User talk:Pbritti/Archive 5

Discretionary Sanctions Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Intervention

@Veverve: I wanted to do this on my talk page because we're having a fruitful discussion with a new editor there. I really appreciate your edits and consistency in being a good actor, but I need to break it to you: ya really need to archive some of your talk page. | | /end sacrcasm | | In all seriousness, I really appreciate your work this last year and I'm glad to have found a kind editor to cooperate with for the Catholicism WikiProject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support. I really appreciate your encouragement. I think about archiving my talk page sometimes, but I never goet to do it and to me it is quite secondary.

I am also glad we can work together to improve WP articles, you have also proved to be of a great help.

I would have wished the admins had remembered the good work I have done over time like you did, before t-banning me as if I was dangerously threatening the Wikipedia project in some areas.

By the way, while we are speaking of Christianity, what do you think of my proposal for here and here? I had disengaged at the time, due to a dispute with the person opposing (as you can see in the discussion I linked). Those proposals are in line with the move more thant one year ago of the content related to the Twelve Apostles from Apostles to Apostles in the New Testament, with Apostle being now a list of the rank of apostle in various religious denominations or organisations. Veverve (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Just started looking at your discussion regarding Apostles. Agree that the topic ban seems peculiar; I hope that they revisit it in the future, as it seems like an instance of admins engaging in a bit of aggressive blanket tbanning. There seems to be a general unwillingness among admins to engage in nuance in complicated matters. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I took some time and an user script and now my talk page is much more readable. Veverve (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Might do likewise. Looks swell. Not super familiar with Wiki scripts. That'll be my new frontier this year. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Octavius2's Premature Silencing

What is this "Consensus" that you say has developed against me? I wasn't informed of any such consensus. So far, I have parried the accusations of @Veverve, and @Jdcompguy, post for post. Additionally, if you look back here and here and here, you'll see that I just got done silencing Veverve, over the debate of whether (as I claim) Church Fathers (CFs), the Magesterium, and Medieval Theological Compendia may be counted as Secondary sources. His silence has basically conceded the point, as I knew he would, because, once I found the proper WP paragraphs, I knew that he'd have no response. Since I won this argument, which was the whole reason for why he removed my entire 2 sections ( Theological Implications; and History > Scriptural & Patristic Origins), it means that my entire sections can go back up, even if they have to be edited to some degree, for unsatisfying footnotes, for example. You yourself edited [that entire Post of mine] 13 TIMES, without raising any issue, as to its wholesale unsuitability, before @Veverve undid the whole thing, all 80,000 byes, wrongly claiming "This table is purely OR from the user. Church Fathers [not to mention Magisterium, & Medieval theological compendia?] are a primary source." That's pure baloney ! . . . You have to propose and defend actual reasons for these 2 sections' removal, if you don't like what I'm doing, not just suddenly claim a "consensus," which I don't get to respond to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavius2 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: A consensus rarely requires formal notification or formal announcement, but suffice to say this response can function as such. When you have three or four editors consistently opposing your edits despite listening to your position and attempting to integrate your material, generally that functions as a firm consensus. If you would prefer, I can throw a survey up on the talk page and announce it to a couple of the pertinent WikiProjects, if the presently active common-law view of consensus-building is insufficient. While you might consider you statements to have deftly "parried" your fellow editors, that is not the objective of Wikipedia discussion. As I've mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a forum for intellectual debate but rather an assembly of relevant and reliable sources that pass muster. If material added fails to pass those long-established standards, its not suitable for the project. While you might be able to stand blow-for-blow with someone who disagrees with you, if a number of more experienced editors (such as Veverve) and other editors (such as myself) have reviewed the material you have added and found deficiencies, whether you can respond to each criticism in a way you find suitable is fruitless. My efforts to trim down your edits was in order to prevent a general deletion of your material. Ultimately, I failed to pare it in such a way as to make it functional and ultimately agree with its deletion.

That is certainly not an indictment against the quality and impressiveness of your work–it is certainly worthy of acknowledgement and commendation. However, it has repeatedly failed to measure up as the sort of material we include on the Wikipedia project. I would gladly cite the research you have produced for the pages you've edited if they appeared off-site, but Wikipedia is just not the right place to post them as your original (and thoughtful) exegesis. Another thing, simply as a note from someone newish to someone newer: "Premature Silencing" across as self-pitying and as an effort to proclaim victim status. There are those who would respond viscerally to the suggestion you are a victim and even accuse you wrongly of incivility. While it isn't inherently wrong, I would just caution you against such verbiage (except in incidents when editors absolutely behave beyond the pale). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've been contending here, for a long time ((here, here, here, and here)), that your so-called 'consensus' (which I don't acknowledge) completely violated the instructions for Identifying Primary [and Secondary] sources.

YOU CANNOT CLAIM CONSENSUS IF YOU NEVER RESPOND TO YOUR OPPONENT'S CENTRAL ARGUMENT.

I was just getting going, and you tried to shut the place down. Octavius2 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: Just as shouting is rather distasteful in a polite environment, as are bolded all caps on a user's talk page. In any case, the underlying and central issues have been addressed–repeatedly. There is a massive issue of original research here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. If you present a patristic text that is held as valid by groups that both accept and deny Immaculate Conception, it is absolutely original research to assert that the source solely supports the Catholic view. This is doubly so when dealing with something where you have to synthesize multiple concepts and interpretations of other sources. Instead of citing how these patristic writers and and pagan philosophers were interpreted to develop the Catholic doctrine, you present it as though it is a given that if they say "Mary was sinless," she was conceived immaculately. We can see by the various other interpretations that this just is not true. It's not about the age of the sources or even the sources themselves, but the fact that its anachronistic and scholastically errant to say they absolutely support the Catholic view. This has been explained multiple times. Read it, digest it, sit on it. We are listening to what you say, but I get the feeling you're not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Caps is how I emphasize, and free speech is in the hand of the writer, not the reader.

Is your call for neutrality remotely relevant here? For 99% of what I wrote, THERE IS NO PROTESTANT VIEW. Should I write, "Protestants haven't even considered this possibility, because they a priori deny it to be even possible"? I'd sound like a broken record. This is a solely CATHOLIC doctrine: The issue is just to lay it out, and its implications and possibilities, not to MANUFACTURE *POOF* some Protestant opinion on every little sentence, because there isn't any. It's ludicrous to force upon a man from the 4th Century some Protestant, or Mormon spin, but it sounds like that what's you're arguing. It doesn't matter what point-of-view he has. The literal signification of his words, considered in an honest context, should reveal what point-of-view he has pretty clearly. But what Veverve wants to do is BAN IT from being even posted at all.

No, there is no "massive" issue of original research here. Everything I said, was what Church Fathers, Magisterium, and Anne Catherine Emmerich say. Almost none of it came from me. You yourself praised the accuracy of my translations. You only THINK that it came from me, because either (1) you're not willing to admit that these are all legit Secondary Sources, with their own authentic voices; or (2) you think that I stitched them together. But look at that chart of mine, that you discarded as "a process of reasoning, rather than reporting reasoning." Nothing could be further from the truth: There were 9 footnotes up in its column HEADINGS, not down in the data-cells, but up there, because THOSE footnotes mentioned, not just 1, but MULTIPLE cells below them. So the authors themselves stitched those columns together, not me. Indeed this chart, is a MASSIVE, MASSIVE theme throughout Classical studies. In general, if you think something is Original Research, then you should contest it alone, not discard all 80,000 of my bytes. There's important info there. Octavius2 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Octavius2: There is no "free speech" on Wikipedia, a private entity. There is also no free speech when sitting in someone else's living room, to which one might analogize a user talk page. I haven't read the full background of this dispute, but Pbritti has asked you to not use all-caps here on their talkpage (or at least implied that they want you to). Please respect that. See also WP:SHOUTING (and yes I realize the irony of linking to that in Wikipedia's convention of all-caps for shortcuts). If you wish to emphasize text, the conventional way to do so in this community is with italics, underlines, or very judicious use of boldfacing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: You continue to misunderstand what has been repeated to you over a dozen times now. Before you respond, review the many things that have been written to you and contemplate them, maybe for a couple days. Edit other pages, see how that stuff works, and then maybe we can work towards something. Otherwise, at this point, the conversation is fruitless. Also, not sure how "free speech" plays here, but asking for politeness is a matter of virtue, not regulation. While I appreciate Tamzin citing the relevant essays/guidelines, I think we can continue this conversation at a later date, one-on-one, without any issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti 12 times? . . . That's a wild distortion. . . . You neglect to even specify what you supposedly said to me 12 times. I think your mind is overlapping things.

No, be fair: If you want to say that you repeated something to me 12 times, then have the decency to link to each of those 12 times to prove that you really did say it; that's what I did, above, when I said that you were disregarding me "here, here, here, and here." (Just press CTRL-F to find those 4 links above). Octavius2 (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: As requested, the instances in which we have laid out the issues previously can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. There are other instances, but I think 12 is sufficient to capture the point that we have been trying to make clear. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That's like linking 12 times to the entire Library-of-Congress!

🔘Again-- What specifically did you say to me 12 times?

🔘Also-- Where specifically is it at? (Don't just include a link to a whole page of 1000 lines, but include an ID-hashtag link to the relevant paragraph within that page.)

. . . That way, they'll be able to see, that it was in fact 12 separate things, which you said to me "12 times," but still weren't ashamed to utter "12," as if as to falsely allege that I'm just unwilling to get a clear, simple point, even after 12 repetitions? Octavius2 (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Caps discouraged? . . . Okay, I'll use itallics instead, as MOS:EMPHCAPS encourages.

He invited me to his living room here. Previously we were discussing in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard, and I'm not sure why he invited me here, but he did it, in any case. Octavius2 (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Book of Common Prayer (1662)

On 5 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Book of Common Prayer (1662), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer was approved by Parliament on 19 May 1662, and required by law starting on St Bartholomew's Day that year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1662). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Book of Common Prayer (1662)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Image

Hey Pbritti, I just uploaded this image since it contains the traditional dress of the st thomas syrian christians chatta and mundu which is mentioned in the wikipedia article.I'm a person belonging to this community of St.Thomas Christians.Kindly do consider these images to be kept on the page.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRHmTivl (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @TRHmTivl: Thanks for reaching out, I'm going to move this conversation to the talk page of the article per standard procedure, but wanted to respond to you here quickly. Three other editors disagree with the inclusion of that image on the grounds that it is excessive, and your insertion of the image has been reverted four times. Additionally, it is peculiarly captioned for a photo of a very specific couple. The clothing is mentioned in the article, but not in your caption. While inclusion of images of traditional dress are nice, the image hardly depicts that clothing (only from the chest up). A preferable image exists on the page for the Chatta and Mundu. You've also been inserting the image in a location somewhat irrelevant to what it depicts; if we weren't already so full-up on illustrations in that article, you'd want to put it directly by the passage that mentions it. Thanks for reaching out, but I recommend you heed the gathered consensus against that image on the page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Misleading change comments

Don't mislead the reader by phrasing a change which amends a change by stating that it reverts a change. TEDickey (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tedickey: Not sure that's much of a concern. Anyhow, it was a reversion: the information previously deleted was correct and the sourcing present was wrong for the 2021 ranking, too. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese and ANI

You asked if I thought Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese would need to be reported to ANI. I'm going to say no, simply because I'm watching the situation, and given the lack of communication from the user, I'm ready to block them if there's another mass addition of images. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Ah, well, I already went and included them on a broad AN/EW report regarding the major archbishop's page. I suppose I can subtract their inclusion if you believe this is the right move. I think that the block would make sense should the issue arise again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Another addition of images: [1]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed for UPE. —C.Fred (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Global Methodist Church

The May 6 source doesn't actually say the meeting continued on May 7. Technically, if you use a source dated May 6, I don't think it can. There is an update dated May 11, but I don't know how we handle that.

It doesn't use the May 1 date either.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Initially agreed but noticed the passage "gathered its supporters and voting delegates here in the Indianapolis suburbs on Friday and Saturday to help the new denomination get off the ground." Friday here meaning the 6th, Saturday the 7th. Don't want to step on toes here, though, so go with whichever arrangement you prefer. Once you find your preferred arrangement, I'll add info on the Floridian churches that joined the GMC that week. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid to double check because I might get blocked for looking at too many free articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: That is a frustrating thing, sorry. In deference towards status quo, I'll revert to your version just for consistency. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I did go back and I was not blocked. Yes, it does say Saturday, but my problem with that is the article is dated Friday. It does not, however, give a specific date for the launch of the denomination, but the other source does. I removed the previous edit, which may have been mine, saying the denomination "will" launch.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: In any case, I really appreciate your work on that page! It has been a pet project of mine for like six months now. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Asheville Citizen-Times published an article with essentially the same information, written by the same author, today. At least that's what ProQuest says they did. I contacted ProQuest to get them to make a correction because they have the event happening last weekend. As for the Citizen-Times, they never listen to a word I say.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Thank you. Ping me if you want me to help with anything; I'll be able to help more Wednesday-ish. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I only work on certain Wikipedia articles when I see related news coverage but thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated US Catholic Dioceses Map

I understand that my original US dioceses map (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lower_48_Catholic_Dioceses_and_Cathedral_Locations.png) was a bit too cluttered for the List of Catholic dioceses in the United States Wikipedia page. However, I do think it would be helpful to have a map showing diocese names. Would you be open to a similar map without the cathedral locations, either as a complement to the original map or as a replacement? KJB32016 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@KJB32016: I think so, but that might not be what other editors want. I would have absolutely no problem with you replacing the current one with the one you inserted sans cathedral markers, though. It wouldn't be readable without expanding the image, but on a list page like that one I can't imagine it being that big a deal. A shame that all the other jurisdictions (ordinariates, eparchies) can't be on there, but it would be such a mess. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good, thanks! I'll create a revised one without the markers. I can also create a map with just the markers (and no diocese names) for the list of Catholic Cathedrals in the US. KJB32016 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@KJB32016: Sounds great. That'll be a great addition to both pages! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

OK I've made the additions! I also tweaked the images to include Alaska and Hawaii. Thanks again for your input. KJB32016 (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Pls protect VIOLENCE AGAINST CHRISTIANS IN INDIA from Vandalism. Bleedforkochi (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion via Twinkle

Just so you know, Twinkle has a neat tool to make starting an AfD very easy. Since I have discovered it, I cannoy live without it! Veverve (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: I'll have to use it next time! Anyhow, here's the latest AfD I literally just did: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Life Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A request

I have repeatedly asked that you stay on topic, yet you continue to focus on my "behavior" without considering your own. You continually bring up one comment about edit warring, but to what end? Now you come to my talk page, again, to post a "warning", and a link to a years old discussion, and comments about my block log...from 2019. My request is simple, I ask that you stay off my talk page, and I will again ask that you focus on the content dispute and not on me. (WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS is instructive here.) Your actions are doing nothing to help work towards a resolution. I have no interest in you, your history, or any prior disputes you have been in, I ask the same of you. I would prefer to just discuss the content issue on the article talk page, hopefully find some kind of compromise or solution, and move on. If you can't do that, then perhaps it's best we just avoid each other and look into dispute resolution instead. I will leave it up to you. Have a nice day. - wolf 17:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You repeat false accusations of edit warring are representative of a pattern you've had far more recently than "2019," the case I cited that got you blocked was last year and featured a very similar accusation from you was a year ago (April 2021); either you misremember or are misrepresent. It is almost exactly a year since you got your account following this type of behavior. Your deletion of the thread on your talk page and attempt to move the conversation here is also peculiar (and, again, inappropriate by your own standards). I initially moved the discussion of your behavior to your talk page in order to maintain the article discussion on the article talk page. You reverted it and carried on complaining about me on the article talk page. The issue, on my end, has ceased being one of content but one of civility; I have repeatedly presented evidence for my case that you dismissed out of hand and only addressed in the context of claiming violation of Wikipedia protocol. So far, every thing you have accused me of has applied to your behavior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done. As evidenced by this continued digging, as part of your deep dive into my wiki-history, it seems you are only interested in trying to widen and prolong a dispute that I have repeatedly stated I have no interest in taking part in. If there is anything you should take away from all that history, is the benefit of disengaging, which is what I am doing here. That is why I don't want it, or you, on my talk page, and if you don't want this thread here either, feel free to close and/or delete and/or archive it. As for the article, clearly you intend to press on with the addition, regardless of what I have to say, so go for it. I have, in my last exchange with PRRfan, indicated my preference from the examples in their suggested approach. I can only hope that they will craft any addition to the article with the same sensible attitude they've displayed on the talk page. I will continue to watch, and edit, that page as needed, but as of now I have no further interest in interacting with you. Please do not ping me again, thank you - wolf 22:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Another denomination of questionable notability

Here is Orthodox Anglican Church to help you in your project. Veverve (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: I'll try to improve that page with additional sources and material, but I can confirm that this outfit is actually extant and worthy of some marginal coverage with their own article. The Southern Episcopal Church, on the other hand... ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Sorry to ping twice, but I think we can rule out the OAC's bishop, Thomas Gordon (bishop), as notable. If you don't object, I'll do a little more digging but then tag it for an AfD. WikiProject Anglicanism is finally getting off the ground again, and I'll tag them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with that. I usually do not work on WP biographies, so I do not have much of an expertise here. Veverve (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the SEC narrowly avoided deletion due to notability apparently not being a deletion criteria back in 2006. I doubt the article stands a chance in an AfD today. It does have an entry in the Melton's encyclopedia of American religions (2009, p. 165), though. Veverve (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: I have grown to resent that darn Melton's text. If it blocks any proper AfDs, I think we might need to consider an open discussion regarding its role in determining notability; the numeric threshold does have limited exceptions and I believe this might be a justifiable one. As for Gordon, I'll handle that. Biographies are not my speciality, either, but I need to develop my skills sometime. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

An angel for you

Hey, Pbritti, thank you for your jolliness, kindness, and your quality contributions in Christianity-related articles, Wikipedia needs more people like you.

Uriel1022 (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Factually incorrect editing

Respected Sir/Madam, You have done a few factually incorrect changes in the topic "Latin Catholics of Malabar" . Please do a bit of research on the topic or avoid editing sensitive issues related to caste. Editing factually incorrect data can cause division between communities.

Thanking you Bleedforkochi Bleedforkochi (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bleedforkochi: Hi! I've noticed that you have vandalized the page in question several times up to this point and are now adding information in direct contradiction to the source cited. Please refrain from this manner of editing and consult WP:FIVEPILLARS for further instruction on productive edits. Please let me know how I can help otherwise! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Book of Common Prayer (1662) reversions.

I do not accept that your explanations for reverting what I consider style corrections are justified. My edits were all based on the MOS and other contemporary editing principles, so I don't believe that any of them required reversion or changing. There is no MOS justification for capitalising any terms when they are clearly being used generically regardless of what any sources may do. Some sources too often capitalise generic words when they shouldn't be according to contemporary style principles as found in the MOS and modern style guides. The only time such generic terms should ever be capitalised is when they are being directly quoted. And we obviously use British spellings when that is appropriate. Unless you can show me exactly where in the MOS any of my edits were incorrect then you should self-revert your reversion of my edits. Otherwise I can only conclude that you have an unjustified and unacceptable attitude of WP:OWN regarding this article. Afterwriting (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: This is a very rapid escalation—one that should have featured a mention on the talk page, where I already have mentioned grammar and the like. If you'd like to discuss the MOS there, go ahead and I'll reach you there! Remember the process for these sorts of things and to WP:AGF (an accusation of WP:OWN is exceedingly unnecessary). Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)