User talk:Pbritti/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

DeSantis Military Insignias

Hello Pbritti. I note you reverted my Ron DeSantis 02:51, 13 June 2023, edit, “infobox + insignia png, svg’s re: Navy service”, with your comment, “Not primarily known for military service; ribbon images unnecessary in infobox”. Since DeSantis spent 15 years in the Navy, while only 11 in government and seven in post secondary education, it seems his service was a great part of his life and of particular interest to readers. I have seen the use of military images of others when military service was a part of their life. In any event, please direct me to a MOS, WP:HEP,WP:BLPDD, or other policy, process, or direction applicable so I’ll know the recognized standard. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem: The DeSantis article has a widely watched talk page with a large amount of involvement; do you mind if I move the discussion there to increase the potential for additional input? If you would prefer, I can reply individually here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the MOS that informed my decision was primarily MOS:XMASTREE (sorry, I implied it but failed to link it in my edit summary), but that's something that can be interpreted in a very subjective fashion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: How about both? I would like your input as one with more experience, plus it possibly would be further education to have other views, also. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We can discuss here and should we come to an impasse, consider this me encouraging you to seek third-party input on the DeSantis talk (there are a ton of editors of different persuasions there, so you'll hear from all angles). As to the rationale for removing the ribbons, I linked XMASTREE above. There are also precedents in other major U.S. politician articles, such as John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Even Dwight D. Eisenhower (who many consider more famous for his WWII service over his presidency) does not have ribbon images in his infobox. I don't think there are any strict MOSs or policies that formally define who should get ribbon images in their infobox, but XMASTREE with those three precedents suggests to me we should not include them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem: pinging in case you're not subscribed to this thread. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I see your point. Of course, those presidents had much, much beyond just being a governor who is a primary candidate in a crowded field with one present clear leader, not him. And, of course, the few DeSantis images don’t seem to take away the attention the great list that the presidents had. Let me give it some thought. I’m diverted by other matters, but if it is OK with you, I’ll continue this thread as soon as I can. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Ping me here when you have time. I edit according to US Mountain Time so apologies if you and I don't overlap in availability, but I promise to respond as soon as I can. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Order of Corporate Reunion leadership

OCR has removed Richard Cummings as Universal Primate. What verification do you need to update the Wiki? 2601:981:100:3750:425:3464:4541:D2B5 (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's reliable source policy, as well as Wikipedia's standard for independent sourcing. Unfortunately, for organizations such as the OCR with multiple bodies claiming to be the legitimate representation, it is unlikely any reliable sources exist. Good luck searching. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

I recently added a source by John P. Meier on the Perpetual virginity of Mary to the article. I was wondering what you thought of my edit? Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'm mostly offline today so I'll have to look at the referenced article later. As it stands, the edit looks appropriately phrased! If I have a recommendation, I'll ping you on that article talk page. If it looks good, I'll leave a "thanks" on the edit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Pbritti. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. – Joe (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Draftifications

Hello, Pbritti,

I see that you moved a lot of pages like Draft:Ministry of Consumer Affairs (Karnataka) to Draft space but you didn't take the step of informing the article creator of the fact that you moved their page creations. You need to inform an editor when you move their article from main space to Draft space, every single time. The editor might otherwise believe their page creations have been deleted.

Most patrollers use User:Evad37/MoveToDraft to move drafts as it will post a notification on the talk page of the page creator, informing them where they can find their drafts. It's not too late, it looks like these articles were written by the same editor so please post a message to their talk page today informing them of your actions, the sooner the better. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Rather than many draftification notices, I was going to submit a single message at the end of the draftifications, as this editor appears to not edit Wikipedia until around 06:00 UTC at the earliest. I have given a single short notice per your comment, but I will be adding a second comment at the terminus of the draftifications with each draftified article listed for ease of access. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Alternately, you can use my fork of that script, which allows you to add a reason for draftification which will be added to the creator's talk page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Just tried your script. Really quite slick, like that I can select different people to get notices for the draftification. Probably won't always use it instead of the manual procedure but it's definitely cool. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Relatedly, you've moved Armenia in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages to draftspace twice, which is contra WP:DRAFTOBJECT. If the creator asserts that it belongs in mainspace (as they did by re-creating it there), it's time to stop and try to form a consensus, e.g. by taking it to AfD. Honestly I'm a little concerned that you seem to be over-using draftify so far. How do all those articles on ministries in Karnataka meet WP:DRAFTIFY, for example? – Joe (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: The ministry articles were unsourced/malsourced spam creations and were draftified at the advisement of the admin who blocked their creator from the mainspace. While not required by policy and guideline, at your expressed concern I will pursue an AfD for the Armenia article. It should be noted that I have been encouraged to redraftify recent articles added back to the mainspace when they contain the same significant policy violations that resulted in their initial incubation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  All of the ministry articles I checked were sourced, and that isn't the reason you communicated to the nominator (you said it needs more sources to establish notability and it has too many problems of language or grammar on their talk page). None of those are good reasons for draftification anyway; we have tags like {{more citations needed}} to flag articles that need more sources, notability is a a property of the subject not the article, and there's {{copyedit}} and {{rough translation}} for language issues. WP:DRAFTOBJECT is just an explanation of how WP:CON (which is a policy) applies to draftspace: if someone objects to your move, then by definition you don't have consensus for it. See WP:NPPCON for a fuller explanation. I don't know where you're getting all this 'advisement', but you really need to take responsibility for your own use of the NPP tool. I'm going to make your grant of the NPP right into a one month trial, so we can review if you're using the draftify correctly before making it permanent. – Joe (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: The ministry articles' creator (rather than nominator–I think you meant that) created a series of spam articles that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, which is the explicitly stated rationale for why a new article should be draftified according to WP:ATD-I (besides, see here for the admin approbation I had in dealing with the spam). Additionally, I had far more cause for moving the Armenia article back to the draftspace: it is part of a fairly overt 'puppet campaign (which negates WP:NPPCON's generalist recommendation). Given that I'm rather in the middle of dealing with quite a bit in the real world, I had hoped that a short interlude between noticing the issue and addressing it at the SPI desk would be acceptable. Also, not sure what you really need to take responsibility for your own use of the NPP tool means, as I have explained my actions to you [Addendum: drafting isn't the NPP tool, for what it matters]. You should take responsibility for your punitive actions against an NPP who draftified spam with the approval of an admin and took action against a fairly obvious 'puppet. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: It should also be noted that in the case of the ministry articles, I was following the example set by BoyTheKingCanDance, who had draftified many similar creations from the same spam editor (using the rationale Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace, which was even less than what I provided!). If you feel like my actions were incorrect, you might want to also bring it up with them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah this is what I mean. I'm hearing a lot of "I did this because so and so said so" or "so and so did it first", but when I assigned you NPP it was on the understanding that you knew the relevant policy yourself (and, for example, wouldn't ignore WP:DRAFTOBJECT). After this exchange I'm no longer convinced of that, so I've made the grant time-limited, after which me or another admin can reassess whether you meet the criteria. On that note, another really important quality of a new page reviewer (or any advanced tool-holder, really) is that they can respond to feedback on or objections to their actions with civility and good faith – especially in their first week of having that tool. – Joe (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: You accuse me of not following policy by citing an essay section with no reference to policy, so I explain that I acted in accordance of policy on consultation of other editors and their actions. Your actions are incredibly inconsistent with policy—particularly AGF—and reflect a poor ability to accept error. Please reflect on your missteps here and improve as a tool-holder. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have an odd view of civility and good faith. It's ironic that you call AGF, a guideline, a policy while attacking someone for citing an essay section. And you should have retracted this[1]. @Joe Roe I'm not sure I would have given NPP to someone who had so recently made the PA there, which appears to show bad judgement. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I should have looked at Pbritti's talk page history more carefully. – Joe (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and Joe Roe: Since the both of you seem rather intent on escalating, I would prefer you start by removing NPP so that the air is clear on that and we can remain focused. If you want to discuss further, you're welcome to that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW case request accepted

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged, thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Pbritti,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Most Precious Blood

Clearly you have missed the point. "Most Precious Blood" is a Catholic devotion. "Blood of Christ" is a much broader concept and a significant theme among Protestants and Evangelicals (which should be developed in that article). Blood of Christ seems focused primarily on theology but does not address cultural aspects. There is no mention of Belgium's "Saint Sang" (which is notable enough to be recognized by UNESCO}; nor is there any mention of "Blutritt", although it is held in a number of locations in Germany. The "Artistic" section is poor. At the very least, one might have expected that common courtesy would suggest an editor be given a heads up before wiping out over 5k bits of sourced content. Manannan67 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Manannan67: If you read the article history, you will see I removed 700+ characters of unsourced content and made some grammatical changes. I also left an edit summary saying I would prefer to recommend an AfD, which would allow you to discuss the deletion. However, another editor reverted the article to a redirect. I ultimately agree with their decision. You are welcome to to reinstate the verifiable content, at which point I could open an AfD that allowed others to participate in a discussion on the merits of the independent article. As it stood, the version of the article you had created made little effort to clarify it was in reference to the devotion (and likely would require renaming so that it could be readily disambiguated as such). ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

" There is little reason for this article to exist when Eucharist and Blood of Christ exist..." But for the second sentence of the lead, there is no discussion of the Eucharist. I question whether the other editor would have felt compelled to do a redirect absent your (adjectives deferred) comment. They were two separate articles with little overlap. Please note, there are about zero Catholic parishes or schools named "Blood of Christ", but a plethora named "Most Precious Blood". I can't be bothered recreating content only to have it removed by individuals for whom the distinction between theology and culture is overly subtle. (Matthew7:6) Manannan67 (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I can think of a few parishes named "Sangre de Cristo" off the top of my head. Again, as it stood, the article insufficiently established that the devotion to the Blood of Christ under the title "Most Precious Blood" is sufficiently notable and distinct as to merit distinction from Eucharistic theology, Eucharist, or Blood of Christ. By the way, (adjectives deferred) is an uncivil comment. You accused me of something I didn't do. Stop. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the AlisonW case

The proposed decision for the AlisonW case has been posted. Statements regarding the proposed decision are welcome at the talk page. Please note that comments must be made in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"(1928, England)", "(1928, United States)"

Hello.

I was wondering why the articles Book of Common Prayer (1928, England) and Book of Common Prayer (1928, United States) were titled as such.

The first book was proposed to the whole Church of England, the second to the whole U.S. Episcopal Church that is present throughout the whole world. So, why are the titles on WPen not reflecting this by having titles such as Book of Common Prayer (1928, Church of England) and Book of Common Prayer (1928, U.S. Episcopal Church)? Veverve (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: I had to mull that one when I did the naming and actually discussed that with a few people on and off Wiki. The rationale for "England" is easier: it was an English legal proposal that technically extended beyond the COE, so I figured best to go shorter. I based the US edition's nomenclature on the English version. It might be worth raising this as a discussion somewhere because I frankly don't really know what is best for the American prayer book article. Sorry I didn't clear that up. If you feel that "(U.S. Episcopal Church)" is a better disambiguating parenthetical, I'll accept it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

An article needs help

My dear Roman friend,

Hope all is well. I recently came across St. Thomas Cathedral Basilica, Chennai. The article is in dismal state– large sections with no references, pictures all over the place, and the prose isn't cohesive. Judging by the {{Copyedit}} template at the top, I think the article has been in such bad state for more than half a year. However, the article is of great importance: the cathedral is likely where Thomas the Apostle is buried, and it has over 400 visits per day.

I am thinking about a total revamp of the article. I looked for some texts today, and I found the following book to be available online. I think it will be highly useful.

• Nagy, Thomas Charles (2017). Catholic Shrines in Chennai, India: The politics of renewal and apostolic legacy. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4724-8516-8.

I also think the following book could be important in providing context, but I don't have one at hand:

• Robinson, Rowena (2003). Christians of India. London: Sage. ISBN 978-0761998228.

If you have any ideas or would like to work on the article, please don't hesitate to let me know. I hope your collection of books might be of some assistance. Since the current sanctuary of the cathedral was built under British control, maybe some histories on British colonialism in Southern India could also be helpful.

I will also raise this task to Uriel1022.

Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheLonelyPather: I'll gladly help if I can. I may not get to this in the next 24 hours–other obligations on here and offline–but if you find me on here later this and I haven't shown up to chip in, please ping me again. I'm willing to wager some of my personal library has information on this, so I'm optimistic that I can contribute some otherwise not publicly accessible details. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: :)) TheLonelyPather (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheLonelyPather: Hey! Been doing some additional reading in an attempt to find more about the claims about St. Thomas being buried there but have had remarkably little success. Usually, Donald Attwater's stuff has at least something; no dice this time. I'll try to locate at least one new source before I contribute anything to the text, but I have taken the liberty of expunging information from the lead that I could not verify. See you on there more this weekend, hopefully. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Pbritti: Thank you for your effort! Unfortunately I will need to focus on my work more and minimize my wiki devotion until the beginning of August. I appreciate you being responsible to this, but please don't over-exert yourself on this article. I will put more work into it when August begins. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheLonelyPather: Of course, please prioritize your off-wiki life! I hope that, when you have the time, you return to see great changes made! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your work on the Masliah Gaon article for "Did you know..." So appreciated Nashelskeryid (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nashelskeryid: My pleasure! Some teamwork from other kind editors have helped the article you created blossom. Excellent work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Religion in the Philippines

I do not intend to engage in an edit war but I really found it unsettling that in this article all the controversies about the Iglesia ni Cristo, even if they are cited from reputable sources. I in particular have taken notice about the sources as they have shown a bias against the organization even when those allegations have already been answered to in the proper forum, and in the said Wikipedia article those controversies have been specifically mentioned while the more recent ones surrounding other churches, including but not limited to Apollo Quiboloy's cases in the United States have not been mentioned. In the spirit of fairness all I ask is to apply fair treatment to all the religions and I fear that the Iglesia ni Cristo might be singled out in bad faith. Please take my concerns about potential impartiality with careful consideration. Thank you. Vgyu 01:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vgyu: Please use article talk pages to discuss article-specific content. I have looked into this and, after careful consideration, determined your deletion of sourced content is inappropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I will dispute your assertion that my deletion of those content are inappropriate, the cited sources have clear biases but I will not press the matter any further. Vgyu 04:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:

• For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

Thanks

I don't know if you saw this, but I think I answered your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Pico Sacro. Can you please move that forward?--evrik ^(talk) 02:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Evrik: Thanks for the notice! I'll take a close look today, but the Pico Sacro definitely got some changes. Looking forward to approving. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Scottish Prayer Book (1637)

On 23 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scottish Prayer Book (1637), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that because of violent reactions – such as Jenny Geddes's on 23 July 1637 (pictured) – to a Scottish prayer book, Walter Whitford kept loaded pistols visible to his congregants while using the book? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scottish Prayer Book (1637). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Scottish Prayer Book (1637)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pbritti, you got it on the anniversary date! well-done; was a fun article to review. I've been to St Giles, but before they put the stool monument up. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Interesting! I only recall a plaque from when I visited years ago, but part of that might be that I don't exactly recall if I went in (I was there for the Tattoo and Fringe in '18). All the more reason to go back, I suppose. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

We were there in 2007; long time ago. I'd like to go back for the Tattoo someday. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

All things dealing with Saint James' Day

Saints Star Award

		The Saint's Star Award
		Thanks for the help with the All things dealing with Saint James' Day andDYK on 25 July, 2023

--evrik (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

		The Galicia Barnstar of National Merit
		Thanks for the help with the All things dealing with Saint James' Day andDYK on 25 July, 2023
		this WikiAward was given to Pbritti by --evrik (talk) on 05:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

--evrik ^(talk) 05:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Evrik: This is awful kind of you. Please enjoy a well-deserved rest in honor of St. James and his dragon-fighting apostles! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Concert

More on the concert - you asked - is on User:Gerda Arendt/Images 2023#27 Jul (only two of five groups of songs have an article, even in German, -- more work), and there will be another one tomorrow. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Greatly looking forward to it. You're the only regular article creator I make a point of reading. Thank you for everything you do, Gerda Arendt—you play a major role in this project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

July songs

my story today

blushing, - that's great to wake up to! - Yes, on my talk, you'll see what happened, but with the link, you can even look forward. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Today I remember Jahrhundertring, and I'm listening to Götterdämmerung from the Bayreuth Festival (pictured), - the image (of a woman who can't believe what she has to see) features also on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That is truly a captivating image. I'll be looking at the English translation! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting 08/08/2023

Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 8, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in articles, history, geography, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. We may try to organize one or more Wiknics. Guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ahmedabad‎ without adequately explaining why. You also introduced a spelling error "carhedra". In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on the article talk page. Thanks.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Hi! I would strongly discourage you from templating the regulars, particularly when there is an edit summary present. If you notice a typographical error, typically you can just ask in either the reverting edit summary for further clarification or when opening a talk page discussion. In this case, you restored a misnomer: "Latin Rite" is a redirect to Latin liturgical rites, an article on a large ritual family; the relevant article regarding the jurisdictional realities involved is Latin Church (complicated by "Latin Rite" often being used to describe the "Latin Church"). In any case, the material I adjusted might not warrant inclusion in the article, anyway, as it originates from a user-created website generally appraised as a blog in terms of quality. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Syro Malabar Leaders

A difficult discussion. Special thanks to Jahaza for searching for and finding material when I hit a wall on my googling

Both of these are leaders and contributed to the community. What is the dispute? One reference I removed because of this conversation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viewmont_Viking#Nasrani131_-_Syro_Malabar_Church Joseph J. Palackal, expert in Syriac/Suriyani music, revived interest in ancient Syriac music and tunes Palakunnel Valiyachan, who defended the East Syriac tradition of the Mar Thoma Nasranis. His journal Nalagamam (Diary) which is a source of history. 24.229.242.8 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Nasrani131 (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC) @Nasrani131: Hello! Funnily enough, I just posted to your talk page regarding copyright for some the images you've uploaded; if you want, we can discuss that here, too. With respect to Viewmont Viking (mentioning to notify of discussion), I disagree with them on the inclusion of Palackal to the list of prominent Syro-Malabar Catholics. In Palackal's article, his membership in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is unreferenced—please see Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and biographies of living persons. Additionally, what information is referenced in his article does not come from independent, reliable sources. There is no indication that Palackal is more notable than the many bishops that are not listed in the article, and what we do have comes from sources which do not meet Wikipedia's standards for independence, reliability, or neutrality. The same can be said of including Valiyachan. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Hey PBritti - Joseph Palackal is a Syro Malabar community member. If you see his article, he is mentioned as belonging to C.M.I congregation. C.M.I is the first Syro Malabar infigenous congregation for priests. Please refer here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmelites_of_Mary_Immaculate Nasrani131 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) The canon law in this area is still moving around quite a bit. At one time, it would have been likely that a member of a clerical religious congregation had transferred to the sui iuris church to which that congregation belonged, however, in the 20th century, it became common for those entering an institute of consecrated life to receive an indult of accommodation rather than a transfer of rite. It seems like this should be a fairly straightforward thing to find a source for, but sometimes things that are too obvious are hard to cite. Jahaza (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC) I would call this[2] a reliable source for his canonical affiliation. Jahaza (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Joseph Palackal has uniquely influenced the Syro Malabar diaspora in reviving the ancient Syriac chants and to me he is prominent that any unemntioned bishops in a unique way. Nasrani131 (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC) @Nasrani131: I'm seeing multiple issues here. The first is that almost every link on the article for Palackal is dead (specifically, 404ing). I think most of this information can be found at this link, so I would encourage you to cut your teeth a bit on learning to cite by adding citations from the above link to his article. The second issue is that nowhere is it explicitly stated that he is Syro-Malabar. While this seems like no problem—it's a Syro-Malabar group, so wouldn't all its members be Syro-Malabar?—the nuances of Catholic canonical identity complicate that. Sometimes, for example, Jesuits (a Latin Church society) are canonically Russian Greek Catholics. If we don't have definitive and explicit mention of him being Syro-Malabar, he likely does not merit encyclopedic references as a prominent Syro-Malabar. Additionally, his lack of reference in independent, secondary sources indicates that, while he may be notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, it is unlikely he is prominent enough to warrant inclusion on a list of prominent Syro-Malabar ahead of dozens of figures who have received far more significant and lengthy coverage. If we're aiming for a diversity of figures represented in the list, he doesn't add that: lay men are already featured on the list while no women—religious or otherwise—are. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Hey PBritti...while I agree that we can add more references, but being Syro Malabar can be achieved by converting into, but a person who is born into an Eastern rite is always part of that rite (per Vatican). From the reference cited above, Palackal is from this parish - St. Mary's Forane Church, Pallippuram , Cherthala ( Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly). Dr. Palackal hails from the family of Palackal Thoma Malpan (ca. 1780-1841) the co-founder of CMI Congregation. I would suggest you agree to add him on the main page. After that we would dicsuss about Valyachan. Nasrani131 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC) @Nasrani131: First off, but a person who is born into an Eastern rite is always part of that rite is incorrect: a fellow editor and I were recently discussing a perfect example of this off-wiki: see Albert Bahhuth, a Melkite-turned-Latin just consecrated as an auxiliary bishop in LA. I remain thoroughly unconvinced that there is enough prominence here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC) A religious person can be biritual. It happens in Syro Malabar also - but it doesnt take away the sui iris into which he was born. So even if Palackal is part of another sui iris (which he is not) he is Still Syro Malabar and also another sui iris. Refer this Canon Law - [NOTE: COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL REMOVED BY Pbritti AT 20:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)] https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib1-cann96-123_en.html Nasrani131 (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC) And for the prominence part, reviving ancient Syriac tunes itself is enough for his prominence. Without him the Syro Malabar church would not have been able to reclain much of the lost tunes. Refer to the videos here - https://www.youtube.com/@TheCMSIndia Nasrani131 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC) @Nasrani131: That's not what being "biritual" means—the bishop I just mentioned isn't canonically Melkite anymore. As best I can tell, you're leaning only on your personal view that Palackal is prominent, can't definitively say anything about him beyond what a non-independent source says, and may have committed a yet another copyright violation by copy-and-pasting all that to my talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC) All these links below refer to him. Please note that Purastya Vidya Peedam is the most reputed seminary for Syro Malabar priesthood. https://thetablet.org/syro-malabar-rite-will-conducts-dc-pilgrimage-d-c-shrine/ https://pvpkottayam.in/event/extension-lecture-by-rev-dr-joseph-palackal-cmi/ https://www.chaldeannews.com/2023-content/2023/7/1/the-aramaic-project https://syriacstudies.com/2017/11/17/the-syriac-chant-traditions-in-south-india-joseph-j-palackal/ http://www.archivioradiovaticana.va/storico/2015/08/06/fr_joseph__palackals_efforts_to_revive_syriac_chant_in_syro-malabar/en-1158467 Nasrani131 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC) I will add all these links as well as reference. Shall I move Palackal to main page? Then we will discuss about Valyachan and the image. Nasrani131 (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC) @Nasrani131: I've requested a revision deletion of the copyrighted material you added to my talk page (@Jahaza: sorry, two of your edits are going to get caught in that dragnet). Further discussion on this can occur on Talk:Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, but to quickly say two things: Palackal being an especially prominent Syro-Malabar still has not been established. Fortunately, due to the Radio Vaticana and the Chaldean News pieces, I think we can definitely verify that Palackal is Syro-Malabar for his article. But, as the Chaldean News article notes, his activities have not be fully embraced by the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. I worry that there is a serious neutrality issue in selecting him specifically as prominent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Dear Pbritti - not sure what more I can provide. Its not my opinion, but atleast due to the efforts he has put in the matter he is definitely a prominent Syro Malabar personality. Its not the success or failure that determine the person is worthy of prominent reference, rather that effort that has gone in some discipline.Can we agree to add him and move on? If there are further disputes we will review and remove him? Nasrani131 (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC) @Nasrani131: No, if you reinsert him, you will be in violation of WP:3RR. You have not provided a single source that identifies him specifically as a prominent figure within the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. Considering your insistence on including him, your repeated copyright violations across both English Wikipedia and WikiMedia Commons, and your active evasion when it came to said copyright violations, I'm inclined to believe that there may be motivations to include Palackal that come from a WP:COI. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) hmm..its strange that people who belong to a community cannot really say about the people who are prominent or contribute to the community. Nasrani131 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Anyways I leave it at it. In future you will have to retake your word and insistence to provide additional proofs on an intangible word like "prominence". Nasrani131 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC) @Nasrani131: Wikipedia has a policy that defines the intangible word: WP:PROMINENCE. Please–please–review policy (a handy starter pack of them can be found at WP:FIVEPILLARS). Your repeated copyright violations, edit warring, and unwillingness to concede to policy put you in danger of sanctions on Wikipedia. You seem like a passionate contributor, so I want you to have the knowledge you need to stay as an editor on here for years to come. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Library of congress - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geZHf05NyJo New commission from Syro Malabar Cardinal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h55fAU7r30 BTW I dont have any special interest in this case. Since I was met with much resistance from you on some trivial word I persisted to provide you with more proofs. This is potentially my last Wikipedia edit. I joined a day before thinking I could contribute to the knowledge base on my community for the future generations, but now I realize people seem to control the free flowing knowledge base with their limited world view. Good luck Wikipedia. Nasrani131 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) References

August music

August songs

my story today

My story today - a first - isn't about an article by me, but one I reviewed for DYK, see here. I like all: topic, "hook", connected article (a GA on its way towards FA), image and the music "in the background". I just returned from a weekend with two weddings, so also like the spirit ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a very passionate and ultimately tragic story. Here's to the two marriages you witnessed have happier endings! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I wish them the same! - Again not by me, and tragic on a larger level: today's story - with the triumph of music over military - is uplifting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Now that is a more hopeful and rousing story. The besieged cities of World War II produced so many such stories of resiliency; I'm glad that Wikipedia preserves this particular one with such a well-executed and thoughtful article. Please always feel welcome to share more similar stories personally–I quite enjoy the tidbits you bring to my attention–and know I've added your stories to my watchlist lest I miss one! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's an honour! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

More pics uploaded, with wedding cakes - I couldn't resist. Today's story is about the Inkpot Madonna who returned to "her place" 9 years ago, and also has aspects of early learning, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I had an assumption that had something to do with today's feast! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Right ;) - Today, my focus is on Renata Scotto, after days of updating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I had no idea Macbeth had been adapted to opera; remarkable range in character she demonstrated during her career. An excellent expansion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating! - Today is Debussy's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Debussy! A favorite of a friend I'm actually about to call—a nice coincidence. I hope to have some biographies to share with you soon! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

good match ;) - Today is Gwendolyn Killebrew's birthday, - pictured: a spider and sweet food --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'll be in Philadelphia–Killebrew's birthplace and college town–early next month as well as sporadically over the next four or so months. Let me know if you want me to snap any pictures to illustrate her or any other subject's articles! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I wouldn't know anything specific, besides the great photo she got today. - I have a nomination going for Gloria Coates at WP:ITNN, and I was just told that - although marked ready - it would profit from support, - could you check it's long enough and sourced enough to support? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Glady; I made one minor grammatical tweak of little importance, so perhaps make sure my change aligns with the content it is meant to express. I think the article is both sufficiently long and sourced. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, on the Main page now! So I made it today's story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm very glad you have had a long future after all that—we’re lucky to still have you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Daniels Park

On 8 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daniels Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Daniels Park, a Denver Mountain Park, is neither in Denver nor the mountains? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniels Park. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Daniels Park), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: Excellent! I'm wrapping up my first review for the drive in the next few days, so expect me to be more responsive going into the weekend. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian)

The article Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian) and Talk:Book of Common Prayer (Unitarian)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)