in Hawaii and Brazil". Veverve (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm busy. I'll do it later but by the end of this week. Also stop stalking my edit history I💖平沢唯 (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, is this not WP:HARASSMENT? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My time to examine this dispute is limited; please bring user conduct issues to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended your block by two weeks and revoked your talk page access. Pinging other editors to argue with them and berate them while you are blocked is not acceptable. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TPA reinstated[edit]

I've reinstated TPA, Veverve, but I'm doing so on the condition that you may only make use of it to appeal the current block through the {{unblock}} feature. Please do not discuss anything else, and only ping relevant admins, definitely not editors involved in whatever dispute or disputes this concerns — if in doubt, use {{noping|user}}. Thanks. El_C 05:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very next sentences in the reference provided go into how Bishops interpret canons..

"The canons do not act by themselves, but they serve the bishops as authoritative guidelines in adjudicating specific cases. The canons are based on precedent and do not envisage hypothetical circumstances. The spectrum of the canons coincides largely with the above-mentioned range of subjects. One may liken the application of the canons to the prescription of medical remedies of differing potency. In some instances a practitioner may decide to follow literally (i.e., according to akriveia, a Greek term meaning “exactness”) the recommendations of a canon regarding penance..."

So, I'm confused by your comment that the original intent was clear.. if all of the canons must "mandatorily be obeyed" then why does it immediately talk about how oftentimes they aren't expected to be followed?

Also, wouldn't it say, "mandatorily obey canons that pertain to you" because, as we know, not all canons apply to all people. Why would I mandatorily obey canons referring to women if I am a man? Dr. Patsavos, one of the premier canonists in the world today, writes in his Spiritual Dimensions of the Holy Canons on the applicability and authority of canon law, "On the one hand, there are those who revere the letter of the canons. But as has already been remarked, "no one seems to absolutize all of them". then there are those who deny the relevancy of the entire body of the canons in its present state." He agrees with Fr. Meyendorff that both positions are wrong. The canons cannot be absolutized because there are countless that have fallen into oblivion and are not used at all today.

At the very least, the original citation doesn't even really belong in the section. Not even but a few sentences later in the is this sentence, "Canons which concern administrative or disciplinary matters – which are most canons – are not considered to be infallible, and can therefore be changed or reinterpreted". So, again, I ask.. why would I have to mandatorily follow canons that can be changed or aren't even used anymore?

It's obvious that the original quote from the citation is referring to observance of the canons in the sense that they are to be recognized as a genuine aspect of the Orthodox Faith given the entire context of the chapter in its original text. 199.66.170.13 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP: I do not see how "observance" should be otherwise interpreted as something else than "the act of obeying a law or following a religious custom" ([17]). Veverve (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What am I meant to be looking for on the talk page? I don't see any relevant discussion. Schierbecker (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom#Undue, then I will have to strongly disagree. There's a comment there from User:Zezen (an indef blocked crypto-Nazi), yourself supporting Zezen, an IP supporting including the statement, and one inflammatory tirade from a two-edit account. It is undue weight to mention that this Nazi spent time in prison for child pornography?? Please, expand on this. Schierbecker (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schierbecker It is indeed undue to mention this in the article summary, as it is not part of the subject's main characteristics. Veverve (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've both interacted with Lord saturnus a few times at this point. I've issued a warning or two to them. I am suspicious about this brand-new editor and their intentions, but moreover their competence to simply put a sentence together is lacking. Elizium23 (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: the editor seems to be bona fide incompetent. I do not know what to do with those kind of editors, I myself have been struggling with one at Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). Altough I must say Lord saturnus seems to have mastered the art of adding unsourced content, a skill very much appreciated on Wikipedia nowadays where unsourced rambling is seen as more precious than having few reliably sourced lines. Veverve (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting; I was idly composing an essay in my head last week about Wikipedia's burden of debt. We've been left with a legacy of debt, in the form of unsourced statements in hundreds of thousands of articles across all topics. Nobody can verify it all but Wikipedia is supposedly built on a pillar that says everything must be verifiable. Who's going to go through offline sources, chase archived links, read hundred-page PDFs, and listen to hour-long podcasts to verify facts just because they're in an article? I do it on rare occasions and it's shocking how poorly our articles fare.

The burden of maintenance is huge and our cadre of editors today barely keeps up the illusion of a functioning project. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool deletionist but I can't keep enough of it out! Elizium23 (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: in case you had not seen it, I have written WP:CHEWINGGUM on the importance of having sourced content and removing unsourced content.

I have encountered opposition on the removal of unsoured content from users on two articles recently. Today at Liturgical Movement; and before that at Philippine Independent Church (you can see my frustration here and here).

I feel the "put a banner, add a 'Citation needed' tag, do whatever you want, but by all means never remove anything for bytes in articles are so precious" culture is extremely destructive to WP. The mere fact that some users actively work on keeping those worthless (since they are unsourced) information flusters me a lot. Veverve (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veverve!

I saw you canceled my edit on the article "Psalms 152–155". Today I added the text of Psalm 155 to the Hebrew Wikipedia. It is a psalm about the Lord, and not about King Hezekiah. Keep in mind that the text about King Hezekiah did not exist untill a user called "Shin Kurogane" added a false Psalm to the article. Luckily I found the true text of Pslam 155, so this isn't the theme of the Psalm. כובש המלפפונים (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@כובש המלפפונים: Again: what does Wright, W. (1887), Some Apocryphal Psalms in Syriac says? Veverve (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the text of Some Apocryphal Psalms in Syriac is not available for me. However, I did found the text of Psalm 155 in its Hebrew origin here, on Wikitext. I added the text of the Psalm to Hebrew Wikipedia as well. כובש המלפפונים (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@כובש המלפפונים: So, you are removing what is sourced in favour of your own interpretation of a text. This is WP:OR and is not acceptable Veverve (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source: [18] כובש המלפפונים (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@כובש המלפפונים: I have added an URL to Wright's article, so you can read it. His second psalm is indeed called "The Prayer of Hezekiah when enemies surrounded him". Veverve (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SDFORMAT — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, haven’t left a message before, eager to hear your thoughts.

How are the below verses not included in the source? There are more verses that kings and queens would have objection to, but not to beleaguer the point…. https://founders.org/2011/10/12/the-geneva-bible-and-its-influence-on-the-king-james-bible/ (see chapter title “The Rejection of the ‘Seditious’ Geneva Bible by King James I”)

text in issue cited below:

Example of the commentary in conflict with the monarchy in the Geneva Bible (modern spelling) include:

• Daniel 6:22 — “For he [Daniel] disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonoured.”
• Daniel 11:36 — “So long the tyrants will prevail as God has appointed to punish his people: but he shows that it is but for a time.”
• Exodus 1:19 — To the Hebrew midwives lying to their leaders, “Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil.” (You keep removing this one, The source that you you say doesn’t include this scripture says about this scripture… “ The GB says that their disobedience in this act was lawful (though it qualifies that their deception was evil). Tricking the tyrant is allowed by the law. McGrath draws the parallel to the seventeenth century, “As radical Protestant factions, such as the Puritans, began to view James as their oppressor, the suggestion that it was lawful to disobey him became increasingly welcome to Puritans and worrying to James.”[37] “ …this comment is very objectionable to authority, which is the point to give the reader context to the inflammatory nature of the commentary)
• 2 Chronicles 15:15-17 — King Asa “showed that he lacked zeal, for she should have died both by the covenant… and by the law of God, but he gave place to foolish pity and would also seem after a sort to satisfy the law.”

Additionally, why do you want to remove the links to the source text? I am just curious why you feel it would be in the best interest of the reader of the page to remove citations to the original translated scripture; remove relevant commentary from the Geneva writers that solidify the point that King James had objection with the Geneva, and why there are claims that material that is clearly in the cited source is not in the cited source?

I know that this is a controversial Bible translation, especially for our Catholic brothers and sisters, but isn’t it important to provide the most clarity and context for the reader? Please let me know how these points are invalid! Grace to you. Ep289 (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ep289: I answered on the talk page. Veverve (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Versus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if there was a particular reason you've been looking around some of the articles I've created or substantially edited? Obviously not a problem, but it has been kinda funny just seeing you pop up in my watchlist on articles only really connected by involvement on them. If you want any help with these articles, you can always ping me, but otherwise I've been glad for your revisions (especially catching that slip-up of "1929" that you corrected to "1928")! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: I have been improving the categorisation of the images you have uploaded on WCommons, because they were in dire need of it (better and less redundant categories, creating new categories, linking categories to WP articles, etc.). Hence, I had a quick glance look at some of the articles where the images were.

Glad you liked my help! Veverve (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, swell! Glad you've taken up the category project there and have been working on improving/fixing the errors I've made not only there but on enWiki. If you would like any help on the Commons, you're more than welcome to ping me over there as you did with that one image already. Thanks again for doing these little edits–they really do add up! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited God is dead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

~ Pbritti (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

@Pbritti: thanks! Happy New Year to you too! Veverve (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I added the interwiki link to the wrong article. Wikidata can be used for this purpose only when there is an article or redirect in the target Wikipedia. Apokrif (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokrif: je pense que le mieux à faire est de créer une redirection sur WPfr puis de la lier à l'objet Wikidata wikidata:Q115941150. Veverve (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You think this doesn't mention homilies?

In this it was typical of Francis' homilies at special events, preaching from the readings while hardly acknowledging the occasion.^[1]

Quote: "But will he? Pope Francis has a homiletic style that may prove a challenge on for him on this occasion. The Holy Father prefers to take up themes from the biblical readings, with minimal comment on the occasion at hand. His canonization homilies — including those for Popes John XXIII, John Paul II and Paul VI — only contain a few scant lines about the new saint. He has even preached at canonizations where he has not mentioned the new saint at all. Such rhetorical reserve on this occasion could be interpreted as lacking for Benedict’s funeral." Rutsq (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Rutsq (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rutsq: the article cannot discuss an homily which had not already taken place at the time. You stating that the homily which took place days after the article was published fits this analysis made before the homily was pronounced (or revealed in text form), is OR. Veverve (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article can certainly discuss Francis' typical homilies and that's exactly how I used it. It's context and precisely on point. Rutsq (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rutsq: We are not talking about typical homilies of Francis, but about whether the 5 January homily is a typical homily of Francis or not. You are making the OR of stating that the 5 January homily is a typical homily of Francis; the article does not mention this (and it cannot, unless the author is a time traveller). Veverve (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Williamson (bishop), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Croix.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the {{semi-retired}} template is more suitable in this case. A retired template often meant the user would never edit Wikipedia ever again, but it is obvious in your contributions that you are actually really active :) CactiStaccingCrane 16:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too have noted that you (Veverve) are, in point of fact, a very frequent editor still and absolutely not 'retired' (not 'semi'). As such the hatnote at the top of your user page is very misleading to other editors and should be removed asap. --AlisonW (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making such a request just after blocking me, thus preventing me from editing my user page... Veverve (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veverve! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Heresy in the Catholic Church that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you come at this the other way. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have nominated Category:Irvingism for speedy renaming to Category:Catholic Apostolic Church, which I think makes sense. I think Category:Catholic Apostolic Church denominations should be renamed to Category:Apostolic denominations and be the parent category of Category:Catholic Apostolic Church, what do you think? That would be consistent with Category:Catholic denominations and Category:Catholic Church. TSventon (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: "Catholic Apostolic" (the current name of the category) is good and should not be changed. "Apostolic" is way too vague to be used on its own, and it is an adjective used by many denominations. Veverve (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that Category:Catholic Apostolic Church as renamed should be a subcategory of Category:Catholic Apostolic Church denominations? The name of the category would need a CfD discussion. TSventon (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: no, it should not be a subcategory: the category should be a broad one, where all things related to the Catolic Apostolic movement are put (not everything fits in the Catholic Apostolic Church denominations category). Veverve (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: now that I think about it, maybe Category:Catholic Apostolic Church should be renamed to "Category:Catholic Apostolic movement". I have withdrawn my renaming proposal for the time being. Veverve (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think a fuller discussion would be useful. Can you ping me if you have further suggestions and I will do the same for you. TSventon (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not going to assess the content of the TST article, one of AEF's complaints appears to be that you haven't been using enough edit summaries to explain yourself when removing content. Please don't take this as criticism, but it would definitely forestall that argument if your edit summaries were more detailed.

Next time there's an issue, post on the talk page, wait a week to see if there's a response, and if not, implement it with "as per talk page". DS (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: thanks for your sympathy.

As for the content: I tried to reach out to the user, via the article's talk page and their own talk page, to no avail. I did mention to them WP:BURDEN numerous times, a policy which I cannot explain in a better way than it is currently written. Veverve (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you use edit summaries more often, they help other editors. 43% of you recent major edits lacked an edit summary, as did 90% of your minor edits.^[19]

Thank you for the useful links you placed in User talk:Karma1998#Stop adding unsourced material!. I did not know about WP:CHEWINGGUM and WP:FICTREF.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people excommunicated by the Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Per se.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's not only vandalizing that page, but also the disambiguation page for canon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, don't want to ask too much and if you can't do it easily, don't feel like you have to do it. However, would you be able to make a Wikidata item for me? Specifically, for the subject Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: done. Veverve (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacques Grolet: Hello, I am knew to English wikipedia so I don't know how to answer on a specific edit. I am the person who tried to modify the Catholic–Protestant relations page; I have many sources to back my claim up (it's not a debated fact, which is why I didn't find necessary to quote a source, my bad). I can't find the book quoted by the article, so I can't check what exactly it is saying. What should I do? Thank you! Sorry for being a newbie ;) Jacques Grolet (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacques Grolet: préférez-vous que je vous réponde en français, plutôt qu'en anglais ? Français ou anglais, les deux ne me posent aucun problème. Veverve (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veverve. It looks as if you are working hours each day on Wikipedia. You don't appear to be retired! Keep up the good work as long as you enjoy it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: you did not restore the page to WP:QUO. Veverve (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the moral "sometimes edit-warring bear fruit, if you try hard enough your version can also become WP:QUO"? Had I been the last to revert, would my version have been the one to be kept? Veverve (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unsourced information is not valuable, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unsourced information is not valuable and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Unsourced information is not valuable during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, being blocked, I can neither revise nor defend my article, nor state what I would change if I could (and I am pretty sure if I complain I will get told "your fault, you should not have gotten blocked"). Quite unfair, is it not? Veverve (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can make comments here and someone can copy them into the MfD discussion. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[20]. Veverve (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Hmm. I'd much rather suspend the MfD then until such time when you can participate. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, I'm sure that the blocking admin would recognize that posting a response in accordance with policy processes would be acceptable. That said, @WaltCip: I agree that holding off on the deletion discussion is the best choice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you reverted my edits -- I'm not trying to edit war. In any event the wording and meanings of the quotes and cites are not changed. This is a WP Manual of Style edit. Same idea applies to fronts used, size of fonts, or hyphens vs. endashes vs. emdashes. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am applying these warnings after the fact since you have engaged in WP:DISRUPT and WP:VANDALIZE by gutting a large portion of the articles Maria Valtorta and Poem of the Man-God.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Maria Valtorta, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Poem of the Man-God, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary: I did. Removing large parts of articles is not vandalism per se; vandalism has a specitific meaning. Stop trying to POV-push. I have explained to you at the talk page why those sources are not reliable, yet you insist. Do not come again with your bogus warnings, otherwise I will have to take this to ANI. Veverve (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed large swaths of the original articles representing many weeks of work. I asked you to take it up on the talk page so we can discuss your concerns. Instead you reverted my reversion of your disruptive edits. I am giving this additional warning after the fact.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Maria Valtorta, you may be blocked from editing. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Poem of the Man-God, you may be blocked from editing. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trinita Obu is model of an influential Nigerian youth, who has touched the lives of many positively within his Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria base and beyond.

He is a tech expert and broadcaster, whose services are sought after by different media houses across Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda, South Africa and some other Central and East African countries.

Trinita, as he is fondly called is also the CEO of a start up brand QUICK SERVICE; an online platform that connects skilled service providers to clients who need their services on the-go. The brand is made to give the needed visibility to both new businesses and already established ones across Africa. It is also created to help young freelancers have a wider reach for more patronage.

As a young entrepreneur with big dreams and a mission to lead a growing African business concern, he is the CEO of Vescovo Enterprises, which covers different business areas such as: V-Estate (properties development), Vescovo Entertainment (events, shows, party planning & celebrity management). ElRabbi (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... what are you refering to? Veverve (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Best to ignore that kind of thing and delete it. Usually just spammers seeking out someone who can publish their autobiography. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand not wanting blog posts as sources, but you removed a lot of what had been on the page for the last year, since the last time you edited even. 152.61.42.63 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... eh, yes, I did. Veverve (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note your edit comment "but it is false: the question of which councils they accept a ecumenical is an ongoing debate" for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthodox&diff=prev&oldid=1154627371 .

Both before and after your reversion, and both before and after my edit which you reverted, the number of "accepted Ecumenical Councils" for both denominations were the same, i.e., I did not introduce what you claimed as the reason for your reversion, and your reversion left the same data that were your reason for the reversion.

While I re-did the edit to your satisfaction, I did so in such a manner as to remove content that had long been there, and I ended up stating the difference far more verbosely that I feel is necessary. Please consider re-instating something along the lines of the edit herein noted.

I thank you. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lipsio: ah, yes you were right! Sorry, there was a lapse in my judgement. Veverve (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to revert to using the numbers of accepted councils? That is my preference, but I wish to avoid anything resembling an editing war. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lipsio: no, I think the current version is better. I maintain that the question of which councils they accept as ecumenical is an ongoing debate. Veverve (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve:Please note, in case you haven't, the changes made by another editor [21]; personally, I very much dislike the changes, but don't have the time and energy to get involved. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk)

Hello, hello, hello! I have a "work in progress tag" per talk and and you are already reverting me! Please WAIT until I have finished, then we discuss. That is what the talk page is for. Else we end up reverting each other and run over the 3 revert. Please WAIT until work in progress is done, as on talk. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]