User talk:TheLionHasSeen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, TheLionHasSeen! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the gracious welcome to Wikipedia. — TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Note Climate change in New York (state)

Generally, if you are adding content regarding climate change in New York, it would be helpful to also include it in this article. I will copy over the content regarding Buffalo now. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for assisting me!!! I appreciate it greatly! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that you need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I came to thank you for "protecting" the J. Delano Ellis article. Thanks! In regards to the comment above, perhaps this will help. When copying within WP, the inline citation looks like this:

<ref>Copied content from [[Example]]; see that page's history for attribution</ref>.

Some time ago, I saved this "formula" in my Sandbox, for future reference and use. Hope this helps! Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello there!! Thank you so much for the comment and assistance!!! It feels quite joyful to see the support of other Wikipedian contributors @Tribe of Tiger: - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Glad to help! Looking at your contributions, one thing to consider is that "red links" exist to note topics/people, who may be suitable for a future article. So, it is not a bad thing, to have them, or leave them in an article. They may "look funny", but can be considered as a signpost, or a suggestion, not something that should be removed. See WP:REDLINKS, esp. paragraph 1 & 3. In paragraph one: Red links help Wikipedia grow.[1] The creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start.[2].

I can see that you are working with good intentions, but oh my, there is so much to learn about! WP has a program called "Women in Red", WP:WIRED, which uses the signpost of red-linked names of women (many long-dead scientists, poets, activists, etc), who need encyclopedia articles. Anyway, you have support from total strangers...like, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I have read the supportive document. Thank you for notifying me! I will be evermore careful when handling redlinks from now on. And yes, it appears I have run into a bit of a pickle lately yet I am grateful for graceful administration. I would love to help where I can, however as for now I am attempting to improve upon currently existing religious and geographic articles before moving onto larger projects. I prefer quality over quantity, respectfully my fellow contributor. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Article improvement is a marvelous project. Some of our older articles, especially, would certainly benefit from your good quality work. I work mainly, as a WP:WIKIGNOME, doing small repetitive edits, so I will have a look at your redlinks, (hope you don't mind), so you can save your energy for more demanding work. I like your ethos. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!! I do my utmost best to scavenge the internet for reliable sources and supporting and opposing perspectives to offer a sense of balance. Also, I do not mind at all. What's good for Wikipedia is good for me!!! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Dangerous waters, as you know...

Remembering some long-ago "rules" of civilized behaviour, from my youth, there was a maxim of: "never discuss sex, politics, or religion" at a dinner party. These three topics still attract a great deal of controversy, half a century later! But, they must be discussed, as WP is not a dinner party! I am glad to see you emerge unscathed from WP:AN/I. As I said before, I think you have a good ethos. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your humor has brought me to the floor!!! Thank you for the encouragement my friend; and I wish all the best for you as well!!! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI again...

I was working around the house, and thinking about the recent problem that you brought up at AN/I, when the lyrics of a forty-year-old song popped into my head: Far Away Eyes

I was driving home early Sunday morning through Bakersfield

Listening to gospel music on the coloured radio station
And the preacher said, 'You know, you always have the Lord by your side'
Well, I was so pleased to be informed of this that I ran twenty red lights in His honor

Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Lord.

Going to WP:ANI may be dangerous, but you “always have WP on your side”, thank goodness! Hope you are not offended... Seriously, I am sorry that you are having problems. You are not the editor who is “running red lights”. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

References

I was brought up to be civil in all things and examine policies for whatever I associate with. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You are prudent and wise, and I am pleased to know you. Thanks for being here...Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I am deeply humbled. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Your recent editing history at P'ent'ay shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for responding to the matter at hand. I logged back in, and reverted it to apologize within the noticeboard. I did not notice what I have done until I recalled the advice given prior on my discussion page here. I am thankful for your timely warning Ad Orientem, and I am immensely grateful for temporary protection of the article until such a consensus can be reached! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, please take a look at the P'ent'ay article. This is blatant ban evasion as all the contributions by the random IP address are verbatim word, for word and of the same style as the user banned for ban evasio. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi TheLionHasSeen. I am unable to assist in this matter as I have retired from the project and am no longer an administrator. Please contact another admin or ask for help at WP:ANI I apologize for the inconvenience. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You're the administrator that they were informing has retired? Oh my. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(I saw this after I posted above.) This is a very recent retirement, as of 24 September. To lose such an experienced editor and fine Administrator, is a very grave loss to WP. User:Ad Orientem has posted their reason for doing so, (a matter of principle) on their talkpage. (Sorry, not sure if you would know...) Said talkpage is filled with kind comments and appreciation, and with hopes that they will return. Even though they have retired, they are generous enough to answer with a kind reply, rather than leaving you in the lurch. A sad loss. This type of thing doesn’t happen often, thankfully. Sad regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring reports

You brought forward some useful information at ANI so I am not complaining but rather giving you some advice for the future. Edit warring should not be reported at ANI but rather at the specific noticeboard for reporting edit warring. A handy shortcut is WP:AN3. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Good day. Thank you for the advice, Cullen328. I appreciate it greatly as I did not know which board. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to fix something that isn't broken

I'm not sure why you have chosen to re-insert a sloppy edit at Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic Churches. The parameters of an infobox are almost always placed on separate lines. Look at any random article with an infobox and you will see this. Moreover, "General consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox", per MOS:IBX. Yet at Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic Churches, you have gone out of your way to remove all line breaks from the "Template:Infobox organization". There is no harm leaving each parameter on a separate line. In fact, this layout specifically makes it easier for editing. Look at Template:Infobox organization, where all the examples show each parameter of the infobox listed on a separate line. Why have you moved all the parameters onto one line, and now edit war to keep this unusual and less-beneficial style? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me, but please refrain from attacking my contributions on that article as "sloppy". Now that this is out of the way, the infobox was changed to infobox Christian denomination, because that is what it is. I expanded upon the contents of the article and corrected their organizations names with their English names. I even linked the new name of the Mexican National Catholic Church, yet you, in seemingly now bad faith, reverted those contributions in ire. If you truly had an issue, it would have been better to discuss rather than ignite a WP:edit war. If you need me, I will be awaiting your response; till then, I am bowing out of Wikipedia as I am no longer able to deal with contributors who consistently vandalize articles and those who, despite information being improved upon in accordance with good-will and regulative approval, continue to revert contributions. Wikipedia does not appear as a safe harbor for progress anymore. A pity. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

After discussion pertaining to the issue, a glimmer of hope pertaining to continuing contributing to Wikipedia has been granted. Therefore, I would like to forgo the insult toward the contribution, and discuss if it would be preferable to utilize the new infobox template for the Christian denomination, and then maintain line breaks which the visual editor did not register with. I would also love to know if it would also be preferable to restore the grammatical corrections, naming in English, and re-link of the Mexican church. Please respond as soon as humanly possible. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ZXBOI

I saw your talk page comments - do you have reason to believe that ZXBOI has a "banned user account"? If so, he is committing illegitimate sockpuppetry by creating this new account and editing with it. Please explain and file a WP:SPI if necessary. Elizium23 (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, please take a look at User:Отрок 12, and their contributions pertaining to a discussion at the ANI noticeboard. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sock edits

Hi TheLionHasSeen! Thanks for quickly handling the SPI report about the latest sockery in Habesha peoples and related articles. Just an advice: per WP:3RRNO, reverting sock edits is not covered by the 3RR-rule; yet, you must take care so that other editors not familiar with the recurrent abuse by Hoater will not mistake your reverts as edit warring. Ideally, you should explicitly say in the edit summary "rv sock edits per WP:BANREVERT" (that's what I do in such cases), if you're 99% sure that these are sock or meat edits. –Austronesier (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, thank you for the sound advice. I greatly appreciate it! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethiopian Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page U Street. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. However, you seem to be misreading this whole situation, and this now appears to be intentional in my personal opinion; yet, nevertheless, I shall await patiently a response from you or an administrator. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Independent sacramental movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ordination of LGBT clergy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

J. Delano Ellis

Would categories of Pentacostal bishops work? Or 20th century American bishops? Rathfelder (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Rathfelder, Pentecostal would work! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hello, TheLionHasSeen,

Please do not tag any user accounts as being sockpuppets. That task is given to checkusers and SPI clerks. If you believe an editor to be a sockpuppet, please file a case at SPI or contact a checkuser. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Liz, please refer to me stating that, based off this investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucasbishop. Nevertheless for the purpose of security, I shall take heed. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Iberia, Louisiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2010 census.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI July 2021 Culture of New Orleans

Hi TheLionHasSeen! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.

A Barnstar for You

		The Pelican in Her Piety Barnstar
		The Pelican in Her Piety Barnstar is given to recognize editors who have improved the coverage of Louisiana on Wikipedia. In recognition of your work updating demographics and statistics across a number of Louisiana articles. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Tcr25 thank you so much for the recognition! I am currently intending to update information for the cities and CDPs in Acadiana, and then Southwest Louisiana before taking a short hiatus. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello, I'm SounderBruce. I noticed that you recently removed content from Washington (state) without adequately explaining why. 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 me a message on my talk page. Please discuss and gain consensus before removing elements such as the state symbols infobox. SounderBruce 18:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the contribution history at the article for Washington (state), I believe you have "jumped the gun" to write the least, as I clarified everything. You merely began culling contributions without investigating them, and attempting to rebut good faith efforts to improve the article. If you wish to continue, we can solve this through discussion, or other administrative means, perhaps? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

TheLionHasSeen, I noticed your edit summary. One of you should have begun an article talk page discussion already, and I recommend that you do so now. Conversations via edit summary are not a useful approach to collaborative editing. Also, ANI is for chronic or urgent behavioral problems, not for content disputes. Schazjmd (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Washington (state) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I suggest using the talk page instead of trying to explain everything in the edit summaries (which are supposed to be kept short anyway). SounderBruce 20:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

2020 census data

FYI, there seems to be a weak consensus to not present 2020 census data on race and ethnicity in the same manner as data from previous censuses, due to changes in methodology. The census bureau has stated that 2020 data is not directly comparable to 2010 data. See Talk:United States#How to approach 2020 census data (ethnicity and race). Bneu2013 (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ermenrich (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You can not really make hundreds of edits citing WP:COMMONSENSE (which is in fact WP:IAR). This is not how Wikipedia works. Could you please show a place in WP:MOS which says piped links are encouraged? Until this happened, could you please stop. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Or may be just open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters or a similar venue.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the explanation. Forgive me, I tried to operate in good faith. I will dutifully read! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to drop another templated warning about edit warring since you just got one 4 days ago. If you continue to edit war on Modalistic Monarchianism, you may be blocked from editing. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber, read the edit history and the ANI noticeboard. Thank you. They first claimed to have done my contribution in addition to (according to me) showing advocacy as a WP:agenda account, and now they are seemingly claiming to discuss, when they have not done so. If they truly wanted to discuss such a massive contribution, why did they not engage in the talk page? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, but only one to start a talk page discussion. You're the more experienced user in this dispute, so you should model the expected norms around disagreements while editing. That means you should have started the talk page discussion. You're both now sitting at 3RR, so I would encourage you to respond to them at Talk:Modalistic_Monarchianism#Dispute_Over_Additional_Content instead of continuing to edit war. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber, Ermenrich and Editor2020 what is the next best course of action? No consensus was reached, and they opted to disappear rather than respond initially, and just made more contributions even though their actions were reverted to pre-additives? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Modalistic Monarchianism Content Dispute

Hello. What are the main issues with the content that I recently added to this article? As you read through it, what do you find not appropriate and how can it be improved to be more neutral while adding the perspective of those who adhere to Modalist theology. With the older version that was reverted to by you, much of the content seemed to be only from a Trinitarian perspective. I thought adding Modalist arguments might be appropriate to get the full picture from both sides of Christology. -Redvince1 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that admittance to being Modalist? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I am a Modalist perspective editor. I am committed to making sure that all viewpoints are well represented in the articles I am involved in editing. My observation is that Modalistic Monarchianism lacked content from Christian editors who are Modalist, and mostly included content from editors who write from a secular, Arian, or Trinitarian perspective. I encourage us to thresh out this article and not discount valid Scriptural and historical information that may come against our preferred perspective in the interest of a holistic and less biased approach to this article. I invite you to continue discussion on review on the talk page for this article. I have to work regularly at other tasks, so it may take me a few days to reply, but I hope we can have a continued respectful debate and revision process to improve the article- Redvince1 (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Therefore, you admit, days later, to being a member of Wikipedia:Advocacy. As for Scripture, how can you be trusted stating your Modalist beliefs as you deem them valid for your Modalistic theological perspective. There is no further discussion at this rate, as it is hitting a brick wall. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Warning regarding Modalistic Monarchianism

As I mentioned in this ANI closure, you are warned not to edit Modalistic Monarchianism again without consensus on the content (specifically the issue of Arianism). Use the talk page to discuss the changes and, if needed, start a [{WP:RFC|request for comment]] to establish consensus. Any further edit warring will result in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair to me! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Byzantine women ministers in Ordination of women and Minister (Christianity)

The article explicitly describes mosaics that mention ministersItalic text. It is a reliable source. It is not up to editors to do original research on meanings, in fact, original research is forbidden by WP. Please take your issues to Talk:Ordination_of_women and Talk:Minister (Christianity). --Zeamays (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The article pertains to the ordination of women; according to the lede, ministers refers to deacons, presbyters, and bishops. In the article, the only ministry the article states is women, and if you hit CTRL+F you will can search the word, "nun" too. You are gravely mistaken. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

'Nun' is only a speculation, "As for the deaconesses, who make up most of the women mentioned in the inscriptions, these could have been nuns or secular women." --Zeamays (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. As for the title, the article is stating those women minister as deaconesses. Upon reading the contents of the article, it clearly states so; and in the ordination of women article, it clearly states the ministerial offices in Christianity include the office of the diaconate (deacons). So, the context of the contribution should merely state as ministers or deacons, instead of including, right? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If not, would you love to seek a third party's suggestion on this issue? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lafayette, Louisiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hub City.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Again

Hi! I'm pretty sure about this one[1], but a second opinion from you will definitely help. I'm sure you know who I'm suspecting to see with that kind of edit history. –Austronesier (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier...can we ever get a break? Sheesh. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

TheLionHasSeen and Austronesier, FYI I just filed a new SPI. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Grand! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey.

Apologies for that, not just for the rushing, but the unintended messes...i'll try my best to do better about that from now on.

Don't really know how it's been creating extra spaces, but then again, outside of adding 2020 racial tables, i don't have much editing experience on this site. I always make sure to put one blank space in between each sub-header in the source editor, but looks like i need to do a bit more there than just that, huh?

Hey thanks for responding CarolinaLuxray. Tried using Help:Introduction to learn more? It's very neat information. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)