|
|||||||||||||||
for your contributions to Christian topics :) ...for what it's worth, i think you should've been treated with more kindness & civility with regard to discussions about reliability of certain scholars & viewpoints on the historicity of Biblical events.
...
sawyer * he/they *
talk 06:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ Sawyer-mcdonell: Thank you, friend! Have a mercy and grace-filled week! Warm tidings as we approach Paschaltide. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 03:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Chiswick Chap --
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 21:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
|
Lovely Easter |
| happy Easter! an unusually early and dreary (weather-wise) holiday, and the Orthodox celebrate it over a month after the West does... although next year they will be on the same day. a good omen for 2025, perhaps ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
- And a lovely Easter to you, Sawyer-mcdonell! If memory serves, the last time there was an Easter alignment between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox was 2014 (I only remember because there was a service commemorating the victims of the Ludlow Massacre that year). I am hopeful for graces in the year to come! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 01:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey
The article
The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey you nominated as a
good article has passed 
; see
Talk:The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey for comments about the article, and
Talk:The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is
eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can
nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Chiswick Chap --
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 16:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Chiswick Chap: Thank you! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you reverted my edits regarding the landlocked status of Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico in their respective articles. Thanks for assuming good faith and acknowledging relevance, but mentioning the landlocked status is important for geography. I’d like to say that the other state articles I edited to include the landlocked status in the lead still have those edits, meaning they were relevant and appropriate. As these states are indeed landlocked, I request that you reconsider your reverts. If you have any questions feel free to ask, thanks! DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) ( talk) 00:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph): Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate your very polite reply. The best course of action here is to consider the importance of reference to the states' landlocked status in the lead. Since Wikipedia relies on other sources, we generally turn to other encyclopedias for examples of what information is crucial for inclusion. For example, Britannica has
an article on Colorado. Their article, including the geography section, neglects mention of the state's landlocked status. This is a strong indication that reference to the landlocked status of the state is not encyclopedically relevant. Regardless of relevance, references are necessary, per
Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Your edits did not include references, so reversion was highly likely. If you have outstanding questions or points you'd like to add, please feel more than welcome to place them here on my talk page. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 00:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, and it’s true that relevancy is important. Otherwise, many articles would contain information which a reader would not find useful! I actually do have some points I’d like to share. First,
You don’t need to cite that the sky is blue. Although there are disagreements regarding the application of non-essays and guidelines, this particular one is very useful, reminding me that I don’t need sources for such information. Also,
Wikipedia can be different. Yes, we most definetly seek other sources of information, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that any relevant information can and should be shared. Here, landlocked states need their status so that readers understand the impact geography has on the economy of the states. Consistency is another thing; it would only be appropriate if a balance of geographic status is spread throughout each article. Thank you for being very helpful to my case, and please reach out!
DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (
talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph): Thank you for continuing your kind disagreement. Since you seem fairly committed to a reasoned defense of these additions and appear to understand all the relevant policies and guidelines involved, I'll encourage you to restore the "landlocked" bit and see if any other editors disagree. I am of the opinion you will become a very strong editor. Best, ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, and it’s true that relevancy is important. Otherwise, many articles would contain information which a reader would not find useful! I actually do have some points I’d like to share. First,
You don’t need to cite that the sky is blue. Although there are disagreements regarding the application of non-essays and guidelines, this particular one is very useful, reminding me that I don’t need sources for such information. Also,
Wikipedia can be different. Yes, we most definetly seek other sources of information, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that any relevant information can and should be shared. Here, landlocked states need their status so that readers understand the impact geography has on the economy of the states. Consistency is another thing; it would only be appropriate if a balance of geographic status is spread throughout each article. Thank you for being very helpful to my case, and please reach out!
DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (
talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I added the politician's criminal history. Two citations were added - one from the arresting police department's own website (Chicago Police Department), and another from a major NY newspaper which also references the arrest. The primary source, the Chicago Police Department's own website is enough of a source. Drdas007 ( talk) 13:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Drdas007: Wikipedia has strict policies about what sources may be used on to reference information on
biographies of living persons. These rules are even stricter when it pertains to possibly criminal information. Arrest records from police departments are considered
primary sources and thus insufficient for introducing information (though they could be used to amplify information if used appropriately). The newspaper you reference is explicitly not a reliable source, per
this consensus. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 13:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- The police department's arrest record is a primary source
- A primary source is one "that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
- No interpretation was made. A simple stating of fact with a primary source.
- Thank you for the information on the NY Post. I will refrain from using that newspaper in the future, ESPECIALLY as a primary source! That link was very helpful.
Drdas007 (
talk) 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Drdas007: Arrest records are not permitted per WP:BLPPRIMARY. You must self-revert and seek a new reference if you wish to include that information. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Drdas007: Of course! If reliable sources do pop up, please feel free to add them. I'll help with any formatting trouble you may encounter. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I appreciate the offer and guidance from more experienced members here. Drdas007 ( talk) 14:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
|
:) Drdas007 ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
- @ Drdas007: A favorite! Williamsburg, Virginia, is the best place to get it! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar |
For your diligent help and patience in reviewing
Erin Swenson for GA status and improving the article in the process!
GnocchiFan (
talk) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
|
- @ GnocchiFan: You created an outstanding article! I'm glad you put it through the polishing process! It was a pleasure to work alongside you and I hope to encounter you more in the future. Please ping me if you ever need another set of eyes to look at sometime! Best, ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Request on 05:18:50, 7 April 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by TaiXuan91
The reasons for rejection are ridiculous. GNU Moe is a software. I quoted GNU Moe's official website in reference. There are detailed software documents and source code download addresses on its official website. I don't know what is more reliable source than the official website for a software.
TaiXuan91 ( talk) 05:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ TaiXuan91: Wikipedia requires reliable sources for determining both the notability and factuality of a subject. In this case, a source like an official website could be used to amplify information from other sources. However, as an official website is not an independent source, it is not as reliable or ideal. Additionally, notability is (generally) not established without independent sourcing. Best, ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
On 10 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Armenian Rite, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that within the Armenian Rite, it takes 40 days and more than 40 flowers, herbs, and spices to create the chrism known as myron? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Armenian Rite. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Armenian Rite), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|
awesome work on Armenian Rite! baklava is popular in Armenia, so it's thematic ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
- @ Sawyer-mcdonell: Thank you! The baklava has been abundant of late. I'm hoping to take the Armenian Rite article a bit further, adding in material on non-Eucharistic rituals. Maybe it'll hit GAN someday, but TBD. By the way, I do believe some celebratory festivities are in order for you! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 03:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
On 11 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Geoffrey Cuming, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Geoffrey Cuming edited what has been called a gramophone librarian's "Bible"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Geoffrey Cuming. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Geoffrey Cuming), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
First and foremost, thank you so much for the exceptionally kind barnstar you left on my page; it's my first one and it really means a lot you took the time to give me one!
Next, I have a question about the changes you make from Roman Catholic to Catholic. I'm an Eastern Catholic so I share your frustration with the conflation of the two, but on Fr. Loew's page, I thought "Roman" would be most appropriate. In general, I've considered anything shared by the universal church as "Catholic" (in simplex), but people and anything particular to the sui iuris churches as not necessitating the change (e.g., Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation vs. Joe Smith is a Roman Catholic). This is completely from my head, but since you're the only other person I've seen try to correct it, do you have a convention or rule of thumb that you use on pages? I'd like to be helpful in this regard and you seem like an editor who knows what he's doing, so I thought I might pick your brain.
ThaesOfereode (
talk) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
ThaesOfereode: Generally speaking, Roman is only used on Wikipedia to disambiguate in contexts when Catholic could reasonably be misinterpreted as referring to
Independent Catholic,
Liberal Catholic,
Old Catholic, or
Anglo-Catholic. Otherwise, it's a term that lends itself to conflation ("do they mean the Catholic Church as a whole or just the Latin Church). Great article, again! Best, ~
Pbritti (
talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation; I'll keep it in mind when I'm poking around pages. Happy editing and thanks again! ThaesOfereode ( talk) 12:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.
Our current top scorers are as follows:
-
Sammi Brie (
submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11
GAs about radio and television; -
voorts (
submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (
Well he would, wouldn't he? and
Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs; -
Generalissima (
submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history; -
SounderBruce (
submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a
FA about the
2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs; -
Tamzin (
submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink
Capri-Sun and three GAs; -
Kusma (
submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist
Anna Blackburne and a GA.
Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.
If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges ( Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs), Epicgenius ( talk · contribs), and Frostly ( talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
You said on the WikiProject Catholicism talk page that a lot of WP:FTN regulars are violating policy. I am not well-versed on policy when it comes to religion, but I am when it comes to politics and medicine. I agree with you that many of them are violating policies. Massacre of the Innocents was a fairly easy one though ( WP:OR). Could you give me some more examples so that I can form coherent arguments should I ever have to give my opinion on this? Scorpions1325 ( talk) 00:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Massacre of the Innocents is the flashpoint I'm most familiar with, but there was a lot of headhunting associated with Latter-Day Saints articles recently following the BYU E-I-R fiasco. When I was doing some editing in scriptural articles, I cited a CUP book that I ended up making an article for. Citing it to describe an academically acceptable but marginal opinion (it's a toned-down version of the Mythological Jesus argument) resulted in accusations of promoting fringe theories. I haven't kept a running list, but if you're interested in more details, I can send you some stuff via the email feature. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. Scorpions1325 ( talk) 02:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Pbritti, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
- Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
- If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
- If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies
You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! – Joe ( talk) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I am so glad to see you there! Thank you! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Jenhawk777: No problem! I had allocated time to review a GAN this week and, given the nominator hasn't gotten back immediately on my comments, I figured it was only right to offer a hand. I've been watching the article progress over the last month and I really like the shape it's taken. I'll do a more thorough review of sources when I can. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 20:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Blessings upon your head and on all your relatives!! That's the first nice thing anyone has said to me about this article. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 02:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||
for your contributions to Christian topics :) ...for what it's worth, i think you should've been treated with more kindness & civility with regard to discussions about reliability of certain scholars & viewpoints on the historicity of Biblical events.
...
sawyer * he/they *
talk 06:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ Sawyer-mcdonell: Thank you, friend! Have a mercy and grace-filled week! Warm tidings as we approach Paschaltide. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 03:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Chiswick Chap --
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 21:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
|
|
Lovely Easter |
| happy Easter! an unusually early and dreary (weather-wise) holiday, and the Orthodox celebrate it over a month after the West does... although next year they will be on the same day. a good omen for 2025, perhaps ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
- And a lovely Easter to you, Sawyer-mcdonell! If memory serves, the last time there was an Easter alignment between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox was 2014 (I only remember because there was a service commemorating the victims of the Ludlow Massacre that year). I am hopeful for graces in the year to come! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 01:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey
The article
The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey for comments about the article, and
Talk:The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is
eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can
nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Chiswick Chap --
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 16:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Chiswick Chap: Thank you! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you reverted my edits regarding the landlocked status of Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico in their respective articles. Thanks for assuming good faith and acknowledging relevance, but mentioning the landlocked status is important for geography. I’d like to say that the other state articles I edited to include the landlocked status in the lead still have those edits, meaning they were relevant and appropriate. As these states are indeed landlocked, I request that you reconsider your reverts. If you have any questions feel free to ask, thanks! DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) ( talk) 00:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph): Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate your very polite reply. The best course of action here is to consider the importance of reference to the states' landlocked status in the lead. Since Wikipedia relies on other sources, we generally turn to other encyclopedias for examples of what information is crucial for inclusion. For example, Britannica has
an article on Colorado. Their article, including the geography section, neglects mention of the state's landlocked status. This is a strong indication that reference to the landlocked status of the state is not encyclopedically relevant. Regardless of relevance, references are necessary, per
Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Your edits did not include references, so reversion was highly likely. If you have outstanding questions or points you'd like to add, please feel more than welcome to place them here on my talk page. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! ~
Pbritti (
talk) 00:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, and it’s true that relevancy is important. Otherwise, many articles would contain information which a reader would not find useful! I actually do have some points I’d like to share. First,
You don’t need to cite that the sky is blue. Although there are disagreements regarding the application of non-essays and guidelines, this particular one is very useful, reminding me that I don’t need sources for such information. Also,
Wikipedia can be different. Yes, we most definetly seek other sources of information, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that any relevant information can and should be shared. Here, landlocked states need their status so that readers understand the impact geography has on the economy of the states. Consistency is another thing; it would only be appropriate if a balance of geographic status is spread throughout each article. Thank you for being very helpful to my case, and please reach out!
DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (
talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph): Thank you for continuing your kind disagreement. Since you seem fairly committed to a reasoned defense of these additions and appear to understand all the relevant policies and guidelines involved, I'll encourage you to restore the "landlocked" bit and see if any other editors disagree. I am of the opinion you will become a very strong editor. Best, ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, and it’s true that relevancy is important. Otherwise, many articles would contain information which a reader would not find useful! I actually do have some points I’d like to share. First,
You don’t need to cite that the sky is blue. Although there are disagreements regarding the application of non-essays and guidelines, this particular one is very useful, reminding me that I don’t need sources for such information. Also,
Wikipedia can be different. Yes, we most definetly seek other sources of information, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that any relevant information can and should be shared. Here, landlocked states need their status so that readers understand the impact geography has on the economy of the states. Consistency is another thing; it would only be appropriate if a balance of geographic status is spread throughout each article. Thank you for being very helpful to my case, and please reach out!
DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (
talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I added the politician's criminal history. Two citations were added - one from the arresting police department's own website (Chicago Police Department), and another from a major NY newspaper which also references the arrest. The primary source, the Chicago Police Department's own website is enough of a source. Drdas007 ( talk) 13:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Drdas007: Wikipedia has strict policies about what sources may be used on to reference information on
biographies of living persons. These rules are even stricter when it pertains to possibly criminal information. Arrest records from police departments are considered
primary sources and thus insufficient for introducing information (though they could be used to amplify information if used appropriately). The newspaper you reference is explicitly not a reliable source, per
this consensus. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 13:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- The police department's arrest record is a primary source
- A primary source is one "that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
- No interpretation was made. A simple stating of fact with a primary source.
- Thank you for the information on the NY Post. I will refrain from using that newspaper in the future, ESPECIALLY as a primary source! That link was very helpful.
Drdas007 (
talk) 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Drdas007: Arrest records are not permitted per WP:BLPPRIMARY. You must self-revert and seek a new reference if you wish to include that information. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Drdas007: Of course! If reliable sources do pop up, please feel free to add them. I'll help with any formatting trouble you may encounter. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I appreciate the offer and guidance from more experienced members here. Drdas007 ( talk) 14:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|
:) Drdas007 ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
- @ Drdas007: A favorite! Williamsburg, Virginia, is the best place to get it! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For your diligent help and patience in reviewing
Erin Swenson for GA status and improving the article in the process!
GnocchiFan (
talk) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
|
- @ GnocchiFan: You created an outstanding article! I'm glad you put it through the polishing process! It was a pleasure to work alongside you and I hope to encounter you more in the future. Please ping me if you ever need another set of eyes to look at sometime! Best, ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Request on 05:18:50, 7 April 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by TaiXuan91
The reasons for rejection are ridiculous. GNU Moe is a software. I quoted GNU Moe's official website in reference. There are detailed software documents and source code download addresses on its official website. I don't know what is more reliable source than the official website for a software.
TaiXuan91 ( talk) 05:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ TaiXuan91: Wikipedia requires reliable sources for determining both the notability and factuality of a subject. In this case, a source like an official website could be used to amplify information from other sources. However, as an official website is not an independent source, it is not as reliable or ideal. Additionally, notability is (generally) not established without independent sourcing. Best, ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
On 10 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Armenian Rite, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that within the Armenian Rite, it takes 40 days and more than 40 flowers, herbs, and spices to create the chrism known as myron? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Armenian Rite. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Armenian Rite), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|
awesome work on Armenian Rite! baklava is popular in Armenia, so it's thematic ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
- @ Sawyer-mcdonell: Thank you! The baklava has been abundant of late. I'm hoping to take the Armenian Rite article a bit further, adding in material on non-Eucharistic rituals. Maybe it'll hit GAN someday, but TBD. By the way, I do believe some celebratory festivities are in order for you! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 03:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
On 11 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Geoffrey Cuming, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Geoffrey Cuming edited what has been called a gramophone librarian's "Bible"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Geoffrey Cuming. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Geoffrey Cuming), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
First and foremost, thank you so much for the exceptionally kind barnstar you left on my page; it's my first one and it really means a lot you took the time to give me one!
Next, I have a question about the changes you make from Roman Catholic to Catholic. I'm an Eastern Catholic so I share your frustration with the conflation of the two, but on Fr. Loew's page, I thought "Roman" would be most appropriate. In general, I've considered anything shared by the universal church as "Catholic" (in simplex), but people and anything particular to the sui iuris churches as not necessitating the change (e.g., Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation vs. Joe Smith is a Roman Catholic). This is completely from my head, but since you're the only other person I've seen try to correct it, do you have a convention or rule of thumb that you use on pages? I'd like to be helpful in this regard and you seem like an editor who knows what he's doing, so I thought I might pick your brain.
ThaesOfereode (
talk) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
ThaesOfereode: Generally speaking, Roman is only used on Wikipedia to disambiguate in contexts when Catholic could reasonably be misinterpreted as referring to
Independent Catholic,
Liberal Catholic,
Old Catholic, or
Anglo-Catholic. Otherwise, it's a term that lends itself to conflation ("do they mean the Catholic Church as a whole or just the Latin Church). Great article, again! Best, ~
Pbritti (
talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation; I'll keep it in mind when I'm poking around pages. Happy editing and thanks again! ThaesOfereode ( talk) 12:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.
Our current top scorers are as follows:
-
Sammi Brie (
submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11
GAs about radio and television;
-
voorts (
submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (
Well he would, wouldn't he? and
Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
-
Generalissima (
submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
-
SounderBruce (
submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a
FA about the
2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
-
Tamzin (
submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink
Capri-Sun and three GAs;
-
Kusma (
submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist
Anna Blackburne and a GA.
Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.
If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges ( Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs), Epicgenius ( talk · contribs), and Frostly ( talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
You said on the WikiProject Catholicism talk page that a lot of WP:FTN regulars are violating policy. I am not well-versed on policy when it comes to religion, but I am when it comes to politics and medicine. I agree with you that many of them are violating policies. Massacre of the Innocents was a fairly easy one though ( WP:OR). Could you give me some more examples so that I can form coherent arguments should I ever have to give my opinion on this? Scorpions1325 ( talk) 00:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
-
Massacre of the Innocents is the flashpoint I'm most familiar with, but there was a lot of headhunting associated with Latter-Day Saints articles recently following the BYU E-I-R fiasco. When I was doing some editing in scriptural articles, I cited a CUP book that I ended up making an article for. Citing it to describe an academically acceptable but marginal opinion (it's a toned-down version of the Mythological Jesus argument) resulted in accusations of promoting fringe theories. I haven't kept a running list, but if you're interested in more details, I can send you some stuff via the email feature. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. Scorpions1325 ( talk) 02:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Pbritti, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
- Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
- If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
- If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies
You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! – Joe ( talk) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I am so glad to see you there! Thank you! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Jenhawk777: No problem! I had allocated time to review a GAN this week and, given the nominator hasn't gotten back immediately on my comments, I figured it was only right to offer a hand. I've been watching the article progress over the last month and I really like the shape it's taken. I'll do a more thorough review of sources when I can. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 20:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Blessings upon your head and on all your relatives!! That's the first nice thing anyone has said to me about this article. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 02:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)