User talk:Pbritti/Archive 6

Reply regarding 1662 BCP

With respect, your complete reversion of my edits was not in the spirit of WP:AGF. An essential aspect of the "process" is being collaborative. If any editor completely reverts all of an experienced editor's constructive edits, mostly without any explanation (and when most if not all of those edits were explained and also appropriate according to the MOS) then that editor's behaviour strongly indicates WP:OWN issues regarding articles that editor has created. You need to be more collaborative rather than being so disrespectful and provoking unnecessary conflict by just reverting my edits in the way that you did. Afterwriting (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: if you wish to see previous comments in this discussion added back to my page for context, you are welcome to take them from my Archive 5 and append them before your most recent.

Please recognize that you are upset about a single reversion that was explained in the edit summary ("mostly without any explanation"?). You are reopening discussion of this single reversion on a user talk page, after already being informed I was more than willing to engage in any discussion you might want on the article talk page, three days after you reinserted your edits that remain up. Absolutely nothing here suggests OWN. As for "disrespectful" and "provoking," you took a single reversion on a page I keep on my watchlist and determined that since you are "an experienced editor" and that your edits were "constructive" that this is a certain indicator of OWN. The standard is that editors may disagree about certain minutiae and be willing to discuss it civilly. Instead, you threatened me. One experienced editor to another, you certainly did not follow any collaborative process I've encountered. I would encourage you to read AGF, understand 3RR, and learn to DROPTHESTICK. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: Having reviewed your pages and some of your user talk page openings about simple MOS reverts, I'm inclined to open a discussion about your behavior elsewhere. It seems like when a page deals with religion and your MOS edits are reverted, you instantly jump to a user's talk page without stopping to make a note on the article talk page. This abrasive approach has already resulted in other experienced editors issuing you warnings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Another probably non-encyclopedia article

To help you in your "quest", I propose to you List of metropolitans of the diocese of Kumanovo and Osogovo.
By the way, how is this attempt at deleting non-notable articles from WPen going? Veverve (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: I’ll take it to AfD—seems like a very suspicious article. I'm sorry but I think "WPen" means English Wikipedia, right? I'm only recently getting into discussions so I'm not super up on the lingo. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is how I refer to the English-speaking Wikipedia, yes. I used to say "WP en", but I found it to be too confusing. I also use for example "WPro" to refer to the Romanian Wikipedia, "WPfr" is for the French-speaking one, etc.

I wal asking how your project was going, because you still have not AfDed Slovak National Catholic Church. Veverve (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Expect three or four AfDs tomorrow; personal events (all good things) meant I was AFK this week except to make those edits I could on my phone. I’ll tag you and a couple of the other regulars in those that pertain to WP Christianity/Catholicism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You really, really should consider using Twinkle to make your AfDs. I see you are having some unnecessary troubles creating them manually. Veverve (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Yeah, you're right. I also shouldn't edit while drowsy. Will use twinkle for the other couple. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not know if you have noticed, but there is no AfD for Southern Episcopal Church: the "deletion discussion page" link is red. Veverve (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Was doing it manually. It's there now. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge can be closed

I think you can safely close Talk:Orthodox Anglican Communion#Merger discussion and implement the result of the discussion, per WP:MERGECLOSE. Veverve (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: On it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Syro-Malabar Church

Let me know if there is further disruption at Syro-Malabar Church or related pages. I'll either add the page to a wider partial IP-rangeblock or semi-protect the page. —C.Fred (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Didn’t take long: [1]. The articles Synod of Diamper and George Alencherry are also taking beatings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

AGF

Hi Pbritti, Please remember to assume good faith in your communications with other editors unless there is compelling evidence of bad faith editing. In this edit, that does not appear to have happened. See the discussion on my talk page for further information. That said, I do not want my talk page to become a fork from any already ongoing discussions. If there are disagreements over sourcing of content and claims of fact, they should be resolved through discussion and WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I would like to refer you to the user's talk page and contribution history. With minor exception, all the editor's work has been to insert unsourced or poorly-sourced POV into articles, despite multiple warnings from other editors, including Elizium23. I could go into further detail regarding their admitted sockpuppetry and SPA behavior, but their contributions speak for themselves. I assumed good faith as long as I could, and after the editor claimed I was not permitted to edit the article, I reviewed the editor's history of such behavior. Now, when presented with reliable sources, the editor claimed I am a vandal. With an editor that refuses sourced content, I think arbitration is next step. While I consider this notice in good faith, I would encourage you to review the behavior presented. I appreciate your cordiality and hope to run into more (and that you get over whatever bug you've got soon). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Hello. Could you please explain why you reverted the recent good faith edit on Christianity in India? Especially when the recent scholarship has shown that the "forced conversions" narrative created by certain vested interests last century (mostly Hindus trying to convince Goan Catholics to convert to Hinduism) were proven to be false, by examination of the contemporary records maintained by various missionaries (e.g. Luís Fróis).

@42.107.72.35: Modern scholarship can be elucidating and more accurate than previous works, but it must be weighed in the balance of prior scholarship. Your edits reflected an inverse POV with phrasing that suggested a deviation from the source material. I would be glad to workshop a new paragraph that includes this new research without inaccurately discounting previous accounts on the article talk page. Please post the sources and phrasing you wish to insert. If you want to add it without this collaboration, feel free to! But remember to use appropriate sourcing and be mindful of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, could you please consider inserting this phrasing:

[quote]The Portuguese rulers implemented state policies encouraging and even rewarding conversions (land ownership, government jobs, etc.) among non-Christians. Catholic converts in the areas ruled by the Portuguese were granted full Portuguese citizenship.[/quote]

Sources:

Holm, John A. (1989). Pidgins and Creoles: References survey. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-35940-5. pp. 286 de Mendonça, Délio (2002). Conversions and citizenry: Goa under Portugal 1510–1610. Concept Publishing Company. ISBN 978-81-7022-960-5. pp. 397. Quote= "But the rapid increase of converts in Goa - a fact that the Hindus and even some Portuguese condemned for suspecting involvement of force - was mainly the result of the Portuguese political and economic control over the Hindus, the vassals of the crown." URL=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Mh3kKf0VSfQC&pg=PA397&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=true

@42.107.72.35: Looks like a very sound addition. Will take a moment or two to add as I want to double-check on the sourcing but excellent job! Thank you for helping and I hope you feel confident that similar edits can be made without having to run them past me or others! Sometimes there are hiccups (especially on pages that lend themselves to controversy like this one) but I'm glad you went about things as cooperatively as you have! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

CSD A3

Hi, just a friendly reminder that WP:CSD#A3 is only meant to be used when there is no content at all. If there is content in any form, or previous revisions contained any substantial content—no matter how poor—A3 does not apply. (Of course, this does not preclude speedy deletion by another applicable criterion.) Hence, I reverted this tagging.

Your removal nonetheless was sound because the original prose contained a copyright violation, which I tagged and was subsequently handled. Happy editing. ComplexRational (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: I'm no good at understanding those speedy deletion criteria descriptions. I spent the better part of 20 minutes trying to figure out which one I was supposed to use. Thanks for your help; I may end up tagging you or asking you a question about it in the future lest you have to resolve the issue after the fact again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy to help. As general pointers: the speedy deletion criteria are written to be as unambiguous as possible, so I don't tag when in doubt or when I feel I'm "stretching" the criteria; and sometimes no speedy deletion criterion is appropriate, in which case AfD/PROD/draftify are the way to go. Feel free to ping me if you have additional questions. ComplexRational (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Thank you. I'll spend some time studying the various options. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on malankara orthodox syrian church

Bro the edits you made earlier on the church page was definitely vandalism on your part. You need to understand your playing with our faith here. As someone that belongs to that church it's insulting how you try to come up with your own facts and test our faith. There are many things about our church that's not available on public forums and if you want to know about the church maybe speak with someone from mosc instead of writing you own nonsense. The malankara church does not claim communion it is in communion with the other churches. Do you realize the kind of stupidity your keep writing 223.190.203.108 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@223.190.203.108: Remember to keep your comments civil. As for your concerns about the edits, you are welcome to interact on the article talk page and post comments supported by reliable sources and Wikipedia guidelines. While it is true that a great deal about the church is unavailable online or in print, the material added is in accordance with the information that is. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Offices" versus "services"

Contrary to your assertion, it is no longer common at all in the Church of England (or in Anglicanism generally) to refer to "offices" instead of "services" or "liturgies". The term "offices" is now nearly always only used in common use for the daily offices, principally Matins and Evensong. Using it for any other services has become an antiquated use even though it may still be sometimes used in some official church documents. As a general rule articles should be written using more commonly used and contemporary terms instead of antiquated or legalistic ones. Afterwriting (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: While I would rather not get dragged into this, suffice to say I could provide a litany (pun intended) of instances in which "office" is used to mean a great number of things other than that of the canonical hours. Not least of these is that the 1662 prayer book and Church of England still distinguish between "daily" offices and "occasional" offices. Trust me, as someone who spends much of the day dealing with liturgical research, I can assure you of this. Modern usage still allows for "office" and its preference in academic literature on the prayer books suggests that it should be the preferential usage in the article. Also, rather humorously, the term "office" originates to mean exclusively the Communion liturgy (as can be seen in one of the books from Percy Dearmer I cite). And, again, please learn to use article talk pages for matters like this. They exist for this specific reason. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't patronisingly tell me what I need to "learn", especially when you have a lot to learn about editing more co-operatively yourself. It is perfectly acceptable to choose to discuss things on another editor's talk page if preferred. It is not a requirement to only do so on an article's talk page. And I can "assure you" that I personally - and also professionally - know much more about the Church of England than you could possibly realise. Afterwriting (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: Due to your frequent impatient, accusatory, and unkind behavior here, you are unwelcome on my talk page. Please do not comment here again, but you are welcome to ping me with questions or comments elsewhere. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Before I oblige your demand, I am going to say that you need to seriously reflect on your own editing behaviour and your attitude towards other editors, both of which are often far from acceptable, especially your very obvious and frequent article ownership issues which I have observed over may years. So it's not at all surprising to me that you have now reacted in this unfortunate manner and also attempted to put the blame on me in the process. It would have been good to have had a co-operative association with you but your own attitudes made this totally impossible. Afterwriting (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: Out of courtesy, I am offering you an opportunity to delete your comments. This comment and your other comments alone are enough to file an AN/I. When an editor asks you to not comment on their talk page, that does not mean "get one last slug in on the way out." Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Ascension check in

Hi Pbritti, I was wondering if you'd had any additional thoughts on the Sites section of the Ascension article? I'd love to know what you think and keep the ball rolling! Please let me know. KC at Ascension (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@KC at Ascension: I apologize but I have been focused elsewhere but will still try to look at the page. Thank you for reaching out! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries! I really appreciate your continued willingness to look. I made the request its own topic on the Ascension Talk page just so it doesn't get lost, as a heads up. Thanks again! KC at Ascension (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Crotalus (liturgy)

On 14 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crotalus (liturgy), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some bells are replaced by a wooden clapper for three days in a year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crotalus (liturgy). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Crotalus (liturgy)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pontifical

Hello! Your submission of Pontifical at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Pontifical

On 24 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pontifical, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a pontiff in pontificals may pontificate with a pontifical at a Pontifical during his pontificate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pontifical. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pontifical), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Pontifical DYK

That's some clever wording! We need more hooks like that on DYK. Congrats! W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 13:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: Thank you! It was the most fun I've had with the process! Happy editing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant! Belongs in an DYK Hall of Fame! Kablammo (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And surely, you should receive an Opus Dei, membership in the Knights of Malta, and perhaps even receive an Ad altare Dei!

Kablammo (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kablammo: Ha! Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

What a Wonderful, Whimsical, Wacky Well Deserved DYK! Well Done! HenryTemplo (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@HenryTemplo: I will gladly enjoy this alliterative treat! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kattumangattu Geevarghese Mar Koorilose II

The page Kattumangattu Geevarghese Mar Koorilose II has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for handling the deletion. Usually that happens without a notification, though, so I wonder what went differently here? If something was wrong on my end, let me know, but I'm fairly certain I followed the typical rapid draftify process. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Primer (prayer book)

Hello! Your submission of Primer (prayer book) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)