![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just a friendly warning from someone who edits in the same areas that you do. Some people on WP are given more leeway, then others. I highly suggest being very careful with the no personal attack policy. Marauder40 ( talk) 13:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I was carefully reverting, not moving, your hijacking work on Xian, to preserve the history correctly. We now have a nearly-empty history of Xian, which is incorrect. Please don't do any more edits while I attempt to disentangle this mess - I'll probably have to get an adminn to help. And another time you want to create an article on a title which is already in use, please do so properly rather than just over-writing existing elements of the encyclopedia. Thanks. Pam D 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there: We don't delete pages that are candidates for merging. In the case where the content is merged, the old title would become a redirect. -- Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Stub tag goes at the end, and you've just added it redundantly to an article with two specific stub tags. Please take more care. Pam D 07:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit to Kakure Kirishitan. A person may be prohibited from teaching. But when one speaks of a general prohibition, one says "it is prohibited to teach", as in "all people are prohibited from teaching". If one writes "it is prohibited from teaching", that implies that the pronoun it refers to a specific entity that is the subject of the prohibition. One could write: "The missionary society was reprimanded; it is prohibited from teaching." In this case, the sense of the sentence is that the missionary society (the antecedent of the pronoun it) is prohibited, but that teaching is not generally prohibited. When one writes "It is prohibited to teach." the antecedent of the pronoun It is actually the phrase "to teach". (I'm something of a grammar geek.) WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Crusadestudent! I reverted your edit to Repentance (Christianity) because, as you can see at Talk:Repentance (Christianity), the article has been rated "start-class", one level above "stub-class". If you think this rating might be incorrect, I recommend you check the article based on the WikiProject Christianity quality scale. If, using that scale, you determine the rating to be incorrect, please update the article's talk page, and re-add your stub templates to the very bottom of the page. Ibadibam ( talk) 21:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The " Theotokos" and " Mother of God" articles are one and the same. If you think there is some actual doctrinal difference implied by the terms then you need to substantiate it because, as the article makes clear, "Mother of God", is only a translation of "Theotokos". Anglicanus ( talk) 23:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the bother at the above talk page. I could not see a "merge" section and was distracted by the separate move discussion. I hope you don't mind, but I completely moved my comments, removed your comment pointing me to the discussion, and renamed the discussion's section. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 01:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, I've noticed that you have described yourself as a Spanish - English translator. Are you able to help out with any of the Spanish articles listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English? AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 07:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting - OED doesn't mention " Xian", but a simple Google books search on "Xian" plus "Christian" (to avoid all the Chinese city refs) finds plenty of texts where an editor has annotated a transcription of early diary, letter, etc to show it was in use (like this). I've now spent far too long on this and submitted a couple of the best sources to OED as suggested new words (one noun, one adj). And this was the morning I was going to get really stuck into some real life paperwork etc! Wikipedia is a fascinating time sink. Enough. Pam D 10:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Please clarify this cock-up edit summary in another edit summary, for the article history: " Christogram (merged content from article name)". Thanks. Johnbod ( talk) 14:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, Recently I noticed these:
For many months now I am working on improving both of these. The list of canonizations is in sequence by each Pope.
The list of Catholic saints is in sequence by that saint's date of death.
Prior to me joining Wikipedia both these articles were in their given sequences.
In addition, there is another (shorter) article, List of saints by pope that also has a merge proposal tag.
* Recommendation – First, the "List of saints by pope" should be Redirected to the "List of canonisations". Second, let me finish updating canonization & Catholic saints articles. After that would be a good time to design a sort-able mega-table with content from both. Regards, — JoeHebda • ( talk) 13:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Crusadestudent: – The reason I would prefer to have "List of saints by pope" become a redirect is so that the wikitable goes away. While those tables may look nice, they are more difficult to create & maintain wikicode.
Here are a few examples of Wikipedia lists of Biography-related, all without wikitables:
Secondly, by making the redirect, we are then dealing with just the two articles not three. Cheers, — JoeHebda • ( talk) 16:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see there are differences between List of saints by pope and List of canonizations so that will need to be allowed for.
Found another link to List of saints that is a wikitable for content. Check out the See also section and bottom navbox there to see more articles. Wonder if there are a few more out there? Yikes! — JoeHebda • ( talk) 17:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a big problem with your request for opinions at WT:WikiProject Catholicism because I will assume that your intentions were solely to get more opinions in general rather than specific types of opinions. There isn't an equivalent project for Protestantism, although there are projects for other Christian denominations (I could push that issue, but I won't). But be careful about further requests for comments. There's nothing wrong with requesting comments, but there are ways to it that are considered unbiased; read WP:CANVASS for description of inappropriate and appropriate approaches. I personally would have placed the request at WT:WikiProject Christianity to avoid any question about bias. Just be careful. Canvassing and vote-stacking raise a lot of red flags on Wikipedia. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 23:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I left a message on the Talk:Laicization (Catholic Church) article explaining my move and revert of your move. Please feel free to discuss. I believe that my title better conforms to WP:CONSISTENCY than your title.
I mean all of this in goodfaith, and I believe that you are also editing in good faith, so please don't take this as trying to start an edit war.
I will abide by consensus, but until a formal consensus is reached, I request that "my" title should remain, as it is closer to other canon law articles.
The laicization page was until just recently on its own, titled simply "Laicization". Then somebody moved it to "Laicization in the Catholic Church" and redirected "Laicization" to "Defrocking". That's a fair edit in itself, but this user didn't seem to make an attempt to retitle the page according to the consensus within the Canon law (Catholic Church)-related articles, which is why I moved it in an attempt to bring it into what I viewed as conformity to WP:CONSISTENCY.
Anyway, I look forward to fruitfully discussing this with you and others in order to reach a formal consensus!
Sincerely, Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 01:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maryam (mother of Isa). Since you had some involvement with the Maryam (mother of Isa) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MorbidEntree - ( Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 07:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maryam, mother of Isa. Since you had some involvement with the Maryam, mother of Isa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MorbidEntree - ( Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 07:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello! You made a good start on the article Order of Friars Minor. Could you please stay to try to make a few more improvements? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 09:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Chicbyaccident: Some suggestions for edits, while I'm stuck in the block zone:
Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 00:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Marauder40, Zfish118, BoBoMisiu, CanonLawJunkie, and Chicbyaccident: My account has been blocked for no reason. Apparently someone thinks I'm a sockpuppet. The only username change I've ever made was in the last few days from Crusadestudent to Jujutsuan. I've never had another account, ever. Please help. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Esoglou/Archive Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 21:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Marauder40, Zfish118, BoBoMisiu, CanonLawJunkie, Chicbyaccident, Callanecc, Casliber, Courcelles, DGG, DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Salvio giuliano, and Keilana: Update: ThePlatypusofDoom has kindly gotten me started on the appeals process. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 21:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Vanjagenije: and @ Binksternet: and @ Bbb23: I am not a sockpuppet. I created my account as Crusadestudent fairly recently, and changed my username to Jujutsuan in the last couple of days. I have no relationship to Theodoxa, FindingEllipsoids, Dooodoooo, or Justarandomeditor. I recall trying to revert some vandalism by Dooodooooo at one point, but another user got to it first. I think I have seen Justarandomeditor around, too, but I am not him/her. Please unblock my account. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Second thought, don't do that, bad idea. File an unblock request. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan/Archives ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked on a false charge of sockpuppetry. I created my account as Crusadestudent fairly recently, and in the last few days changed my username to Jujutsuan. I am not Dooodoooooo, but instead tried to revert vandalism by this account (IIRC, another editor made the revert before I could.) Now that I think about it and review Justarandomeditor's history, I made that account before Crusadestudent because I didn't want to edit as an IP, but subsequently forgot my login info and haven't used it or attempted to use it since then. I had even forgotten that I made the account, and I have no intention of reviving it. The other purported sockpuppets are simply not correct. I often use a public computer, so it's quite possible that computer-sharing or IP-sharing has occurred. Please unblock me.
The SPI is at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esoglou/Archive.
Accept reason:
See my comments below in the section entitled "Unblock". Bbb23 ( talk) 12:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
*This is a WP:CHECKUSER block, so we need Bbb23 to comment. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ FindingEllipsoids: The blockers seem to think we're the same person. How can we prove to them that we're not? Please respond on your user talk page and ping me with this code: {{ping|Jujutsuan}}. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 23:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Afterwriting: Thanks for your contribution to the investigation. I assure you I'm not Esoglou (although that's not the allegation that got me indefinitely blocked). Please note, though, that I've given up on the "Roman" issue since my earliest editing days; page move requests that incidentally switch or would switch "in Roman Catholicism" to "in the Catholic Church" have been due to unrelated policy issues like WP:NATURAL, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENCY, among others. Any recent removal of "Roman" from body text was in instances where I felt the sentence was bordering too wordy and saw an opportunity to remove an extra, not-strictly-necessary word, in good faith. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 00:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
These users have vouched for me without my requesting it. I had only pinged above several users with whom I have worked looking for answers on how to appeal, not directly asking for testimonials. I am grateful for the support they have shown here and on the investigation page. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 06:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
--This discussion has been resolved.--
@ MrX and 333-blue: I did not create List of pro-life organizations in the United States in violation of my current block. I created the draft beforehand, and it was accepted by the AfC reviewer fair and square. Please remove the speedy deletion banner. Thank you. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan, this page and your pings make me dizzy. You do know I have this page on my watchlist and don't need a ping to know the page has been updated? I feel like I'm in an ad campaign complete with testimonials from people who have used the product (you). Also, you should not be recommending to other editors that they add their post-SPI comments made here to the archives of a case. As ith most archives, that's generally not permitted. I have removed those comments.
Anyway, I've thought very long and hard about the merits of your unblock request. I've also consulted privately with one other member of the SPI team. Although I'm not completely satisfied with all your explanations, I've decided I'm no longer persuaded behaviorally that your account is a sock of FindingEllipsoids. I'm also well aware of the public terminal issue. I was aware of it when I ran the check, but just because two accounts use a public terminal doesn't necessarily mean they are separate people. However, it does raise the possibility of it. It's also more complicated than at first blush, but I can't go into that and still protect your privacy.
Technically, even if your account is not a sock of FindingEllipsoids, your are still an admitted sock of Justarandomeditor. At the end of the day, that troubles me the most, not the relationship because you at least were honest enough to admit that from the outset, but the vandalism. You say you've matured, but it wasn't really that long ago.
Looking at all the factors, though, I'm going to extend good faith and unblock you. Arandomeditor will remain blocked, but I'll remove the tag from the userpage. Dooodoooooo was already blocked by another admin and will also remain blocked. Again, I'll remove the tag. I will unblock FindingEllipsoids as there's no basis to retain that block based on my decision.
I'll start taking care of these procedural issues as soon as I've posted these comments. Hopefully, you won't let this experience interfere with constructively and collaboratively editing Wikipedia in the future. After all, you can go home and report your marketing campaign to be a success. :-) As a CheckUser with considerable experience with socks, it's infrequent that I believe what a user says as an "excuse" or "reason". You did a commendable job convincing me, although a little less energy would have been appreciated.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 11:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: See also these NGrams:
Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 08:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Smily Award | |
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award. Originated by Pedia-I.-- Zfish118⋉ talk 18:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) |
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Heads up that your otherwise excellent edit may be reverted by other editors on that due to the substitution of "pro-life" for "anti-abortion"; this is another long running but largely dormant dispute that is best avoided when possible. The phrase "pro-life" is more accepted on United States related pages, but not universally. I have found it best to make edits to only one section or topic at a time on abortion-related pages, to avoid uncontroversial edits, such as the list of pro-life organizations you added, from being reverted at the same time as contested edits made at the same time. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 02:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you aware of the existance of Template:User Catholic? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 12:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jujutsuan. I'm not challenging this edit. But I need some clarification. Maybe I have misunderstood, but did you remove a citation to a source "that doesn't exist" because it is "not available online for proper identification/verification". Wikipedia frequently uses scholarly sources that are not available online. Did I miss something? Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 14:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's an explanation of my reversion of your edit: a group's website isn't a neutral source for a claim about alleged members of that group. Every group imaginable claims that Joan of Arc was one of their members (Neo-Pagan websites claim she was a Neo-Pagan, Baptist websites claim she was a Baptist, lesbian authors claim she was a lesbian, etc), but we don't include any of those fringe ideas as valid facts. You would need an RS to claim she was a member of the Secular Franciscan Order. I have never seen any historian make such a claim - Pernoud never did, nor Pierre Champion as far as I know, nor other historians who studied Joan of Arc in depth. The only slim evidence I know of would be the fact that her priest at Domremy (Pierre Minet if memory serves) was a Franciscan, and her rings and banner had the slogan "Jhesus Maria" which was used by the Franciscans; but that slogan was also used by the Dominicans, Carmelites and Augustinians; her confessor in the army was an Augustinian, and many of the clergy in her army were Dominicans, as were many of her staunchest supporters; so her connection with the Franciscans isn't any more solid than the Dominicans or Augustinians. Ryn78 ( talk) 23:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I personally find all of your edits immature and biased - smacking of desperation. However, it's up to you what edits you make. Nevertheless, I warn you that I will not tolerate being trailed around - you looking at my edit history to work out what article you want to "amend" next. If you do it again then you will be reported for harassment. Contaldo80 ( talk) 13:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Since when did you become a closer? What gives you the right to close this? What do you mean there were no opposing votes - what about my vote? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan, for the second time in just a few days you have closed a discussion in which you were a participant. This time you're not just a participant, but you are the editor who proposed the move. And the second one was after you were reverted with an explanation that it is inappropriate, per WP:CLOSE. As before, I don't disagree with the consensus but with your behavior of violating standard procedures on Wikipedia. I realize that the consensus was clear, but it was still inappropriate for you to close. You should have requested that an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, close the discussion, or request closure at WP:ANRFC. I'm not trying to be too hard on you, but you really need to make an effort to learn from earlier mistakes. I was please to see that the accusations of your socking were eventually resolved, but this kind of behavior is what makes editors look at you suspiciously. I wasn't very concerned the first time you closed a discussion because I felt that you simply didn't know that it was inappropriate. With this second closure, I am very concerned with your behavior. I hope you will take this criticism in the spirit that it is intended, to help you avoid the kinds of mistakes that result in conflicts and blocks. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 20:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello @ Crusadestudent: I am very concerned about your editing behavior, especially at Catholic Church in particular, and other related pages. It seem to me that everytime I log in, there is some new conflict on the talkpage, usually over a relatively minor issue. This is becoming disruptive to the article, and it is frustrating to us other editors. You are extremely technically proficient, and have made valuable contributions throughout several pages, and I do not wish to discourage these productive edits. However, I would propose that you voluntarily refrain from editing from at least the main Catholic Church page for a month (until July 2016) to gain experience editing less controversial pages. Being a voluntary request, you are free to disregard this and continuing editing following applicable Wikipedia guidelines; however continued conflicts on the talkpage could result in your account being restricted from editing certain topics or otherwise sanctioned if another user were to file a complaint. Many editors have shown a great deal of patience and extended several informal courtesy warnings, and voluntarily stepping aside for a time could help you build good will among them. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 16:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time just stop abusing the Wikipedia process to promote your personal biases. Your behaviour is deplorable. Afterwriting ( talk) 04:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Jujutsuan: Even my patience is wearing thin. Afterwriting is one of the most diligent, bias-free editors I've encountered in Wikipedia, and to suggest otherwise is baseless. He is not personally attacking you, except to the extent you seem personally vested in the edits you propose, which have been disruptive to the project. I've tried gently coaching you, hoping to direct you towards a more productive path, but this is becoming increasingly frustrating. I have repeatedly warned you that the Catholic/Roman Catholic issue is a minefield, yet you keep poking this beehive, and keep getting angry when you're stung. Proposing edits that have been rejected in the past, and lashing out at those oppose them, is only going to result in more accusations of sock-puppetry and other rules violation. Lashing out at those who accuse you is only going to push you closer to getting banned. If you want to become a productive, respected editor, you need to learn to pick your battles, and choose less controversial edits to pursue. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 13:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Jujutsuan – Daily I visit the Teahouse Questions forum; first of all to see the variety of questions asked mainly by new editors and second; to learn more about how to hone my own editing skills. Since I joined Wikipedia in spring of 2014, from time-to-time I am now able to help at the Teahouse, answering some of the (easier) questions myself. But it's a judgement call for me; at times the questions are totally & completely beyond my understanding, so I know to not respond (and learn from an expert editor). Overall the Teahouse is a friendly place & I am thankful for the volunteers who help out there.
I would recommend visiting the Teahouse for the reasons I've just mentioned. Helping to improve Wikipedia can be a positive and worthwhile experience. Cheers! — JoeHebda • ( talk) 18:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your POV obsession with changing "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" throughout Wikipedia, on the Catholicism article you claimed: "believe it or not, these instances had nothing to do with me".
Despite your recent denial to User:Bbb23 and everyone else of using other accounts here is some very strong evidence to the contrary.
1. Edit summary of the Catholicism article by User:Cor ad cor loquator on 28 April 2016:
2. Edit summary of the Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church article by User:Jujutsuan on 3 May 2016:
"Removed the inaccurate colloquialism "Roman Catholic", replacing it with the proper term "Catholic" (except in quotations). The Church hierarchy has never approved the name "Roman Catholic"; see Lumen Gentium I.8.)" I wonder what the odds of these very similar words being used by two totally different people are? Afterwriting ( talk) 05:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Synoptic need not be capitalized; if used with "gospels", both words should be capitalized. A Georgian ( talk) 13:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your change to the opening sentence of the article about the Eastern Orthodox Church. The question of exactly how to include the name "Orthodox Catholic Church" in the article, and of which name ("Eastern Orthodox Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church") ought to be recognized as the primary name, has been the subject of discussion / debate / argument in the article's talk page for as long as I can remember, and judging by the current content of the talk page, we are no closer to a resolution now than at any time in the past. In my opinion, a change like this shouldn't be made until / unless a true consensus emerges on the talk page — something that simply is not the case now. Per the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" concept ( WP:BRD), you acted boldly; I reverted; now, let's discuss (or, in this case, continue discussing). — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The description at the dab page accurately described the article, which it is meant to do. You presumably didn't read Yahweh before you changed the text. You're probably getting confused with the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. If you read that article you will see that "Yahweh" isn't used in Jewish texts. It is used of course in Christian Bibles so I've added a bit to the description of Tetragrammaton. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?. Current consensus is against including political comments. -
Mr
X
01:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm UK and not going to get involved in an edit war about a US issue. However how exactly is Omar Mateen's apparently nominal political affiliation relevant? Was he targetting Republicans? On another edit reason you say "Do not include unless notable or relevant to the crime involved", about another subject. I presume therefore that you satisfied yourself that the relevance of Mateem's link to one party, had demonstrably been shown to be relevant to the crime covered by numerous RS, .... or not? Pincrete ( talk) 13:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Laser brain (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan/Archives ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
WP:NOPUNISH ("Blocks should not be used where there is no current conduct issue of concern.") and WP:BLOCKDETERRENT ("though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.") The edit war in question is long over; this serves no purpose but punishment. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your request does not address the reason for your block. It seems to indicate that you understand that you violated the rules - but not that you are going to work to avoid doing so in the future (in fact, it reads to me like you are only done with this specific edit war). I am afraid that I am unable to unblock you at this time. SQL Query me! 03:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Jujutsuan/Archives ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
WP:NOPUNISH ("Blocks should not be used where there is no current conduct issue of concern.") and
WP:BLOCKDETERRENT ("though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.") The edit war in question is long over; this serves no purpose but punishment.
Perhaps I didn't state this clearly in the last one: I do not intend to continue edit warring, and did not even intend to edit war in the instance that resulted in the block (see
my comment here); I had (very badly) misread the 3RR policy, thinking it meant not to make 3 reverts of the same thing, not 3 total (see
my comment at AN3RR). I understand that now and will not make that mistake again.
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{
re}} |
talk |
contribs)
16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline: block has expired. Favonian ( talk) 15:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?. Current consensus is against including political comments. -
Mr
X
01:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm UK and not going to get involved in an edit war about a US issue. However how exactly is Omar Mateen's apparently nominal political affiliation relevant? Was he targetting Republicans? On another edit reason you say "Do not include unless notable or relevant to the crime involved", about another subject. I presume therefore that you satisfied yourself that the relevance of Mateem's link to one party, had demonstrably been shown to be relevant to the crime covered by numerous RS, .... or not? Pincrete ( talk) 13:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jujutsuan. An article you either created or to which you significantly contributedhas been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
. You can see the hook and the discussion
here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.
APersonBot (
talk!)
12:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Omar Mateen 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) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
SusanLesch (
talk)
14:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
For connecting the article Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry with the wiki series on the Catholic Church, by placing the series sidebar on the article Indefatigable2 ( talk) 22:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC) |
![]() |
Hello! Jujutsuan,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
LaMona (
talk)
21:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your advice! I decided it would be best to follow what you said, and hold off, at least for a little while. Thank you for the help. Indefatigable2 ( talk) 04:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This notice is meant as a courtesy and does not imply any wrong-doing. However, it is partially in response to your edits on Omar Mateen and related pages. You have made repeated efforts to link the events and individual to the current political campaigns for president. Please, seek consensus for such additions. Your initial efforts were WP:BOLD, but by this point they (in my view) drift into "reckless" territory. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 06:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to
Judaism's views on Muhammad, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some
guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
JudeccaXIII (
talk)
23:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Rvt- Addition not on WP:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list per Template talk:Christianity/Archive 4#Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles.
Do not add items without WP:CON. Do not link to redirects. tahc chat 17:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Catholic Church in Afghanistan. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Book of Glory. Since you had some involvement with the Book of Glory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JudeccaXIII ( talk) 07:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan, I have been viewing your contributions as some of the pages you have edited I have on my watchlist. Your edits show a particular pattern for editing articles related to John the Apostle and Paul the Apostle. You have been in particular, removing the Gnosticism template from apocryphal text associated John/Paul, which I will be restoring back. Also, you have been been creating templates related to these figures and their literature related articles. However, you've been editing already existing templates by adding honorary titles to John only such as the Book of Glory or Book of Signs which is not universally accepted by academic views. You've also been editing the Gospel of John to have content correlate with these honorary or structured titles with the templates. Such correlations are not allowed if they are not universally accepted. This is your first warning for disruptive editing, and also, no more being bold on moving religious related articles. You are to start RM discussions for now on since you seem to be irritating other editors such as myself. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 08:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
References
*Since
Early Christianity was a long time without any
Template:Christian mysticism,
your edit here was the
bold edit to make a change without
consensus.
I apologize. I now see that you moved the Template:Christian mysticism in such a way that made me think you had added it. Also now see that one of first three writters in the template was pre 325 (again I my mistake), making the best heading "Antiquity" like this Category:Ancient Christianity. tahc chat 20:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jujutsuan. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Gestrid ( talk) 06:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your question on the DYK talk page. After you nominate an article, you wait for someone to review it and, if needed, answer any questions and make any changes in the article that the reviewer requests. After the article is approved, it will remain on the nominations page until a prep set builder comes along and promotes it. Then the prep set will be promoted to a queue, and from there to the main page. You cannot approve your own article, or promote it to the prep area, or hurry the process along. Best, Yoninah ( talk) 19:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jujutsuan, I have decided to withdraw the nomination as I have been doing a more extended research possibly suggesting a mentioning of the title from academic views via Google Books search up. I have found enough sources to possibly support an independent article. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Off topic, but both here and on User talk:Jujutsuan/Book of Glory, your edit removed the "an" from my name. I think it's a technical glitch. Are you using something that runs autocorrect? That could be doing it. Jujutsu (Please notify with {{ re}} | talk | contribs) 22:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jujutsuan. I have no doubt that K of C is prolife, but there are two problems with the source cited in this edit. It appears to pertain only to regalia, not "right to life". And there should be a source pertaining to the entire K of C, not just one province. Sundayclose ( talk) 15:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just a friendly warning from someone who edits in the same areas that you do. Some people on WP are given more leeway, then others. I highly suggest being very careful with the no personal attack policy. Marauder40 ( talk) 13:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I was carefully reverting, not moving, your hijacking work on Xian, to preserve the history correctly. We now have a nearly-empty history of Xian, which is incorrect. Please don't do any more edits while I attempt to disentangle this mess - I'll probably have to get an adminn to help. And another time you want to create an article on a title which is already in use, please do so properly rather than just over-writing existing elements of the encyclopedia. Thanks. Pam D 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there: We don't delete pages that are candidates for merging. In the case where the content is merged, the old title would become a redirect. -- Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Stub tag goes at the end, and you've just added it redundantly to an article with two specific stub tags. Please take more care. Pam D 07:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit to Kakure Kirishitan. A person may be prohibited from teaching. But when one speaks of a general prohibition, one says "it is prohibited to teach", as in "all people are prohibited from teaching". If one writes "it is prohibited from teaching", that implies that the pronoun it refers to a specific entity that is the subject of the prohibition. One could write: "The missionary society was reprimanded; it is prohibited from teaching." In this case, the sense of the sentence is that the missionary society (the antecedent of the pronoun it) is prohibited, but that teaching is not generally prohibited. When one writes "It is prohibited to teach." the antecedent of the pronoun It is actually the phrase "to teach". (I'm something of a grammar geek.) WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Crusadestudent! I reverted your edit to Repentance (Christianity) because, as you can see at Talk:Repentance (Christianity), the article has been rated "start-class", one level above "stub-class". If you think this rating might be incorrect, I recommend you check the article based on the WikiProject Christianity quality scale. If, using that scale, you determine the rating to be incorrect, please update the article's talk page, and re-add your stub templates to the very bottom of the page. Ibadibam ( talk) 21:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The " Theotokos" and " Mother of God" articles are one and the same. If you think there is some actual doctrinal difference implied by the terms then you need to substantiate it because, as the article makes clear, "Mother of God", is only a translation of "Theotokos". Anglicanus ( talk) 23:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the bother at the above talk page. I could not see a "merge" section and was distracted by the separate move discussion. I hope you don't mind, but I completely moved my comments, removed your comment pointing me to the discussion, and renamed the discussion's section. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 01:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, I've noticed that you have described yourself as a Spanish - English translator. Are you able to help out with any of the Spanish articles listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English? AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 07:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting - OED doesn't mention " Xian", but a simple Google books search on "Xian" plus "Christian" (to avoid all the Chinese city refs) finds plenty of texts where an editor has annotated a transcription of early diary, letter, etc to show it was in use (like this). I've now spent far too long on this and submitted a couple of the best sources to OED as suggested new words (one noun, one adj). And this was the morning I was going to get really stuck into some real life paperwork etc! Wikipedia is a fascinating time sink. Enough. Pam D 10:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Please clarify this cock-up edit summary in another edit summary, for the article history: " Christogram (merged content from article name)". Thanks. Johnbod ( talk) 14:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, Recently I noticed these:
For many months now I am working on improving both of these. The list of canonizations is in sequence by each Pope.
The list of Catholic saints is in sequence by that saint's date of death.
Prior to me joining Wikipedia both these articles were in their given sequences.
In addition, there is another (shorter) article, List of saints by pope that also has a merge proposal tag.
* Recommendation – First, the "List of saints by pope" should be Redirected to the "List of canonisations". Second, let me finish updating canonization & Catholic saints articles. After that would be a good time to design a sort-able mega-table with content from both. Regards, — JoeHebda • ( talk) 13:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Crusadestudent: – The reason I would prefer to have "List of saints by pope" become a redirect is so that the wikitable goes away. While those tables may look nice, they are more difficult to create & maintain wikicode.
Here are a few examples of Wikipedia lists of Biography-related, all without wikitables:
Secondly, by making the redirect, we are then dealing with just the two articles not three. Cheers, — JoeHebda • ( talk) 16:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see there are differences between List of saints by pope and List of canonizations so that will need to be allowed for.
Found another link to List of saints that is a wikitable for content. Check out the See also section and bottom navbox there to see more articles. Wonder if there are a few more out there? Yikes! — JoeHebda • ( talk) 17:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a big problem with your request for opinions at WT:WikiProject Catholicism because I will assume that your intentions were solely to get more opinions in general rather than specific types of opinions. There isn't an equivalent project for Protestantism, although there are projects for other Christian denominations (I could push that issue, but I won't). But be careful about further requests for comments. There's nothing wrong with requesting comments, but there are ways to it that are considered unbiased; read WP:CANVASS for description of inappropriate and appropriate approaches. I personally would have placed the request at WT:WikiProject Christianity to avoid any question about bias. Just be careful. Canvassing and vote-stacking raise a lot of red flags on Wikipedia. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 23:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I left a message on the Talk:Laicization (Catholic Church) article explaining my move and revert of your move. Please feel free to discuss. I believe that my title better conforms to WP:CONSISTENCY than your title.
I mean all of this in goodfaith, and I believe that you are also editing in good faith, so please don't take this as trying to start an edit war.
I will abide by consensus, but until a formal consensus is reached, I request that "my" title should remain, as it is closer to other canon law articles.
The laicization page was until just recently on its own, titled simply "Laicization". Then somebody moved it to "Laicization in the Catholic Church" and redirected "Laicization" to "Defrocking". That's a fair edit in itself, but this user didn't seem to make an attempt to retitle the page according to the consensus within the Canon law (Catholic Church)-related articles, which is why I moved it in an attempt to bring it into what I viewed as conformity to WP:CONSISTENCY.
Anyway, I look forward to fruitfully discussing this with you and others in order to reach a formal consensus!
Sincerely, Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 01:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maryam (mother of Isa). Since you had some involvement with the Maryam (mother of Isa) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MorbidEntree - ( Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 07:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maryam, mother of Isa. Since you had some involvement with the Maryam, mother of Isa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MorbidEntree - ( Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 07:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello! You made a good start on the article Order of Friars Minor. Could you please stay to try to make a few more improvements? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 09:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Chicbyaccident: Some suggestions for edits, while I'm stuck in the block zone:
Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 00:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Marauder40, Zfish118, BoBoMisiu, CanonLawJunkie, and Chicbyaccident: My account has been blocked for no reason. Apparently someone thinks I'm a sockpuppet. The only username change I've ever made was in the last few days from Crusadestudent to Jujutsuan. I've never had another account, ever. Please help. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Esoglou/Archive Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 21:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Marauder40, Zfish118, BoBoMisiu, CanonLawJunkie, Chicbyaccident, Callanecc, Casliber, Courcelles, DGG, DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Salvio giuliano, and Keilana: Update: ThePlatypusofDoom has kindly gotten me started on the appeals process. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 21:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Vanjagenije: and @ Binksternet: and @ Bbb23: I am not a sockpuppet. I created my account as Crusadestudent fairly recently, and changed my username to Jujutsuan in the last couple of days. I have no relationship to Theodoxa, FindingEllipsoids, Dooodoooo, or Justarandomeditor. I recall trying to revert some vandalism by Dooodooooo at one point, but another user got to it first. I think I have seen Justarandomeditor around, too, but I am not him/her. Please unblock my account. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Second thought, don't do that, bad idea. File an unblock request. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan/Archives ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked on a false charge of sockpuppetry. I created my account as Crusadestudent fairly recently, and in the last few days changed my username to Jujutsuan. I am not Dooodoooooo, but instead tried to revert vandalism by this account (IIRC, another editor made the revert before I could.) Now that I think about it and review Justarandomeditor's history, I made that account before Crusadestudent because I didn't want to edit as an IP, but subsequently forgot my login info and haven't used it or attempted to use it since then. I had even forgotten that I made the account, and I have no intention of reviving it. The other purported sockpuppets are simply not correct. I often use a public computer, so it's quite possible that computer-sharing or IP-sharing has occurred. Please unblock me.
The SPI is at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esoglou/Archive.
Accept reason:
See my comments below in the section entitled "Unblock". Bbb23 ( talk) 12:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
*This is a WP:CHECKUSER block, so we need Bbb23 to comment. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ FindingEllipsoids: The blockers seem to think we're the same person. How can we prove to them that we're not? Please respond on your user talk page and ping me with this code: {{ping|Jujutsuan}}. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 23:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Afterwriting: Thanks for your contribution to the investigation. I assure you I'm not Esoglou (although that's not the allegation that got me indefinitely blocked). Please note, though, that I've given up on the "Roman" issue since my earliest editing days; page move requests that incidentally switch or would switch "in Roman Catholicism" to "in the Catholic Church" have been due to unrelated policy issues like WP:NATURAL, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENCY, among others. Any recent removal of "Roman" from body text was in instances where I felt the sentence was bordering too wordy and saw an opportunity to remove an extra, not-strictly-necessary word, in good faith. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 00:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
These users have vouched for me without my requesting it. I had only pinged above several users with whom I have worked looking for answers on how to appeal, not directly asking for testimonials. I am grateful for the support they have shown here and on the investigation page. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 06:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
--This discussion has been resolved.--
@ MrX and 333-blue: I did not create List of pro-life organizations in the United States in violation of my current block. I created the draft beforehand, and it was accepted by the AfC reviewer fair and square. Please remove the speedy deletion banner. Thank you. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan, this page and your pings make me dizzy. You do know I have this page on my watchlist and don't need a ping to know the page has been updated? I feel like I'm in an ad campaign complete with testimonials from people who have used the product (you). Also, you should not be recommending to other editors that they add their post-SPI comments made here to the archives of a case. As ith most archives, that's generally not permitted. I have removed those comments.
Anyway, I've thought very long and hard about the merits of your unblock request. I've also consulted privately with one other member of the SPI team. Although I'm not completely satisfied with all your explanations, I've decided I'm no longer persuaded behaviorally that your account is a sock of FindingEllipsoids. I'm also well aware of the public terminal issue. I was aware of it when I ran the check, but just because two accounts use a public terminal doesn't necessarily mean they are separate people. However, it does raise the possibility of it. It's also more complicated than at first blush, but I can't go into that and still protect your privacy.
Technically, even if your account is not a sock of FindingEllipsoids, your are still an admitted sock of Justarandomeditor. At the end of the day, that troubles me the most, not the relationship because you at least were honest enough to admit that from the outset, but the vandalism. You say you've matured, but it wasn't really that long ago.
Looking at all the factors, though, I'm going to extend good faith and unblock you. Arandomeditor will remain blocked, but I'll remove the tag from the userpage. Dooodoooooo was already blocked by another admin and will also remain blocked. Again, I'll remove the tag. I will unblock FindingEllipsoids as there's no basis to retain that block based on my decision.
I'll start taking care of these procedural issues as soon as I've posted these comments. Hopefully, you won't let this experience interfere with constructively and collaboratively editing Wikipedia in the future. After all, you can go home and report your marketing campaign to be a success. :-) As a CheckUser with considerable experience with socks, it's infrequent that I believe what a user says as an "excuse" or "reason". You did a commendable job convincing me, although a little less energy would have been appreciated.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 11:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: See also these NGrams:
Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 08:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Smily Award | |
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award. Originated by Pedia-I.-- Zfish118⋉ talk 18:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) |
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Heads up that your otherwise excellent edit may be reverted by other editors on that due to the substitution of "pro-life" for "anti-abortion"; this is another long running but largely dormant dispute that is best avoided when possible. The phrase "pro-life" is more accepted on United States related pages, but not universally. I have found it best to make edits to only one section or topic at a time on abortion-related pages, to avoid uncontroversial edits, such as the list of pro-life organizations you added, from being reverted at the same time as contested edits made at the same time. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 02:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you aware of the existance of Template:User Catholic? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 12:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jujutsuan. I'm not challenging this edit. But I need some clarification. Maybe I have misunderstood, but did you remove a citation to a source "that doesn't exist" because it is "not available online for proper identification/verification". Wikipedia frequently uses scholarly sources that are not available online. Did I miss something? Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 14:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's an explanation of my reversion of your edit: a group's website isn't a neutral source for a claim about alleged members of that group. Every group imaginable claims that Joan of Arc was one of their members (Neo-Pagan websites claim she was a Neo-Pagan, Baptist websites claim she was a Baptist, lesbian authors claim she was a lesbian, etc), but we don't include any of those fringe ideas as valid facts. You would need an RS to claim she was a member of the Secular Franciscan Order. I have never seen any historian make such a claim - Pernoud never did, nor Pierre Champion as far as I know, nor other historians who studied Joan of Arc in depth. The only slim evidence I know of would be the fact that her priest at Domremy (Pierre Minet if memory serves) was a Franciscan, and her rings and banner had the slogan "Jhesus Maria" which was used by the Franciscans; but that slogan was also used by the Dominicans, Carmelites and Augustinians; her confessor in the army was an Augustinian, and many of the clergy in her army were Dominicans, as were many of her staunchest supporters; so her connection with the Franciscans isn't any more solid than the Dominicans or Augustinians. Ryn78 ( talk) 23:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I personally find all of your edits immature and biased - smacking of desperation. However, it's up to you what edits you make. Nevertheless, I warn you that I will not tolerate being trailed around - you looking at my edit history to work out what article you want to "amend" next. If you do it again then you will be reported for harassment. Contaldo80 ( talk) 13:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Since when did you become a closer? What gives you the right to close this? What do you mean there were no opposing votes - what about my vote? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan, for the second time in just a few days you have closed a discussion in which you were a participant. This time you're not just a participant, but you are the editor who proposed the move. And the second one was after you were reverted with an explanation that it is inappropriate, per WP:CLOSE. As before, I don't disagree with the consensus but with your behavior of violating standard procedures on Wikipedia. I realize that the consensus was clear, but it was still inappropriate for you to close. You should have requested that an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, close the discussion, or request closure at WP:ANRFC. I'm not trying to be too hard on you, but you really need to make an effort to learn from earlier mistakes. I was please to see that the accusations of your socking were eventually resolved, but this kind of behavior is what makes editors look at you suspiciously. I wasn't very concerned the first time you closed a discussion because I felt that you simply didn't know that it was inappropriate. With this second closure, I am very concerned with your behavior. I hope you will take this criticism in the spirit that it is intended, to help you avoid the kinds of mistakes that result in conflicts and blocks. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 20:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello @ Crusadestudent: I am very concerned about your editing behavior, especially at Catholic Church in particular, and other related pages. It seem to me that everytime I log in, there is some new conflict on the talkpage, usually over a relatively minor issue. This is becoming disruptive to the article, and it is frustrating to us other editors. You are extremely technically proficient, and have made valuable contributions throughout several pages, and I do not wish to discourage these productive edits. However, I would propose that you voluntarily refrain from editing from at least the main Catholic Church page for a month (until July 2016) to gain experience editing less controversial pages. Being a voluntary request, you are free to disregard this and continuing editing following applicable Wikipedia guidelines; however continued conflicts on the talkpage could result in your account being restricted from editing certain topics or otherwise sanctioned if another user were to file a complaint. Many editors have shown a great deal of patience and extended several informal courtesy warnings, and voluntarily stepping aside for a time could help you build good will among them. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 16:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time just stop abusing the Wikipedia process to promote your personal biases. Your behaviour is deplorable. Afterwriting ( talk) 04:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Jujutsuan: Even my patience is wearing thin. Afterwriting is one of the most diligent, bias-free editors I've encountered in Wikipedia, and to suggest otherwise is baseless. He is not personally attacking you, except to the extent you seem personally vested in the edits you propose, which have been disruptive to the project. I've tried gently coaching you, hoping to direct you towards a more productive path, but this is becoming increasingly frustrating. I have repeatedly warned you that the Catholic/Roman Catholic issue is a minefield, yet you keep poking this beehive, and keep getting angry when you're stung. Proposing edits that have been rejected in the past, and lashing out at those oppose them, is only going to result in more accusations of sock-puppetry and other rules violation. Lashing out at those who accuse you is only going to push you closer to getting banned. If you want to become a productive, respected editor, you need to learn to pick your battles, and choose less controversial edits to pursue. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 13:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Jujutsuan – Daily I visit the Teahouse Questions forum; first of all to see the variety of questions asked mainly by new editors and second; to learn more about how to hone my own editing skills. Since I joined Wikipedia in spring of 2014, from time-to-time I am now able to help at the Teahouse, answering some of the (easier) questions myself. But it's a judgement call for me; at times the questions are totally & completely beyond my understanding, so I know to not respond (and learn from an expert editor). Overall the Teahouse is a friendly place & I am thankful for the volunteers who help out there.
I would recommend visiting the Teahouse for the reasons I've just mentioned. Helping to improve Wikipedia can be a positive and worthwhile experience. Cheers! — JoeHebda • ( talk) 18:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your POV obsession with changing "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" throughout Wikipedia, on the Catholicism article you claimed: "believe it or not, these instances had nothing to do with me".
Despite your recent denial to User:Bbb23 and everyone else of using other accounts here is some very strong evidence to the contrary.
1. Edit summary of the Catholicism article by User:Cor ad cor loquator on 28 April 2016:
2. Edit summary of the Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church article by User:Jujutsuan on 3 May 2016:
"Removed the inaccurate colloquialism "Roman Catholic", replacing it with the proper term "Catholic" (except in quotations). The Church hierarchy has never approved the name "Roman Catholic"; see Lumen Gentium I.8.)" I wonder what the odds of these very similar words being used by two totally different people are? Afterwriting ( talk) 05:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Synoptic need not be capitalized; if used with "gospels", both words should be capitalized. A Georgian ( talk) 13:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your change to the opening sentence of the article about the Eastern Orthodox Church. The question of exactly how to include the name "Orthodox Catholic Church" in the article, and of which name ("Eastern Orthodox Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church") ought to be recognized as the primary name, has been the subject of discussion / debate / argument in the article's talk page for as long as I can remember, and judging by the current content of the talk page, we are no closer to a resolution now than at any time in the past. In my opinion, a change like this shouldn't be made until / unless a true consensus emerges on the talk page — something that simply is not the case now. Per the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" concept ( WP:BRD), you acted boldly; I reverted; now, let's discuss (or, in this case, continue discussing). — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The description at the dab page accurately described the article, which it is meant to do. You presumably didn't read Yahweh before you changed the text. You're probably getting confused with the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. If you read that article you will see that "Yahweh" isn't used in Jewish texts. It is used of course in Christian Bibles so I've added a bit to the description of Tetragrammaton. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?. Current consensus is against including political comments. -
Mr
X
01:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm UK and not going to get involved in an edit war about a US issue. However how exactly is Omar Mateen's apparently nominal political affiliation relevant? Was he targetting Republicans? On another edit reason you say "Do not include unless notable or relevant to the crime involved", about another subject. I presume therefore that you satisfied yourself that the relevance of Mateem's link to one party, had demonstrably been shown to be relevant to the crime covered by numerous RS, .... or not? Pincrete ( talk) 13:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Laser brain (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan/Archives ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
WP:NOPUNISH ("Blocks should not be used where there is no current conduct issue of concern.") and WP:BLOCKDETERRENT ("though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.") The edit war in question is long over; this serves no purpose but punishment. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your request does not address the reason for your block. It seems to indicate that you understand that you violated the rules - but not that you are going to work to avoid doing so in the future (in fact, it reads to me like you are only done with this specific edit war). I am afraid that I am unable to unblock you at this time. SQL Query me! 03:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Jujutsuan/Archives ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
WP:NOPUNISH ("Blocks should not be used where there is no current conduct issue of concern.") and
WP:BLOCKDETERRENT ("though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.") The edit war in question is long over; this serves no purpose but punishment.
Perhaps I didn't state this clearly in the last one: I do not intend to continue edit warring, and did not even intend to edit war in the instance that resulted in the block (see
my comment here); I had (very badly) misread the 3RR policy, thinking it meant not to make 3 reverts of the same thing, not 3 total (see
my comment at AN3RR). I understand that now and will not make that mistake again.
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{
re}} |
talk |
contribs)
16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline: block has expired. Favonian ( talk) 15:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?. Current consensus is against including political comments. -
Mr
X
01:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm UK and not going to get involved in an edit war about a US issue. However how exactly is Omar Mateen's apparently nominal political affiliation relevant? Was he targetting Republicans? On another edit reason you say "Do not include unless notable or relevant to the crime involved", about another subject. I presume therefore that you satisfied yourself that the relevance of Mateem's link to one party, had demonstrably been shown to be relevant to the crime covered by numerous RS, .... or not? Pincrete ( talk) 13:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jujutsuan. An article you either created or to which you significantly contributedhas been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
. You can see the hook and the discussion
here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.
APersonBot (
talk!)
12:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Omar Mateen 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) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
SusanLesch (
talk)
14:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
For connecting the article Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry with the wiki series on the Catholic Church, by placing the series sidebar on the article Indefatigable2 ( talk) 22:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC) |
![]() |
Hello! Jujutsuan,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
LaMona (
talk)
21:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your advice! I decided it would be best to follow what you said, and hold off, at least for a little while. Thank you for the help. Indefatigable2 ( talk) 04:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This notice is meant as a courtesy and does not imply any wrong-doing. However, it is partially in response to your edits on Omar Mateen and related pages. You have made repeated efforts to link the events and individual to the current political campaigns for president. Please, seek consensus for such additions. Your initial efforts were WP:BOLD, but by this point they (in my view) drift into "reckless" territory. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 06:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to
Judaism's views on Muhammad, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some
guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
JudeccaXIII (
talk)
23:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Rvt- Addition not on WP:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list per Template talk:Christianity/Archive 4#Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles.
Do not add items without WP:CON. Do not link to redirects. tahc chat 17:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Catholic Church in Afghanistan. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Book of Glory. Since you had some involvement with the Book of Glory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JudeccaXIII ( talk) 07:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan, I have been viewing your contributions as some of the pages you have edited I have on my watchlist. Your edits show a particular pattern for editing articles related to John the Apostle and Paul the Apostle. You have been in particular, removing the Gnosticism template from apocryphal text associated John/Paul, which I will be restoring back. Also, you have been been creating templates related to these figures and their literature related articles. However, you've been editing already existing templates by adding honorary titles to John only such as the Book of Glory or Book of Signs which is not universally accepted by academic views. You've also been editing the Gospel of John to have content correlate with these honorary or structured titles with the templates. Such correlations are not allowed if they are not universally accepted. This is your first warning for disruptive editing, and also, no more being bold on moving religious related articles. You are to start RM discussions for now on since you seem to be irritating other editors such as myself. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 08:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
References
*Since
Early Christianity was a long time without any
Template:Christian mysticism,
your edit here was the
bold edit to make a change without
consensus.
I apologize. I now see that you moved the Template:Christian mysticism in such a way that made me think you had added it. Also now see that one of first three writters in the template was pre 325 (again I my mistake), making the best heading "Antiquity" like this Category:Ancient Christianity. tahc chat 20:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jujutsuan. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Gestrid ( talk) 06:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your question on the DYK talk page. After you nominate an article, you wait for someone to review it and, if needed, answer any questions and make any changes in the article that the reviewer requests. After the article is approved, it will remain on the nominations page until a prep set builder comes along and promotes it. Then the prep set will be promoted to a queue, and from there to the main page. You cannot approve your own article, or promote it to the prep area, or hurry the process along. Best, Yoninah ( talk) 19:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jujutsuan, I have decided to withdraw the nomination as I have been doing a more extended research possibly suggesting a mentioning of the title from academic views via Google Books search up. I have found enough sources to possibly support an independent article. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Off topic, but both here and on User talk:Jujutsuan/Book of Glory, your edit removed the "an" from my name. I think it's a technical glitch. Are you using something that runs autocorrect? That could be doing it. Jujutsu (Please notify with {{ re}} | talk | contribs) 22:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jujutsuan. I have no doubt that K of C is prolife, but there are two problems with the source cited in this edit. It appears to pertain only to regalia, not "right to life". And there should be a source pertaining to the entire K of C, not just one province. Sundayclose ( talk) 15:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)