Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

If I wanted to break out the Background section of Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota) talking about the three previous cathedrals into their own article, how would you recommend titling it? I don't think they each merit their own article, but one more extended article about the three would work. Historic Cathedrals of Saint Paul, Minnesota? Former Cathedrals of Saint Paul, Minnesota? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darth Stabro: Typically, you use the dates of construction. In this case, since you are covering three buildings that (if I understand this right) occupied the same location, you may want to do "Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota, [Date of construction of first cathedral]–[Date of demolition of third cathedral])". Let me know if you need additional support on that! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

They were not all on the same location; as a matter of fact, I think none of them were. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, shoot. You might need to ask the hivemind at Teahouse. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pbritti. I am hoping I can get your assessment of something. I recently had a couple interactions with another editor that the other editor interpreted as uncivil. I thought I had a pretty good sense of communicating clearly. Normally I'd let this kind of criticism wash off my back, but this editor is a longstanding and very experienced editor, so it made me wonder if I need to recalibrate how I'm communicating. Here are the comments the editor objected to:

• This comment was described as ripped my head off
• This question was described as uncivil and obviously intended to A. Be insulting and B. Be inflammatory and C. Intend to wound.

I am not here to get you involved in any discussion with the other editor or stir up drama, and I have no plans to escalate anything. AFAICT the discussion is closed. But since I respect your opinion and the way you interact with others, it would just be helpful to get a neutral read on whether my comments are coming across in a way I don't realize. This is for my own awareness only. Thank you in advance! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: I'll look at it. For what it's worth, you've only ever come across as polite and civil with me. If I see something worth commenting on, I'll drop you a line. I'm on a day trip today, so I'll probably reply this evening. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it worth it to break the three of them out into their own articles? They'd all be quite short, but I'm getting to the point that I think it's feasible. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think it's the right move - but what article titles? First Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota)? Cathedral of Saint Paul (1851–1858)? (current cathedral is Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota)) ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darth Stabro: Unless you have a few good sources that call it "the first Cathedral of St. Paul", I lean towards "Cathedral of St. Paul (Minnesota, 1851–1858)". Great work thus far, by the way! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A further question on dates - with each of them except the third, the dates they were in existence and the years they were the cathedrals did not overlap. Should the years in the article name be the years they existed, or the years they were the cathedral? That's why I lean towards the first option I listed above (there are various sources calling them first, second, third [1] [2]) ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darth Stabro: Oh, in that case, definitely the first option. I think that looks best, with the current cathedral left undisambiguated beyond location. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

When the articles go live, consider using the dates within an alternative Template:DEFAULTSORT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

• Ahecht
• DoubleGrazing
• Dr vulpes
• FOARP
• Peaceray
• Queen of Hearts
• Rsjaffe
• SD0001
• SilverLocust
• Sohom Datta
• ThadeusOfNazereth
• Voorts

• Ajpolino
• Fathoms Below
• Pppery
• Tamzin
• Worm That Turned

• Aervanath
• Christopher Sundita
• Dank
• Dennis Brown
• Dragons flight
• Fastily
• Graham87
• JaGa
• Kbh3rd
• Marine 69-71
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
• Yamamoto Ichiro

Interface administrator changes

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

Pppery

CheckUser changes

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

• Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
• An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

---

Hello Pbritti - I noticed you removed "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" in St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland). I curious as to what is wrong with "Roman". The NRHP says "St. Peter's Church has played an important role in the history the Roman Catholic Church in Maryland." There is something I (a Presbyterian) am missing here or don't understand. TwoScars (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@TwoScars: Glad you asked. For starters, both are acceptable here on Wikipedia and any claims that Roman Catholic is somehow a slur are unfounded (especially nowadays). However, it's an imprecise and often inferior term compared to Catholic. The longer form is almost never necessary to disambiguate Catholicism as a whole, which largely why the Wikipedia article, after years of debate, is Catholic Church. Further, Roman Catholic has long been conflated with just the Latin Church, a subcomponent of the Catholic Church. Outside of specific contexts in certain regions (Australia, England), I try to avoid using Roman Catholic. However, there's no rule explicitly against it (almost every Latin Church diocese has an article on here entitled "Roman Catholic Diocese of [X]"). In the case you mention above, I saw an unnecessary use of the longer form and swapped it. Not really much else to say there. Thanks again for asking! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Pbritti! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Alternative to range block calculator, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Aquilegia moorcroftiana at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! jolielover♥talk 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, in case you have a moment and don't mind taking a look, I've resubmitted Draft:List of Neo-Latin authors having added sources etc. Hoping it is at a decent state now! Jim Killock (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@JimKillock: Excellent work bringing this up to a great standard. I've approved it, AGFing the offline sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

but understand, my addition of tags is a "work in progress" statement. I often come to articles to find something—a fact, a citation—and read carefully, seeking to ensure that the statements made are reliable enought to use again elsewhere in the encyclopedia.

In this case, finding initial problems (e.g., support for Wren being oldest, at the Crimson, but not for its build dates), I then began trying to contribute something before leaving. Often this is just fixing some of the dead links, or making citations complete, or checking text against citation (for instance, before correcting "extant" to "standing", per the sources).

But in this case, that lead is a quagmire! And I will fully support anything you do to make the text encyclopedic. Feel free, as I am still doing today, to remove tags as you find that sources later in the article in support of this or that statement. (E.g., it is likely that sources in the section on the building's several fires will support some of the lead content.). I say this because my tests for the lead summarising the main body are (and must be) rapid and decisive—e.g., checking for repeating key words—and so can reflect missteps at times.

Finally, I'd ask that you go in soon, and make some cursory edits, to cap off all my day's edits, so another editor annoyed by tags does not come in and revert the whole of the work (true and sound though they are). It is something I have to expect, since stopping editing as registered editor.

Cheers, a former registered WP editor (and former Prof.). 73.110.70.75 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@73.110.70.75: Oh, no fret regarding your tagging! The tagging is totally justifiable: there are a ton of issues and any editor interested in contributing to that article is more than welcome to! Your tags are actually extremely appreciated, as they light a fire under me and may encourage others to take up some edits between now and when I start my round of edits (probably sometime in the week of Christmas). Regarding your request for me adding some sort of edit to legitimize your edits, I don't feel comfortable making a frivolous edit but I will be more than glad to defend your tags should someone object. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a break for a bit, to give you a chance to look in. You will find the html currently has a sandbox-y feel, because I'm half through incorporating content from the DHR citation, so you'll see some content in a holding pattern hidden by <!-- markup. So, it's yours for a bit (and I'd not expect anything frovolous, as I imagine I've left in a fair bit needing another eye). And should have said, I am only of the Tribe, insofar as I married into the Class of 1982. More later, as I've got one more small related project percolating. Cheers. 73.110.70.75 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It occurred to me to suggest one simple copy edit focus, when your time permits. Sytlistically, it is not clear to me, in the article text per se, when the name of the institution should appear as "William & Mary" or "William and Mary" or "The College". At present, I think it likely appears as all three, and perhaps W&M has also slipped in. This might be worth a copy edit once, since the last of these ("The College") was also synonymous, very early on, with the Wren Building itself, and so perhaps should be avoided for creating confusion. As well, you will "time shifting" occurs in the lead, which may also lead to some confusion. (In describing where the Wren lies, reference is made both to the Ancient Campus and its buildings, but also the comtemporary Merchants Square.) So, plenty to be done and corrected, as time permits. Cheers. 73.110.70.75 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)las

You're absolutely right about that bit! I hadn't even considered it. In prose for articles I've written (like Campus of the College of William & Mary), I've used "the college" to refer to the institution and "the College Building" to sparingly refer to the Wren Building. I'll go in and make some of those fixes. Good call. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A hilarious coincidence. Cheers. Yue🌙 01:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated History of Christianity - again - please take a look and criticize at will. Here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
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) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

January 2025 GAN Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed. Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti, the nominator has addressed the issues raised in your review. Can you please stop by to see whether the issues have been resolved? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

...on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darel Chase (bishop). And an early Merry Christmas! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: And a very merry Christmas to yourself! See you over there! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Pbritti, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Remjeud here

I want to ask you evidence on which you have tagged me as a copyright violator. This image is made by me and wanted to upload this during his episcopal ordination . Also the photos you have tagged on sb college are my personal photos. Please understand this and would love to rectify your mistake. I would also rectify mine if any of the photos uploaded by me has violated copyright information.

Thanks Remjeud (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

These photos were previously uploaded by multiple websites and were evidently ripped from those websites. You may ask for further clarification on the Commons, but you need to provide explanations and evidence these. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). 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) 00:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Aquilegia gracillima at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do have all the red linked Penstemon names already in my watchlist. Which is why I saw your new article today. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@MtBotany: I must apologize in advance, then, as I'll be expanding that article over the next day or so. Your watchlist might be a bit cluttered... Happy new year! I just wrote an article on Harold Harrington and picked up his Flora of Colorado (and Weber's Flora of the Western Slope), so expect some minor changes to the relevant Penstemon pages in the coming month. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not bothered. All sorts of things flood my list because I watch a significant percentage of the plants that grow in Colorado. If are not going to add more to the description of P. harringtonii, I'll do some edits using the Flora of North America description. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, back in 2022 you dealt with an individual, Vevere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Veverve, who had a very idiosyncratic interpretation of NOTDIRECTORY and similar Wikipedia policies as they pertain to liturgical calendar Wikipedia pages. It seesms that this individual is back on his/her hobby horse, this time at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterii_Paschalis. As you seemed to be effective in getting him to adhere to consensus views last time, may I ask you to intervene or to escalate his behavior here as well. Thank you! 204.14.38.78 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Quickly reviewing the situation, I concur with Veverve. If substantial coverage of the individual calendar changes (rather than the changes overall) can be located, a separate list article akin to the "order of battle" articles that exist in other contexts could be considered. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I noticed you reversed my edit on the Catholic Church wikipedia page.I made these edits because I did not think the language used upheld the 100% pro Life with no exceptions belief that we as Catholics have and could mislead someone into thinking that Pope Francis may "allow" abortion,which of course he would not and could not ever do since it is murder JF1128 (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

While I am pro-life (I make note of that on my user page), Wikipedia is not intended to be partisan. While it can mean sometimes not expressing the viewpoint you know is right from time to time, WP:NPOV ensures we can all contribute and engage on Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason I edited the sentence was so that confusion on Catholic Teaching on the immorality of abortion would not occur.I feel that the language used suggests that Pope Francis is not concered with abortion,or more accurately,that serving the poor is more important than defending life,which the Church affirms is not true(see the USCCB's note on defending life being the priority for Americans when voting) JF1128 (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The language used could also mislead someone to the false belief that Pope Francis supports or can allow homesexuality and contraception JF1128 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This all is certainly relevant as it maintains accuracy of the actual facts being reported.Since we know the Pope obviously believes abortion,contraception use,and homesexual actions to be gravely sinful,it is dishonest and unneutral if a paragraph suggests otherwise even if unintential.In addition to this,the whole thing about Pope Francis believing that serving the poor was more important than moral doctrines,especially defending life,really does not hold up and looks very pro-choice biased.As previously mentioned the Church has stated that defending life is our number 1 priority over all other charitable works and causes we fight for.It would seem like the conclusions made here derive from a false way of interpreting the Popes comments (as the media tends to do) and paints our Holy Father as "the liberal pope" who is more lenient on issues like abortion which is obviously not true at all. JF1128 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sensitive to your concerns, but the source does not say what you inserted. If you wish to discuss this further, you are encouraged to take the matter to Talk:Catholic Church. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much and God Bless you.I am not very experienced in Wikipedia editing but I may look into it after consulting with my Spirtual Director if this would be a healthy practice at this stage in my life.God Bless you again and thank you for your help JF1128 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

For refrence,here is the paragraph with my edit marked separately: JF1128 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is just the edited part,the very last sentence under the Sexual Morality section of "Social and Cultural issues"

,**while of course still maintaing that these immoralities are gravely evil**.[End Of section]

• • =Edited part

JF1128 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I also deleted the part about His Holiness being more concerned about serving the poor than "moral issues" (such as defending life) and the statement that he worries the Church is focusing "too much" on ending abortion,contraception use,and homesexual actions,as that is outright misleading JF1128 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@JF1128: This statement is not supported by the cited source nor is it phrased in a neutral fashion. If you want to discuss this further, please do not reply here. You may raise the matter at the article's talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoy your articles about the columbines. This is a part of Wikipedia that is dreadfully underdeveloped. We have kilometers of text written about Trump's hookers, but red link after red link in the articles about plant and animal genera. Thank you for making Wikipedia nicermore diverse. Surtsicna (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Thank you! I only had a small part in this—coincidentally, Jacketpocket began a campaign to make Aquilegia articles almost simultaneously with me! I only realized their efforts after I had begun my own. Definitely a happy break from the often dour content found on the project. Botany is pleasant, ain't it? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It is! Thanks to Jacketpocket as well. I had not noticed them on DYK. Botany is pleasant, and I also love that neither you nor Jacketpocket are professional botanists. I too write about topics that are far from my professional expertise because Wikipedia is my leisure hobby too. By the way, today's A. parviflora hook is a textbook example of a good DYK hook. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both! That's very kind. The point about red links for species is exactly why I started writing Aquilegia articles, actually - I realised loads of information is out there, it just needs someone to colalte it. And luckily that someone doesn't have to be a botanist (I'm actually a historical linguist by training!). Jacketpocket (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You said my editing of the Ghent Altarpiece article was disruptive in one of your edit summaries. My edit wasn't. People may have content disagreements, but saying changes you don't like are disruptive is not OK. Extra Jesus Hold The Satan!! (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Extra Jesus Hold The Satan!!: Your inexplicable deletion is disruptive. See WP:DE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Extra.. blocked as sock of Raxythecat Doug Weller talk 15:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm shocked, shocked! Thanks for the follow-up. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aquilegia chaplinei 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) 09:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Aquilegia chaplinei you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aquilegia chaplinei for comments about the article, and Talk:Aquilegia chaplinei/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) 20:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap and Esculenta: Thank you both! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,528 views (627.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Penstemon harringtonii 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) 21:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Penstemon harringtonii you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Penstemon harringtonii for comments about the article, and Talk:Penstemon harringtonii/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) 22:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if I can rope you in to kindly looking at a reference problem I don't see how to do correctly?

The Tridentine Mass article has a section on languages. One of the bullets had a tag that it was about the Benedictine Rite therefore not relevant. I saw that a second bullet has the same flaw. Rather than lose the info, I moved them in to the Tridentine_Mass#Notes section: the article has the notes specified in that section rather than being declared in-position and later collected. It all renders OK on the screen: the citation numbers are all OK. Problem solved, I thought.

However, it also generates a (spurious?) red message

Cite error: A list-defined reference with the name "bonniwell" has been invoked, but is not defined in the <references> tag (see the help page).

Any ideas? (Or maybe I should just remove the two bullets from the article entirely as off-topic?) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ah, I see the Help page has:

Footnotes are nested inside list-defined references. This is a known bug, for now just do not use list-defined references.

So I guess I will just delete the (or move the info to Dominican Rite article.) Sorry to bother you Rick Jelliffe (talk)

@Rick Jelliffe: No bother at all! I may need to reread your comments again later to confirm I understood what you were working on but I've been deeply impressed with your work across the liturgical articles. If you want anything from my library to help, let me know! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pbritti. I would like to apologize for overlinking. I read the Manual of Style, and it looks like countries and locations are often not to be linked. I'm not sure why you removed the link for Bishop of Antioch or missal though on the page Western Rite Orthodoxy, as these seem to be related to the topic.

Thanks Silverfish2024 (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Silverfish2024: Your edits on that page were all rolled back in two clicks, so I did not distinguish between those and the problematic edits. Reinsertion of those two specific links are fine. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know you were a rollbacker. I also reinserted a link for bishop of Paris in case you needed to know. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Silverfish2024: It's called Twinkle. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

SL93 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

SL93 (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

SL93 (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 19:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEclipse: Thanks for the ping! Looking now! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pbritti. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Femke: Oh, wow, thanks for the quick turnaround! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was trying to find at least one person to give a perm to today (had a lot of declines), and it was nice to see a name I had voted to give admin rights to only a few months ago :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That's an awfully kind endorsement. Sorry in advance if I come to you with a question because I realized that I don't understand something about the perm. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Pbriti, You reverted a couple of edits by IP 213.13.0.193 in es.wiki. Could you give me the link to the discussion on this IP? I have been reverting several of the disruptive edits by this IP and others that I believe are related (89.180.171.196 and AlphaBetaGamaDelta). I want to report them and it would be great if I could also provide a link to the en.wiki talk page. Could you reply at my discussion page in es.wiki? Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

Hello! Your submission of Semiaquilegia adoxoides at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you reverted my edits to the last paragraph of the Ordained Ministry section of the Calvin Robinson article. The reason you gave is scanty: "Ignoring the other concerns for a moment, we can't say "provocative" in wikivoice." Now, leaving aside the question who defines what "wikivoice" is, the reason so many people took offence to the gesture is precisely this: the gesture was provocative, entirely in line with Robinson's reputation as a provocateur. You could have deleted the adjective, or exchanged it for another one; instead, you chose to revert the entire paragraph. Yet, my revision corrected an error in the text, which states that the Anglican Church announcement described the gesture as a "pro-Nazi salute." It did not: it only signalled that people might take it a such. I also removed the concluding phrase, "Robinson has denied being a Nazi", since notwithstanding the controversy raised by his gesture, there is no evidence at all to show that R. is a Nazi, and one should not give weight to absurd propositions by responding to them. Finally, I aligned the heading "Ordained ministry" with the other ones by changing it to "Ecclesiastical Career": what is wrong with that? I hope you can at least agree with me that my edits made sense. Retal (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Retal: The community defines WP:WIKIVOICE, so that's not a question. Calling something "provocative" is inherently opinionated, which contradicts that policy. It wasn't the Anglican Church, it was the Anglican Catholic Church. Your interpretation of the church's statement is a reasonable one, but you should start with discussion on the article talk page; per policy, the one making the additions and changes is supposed to do that instead of restoring their favored revision. "Ecclesiastical career" is not necessarily wholly accurate, as that suggests he didn't have any involvement in a church prior. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Pbritti: The term provocative is not "inherently opinionated" (assuming you meant to say "expressive of an opinion"), but often has the descriptive meaning of "intended to cause a reaction". Its use in my edit therefore does not contradict Wikivoice policy. My "interpretation of the church's statement" is not an "interpretation" at all, but a correct rendering of the church's position as expressed in its published announcement (see the relevant note in the Robinson article). As such, it doesn't need further discussion. "Ecclesiastical career" is completely accurate, since the section deals with "ordained ministry". I still think your revert was ill-conceived and arbitrary, but I will leave it at that, since the discussion on the talk page is not precisely inviting. Retal (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Love your photos on the Book of Common Prayer page. Nedhartley (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nedhartley: Thank you! The majority of the photos for Book of Common Prayer (1979) were shot at a place very dear to me, the Evans Memorial Chapel. I was very fortunate to utilize that space for a number of purposes, including illustrating many liturgical books within an appropriate setting. I'm planning to take advantage of some northern Virginia and DC locations for a few photoshoots with other texts soon! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good! Nedhartley (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West

We will host an online meet for Wikipedia users from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 11, 2025, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. We will discuss how users in each state can help one another. Help is available for new users, and all guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Your ANI report is criticizing my content-based concerns with your insertions. There's a discussion at Talk:Gospels. Use that instead. An RfC at WP Christianity (or even RSN) is a more advisable second stop. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Could one of us maybe email Doweld? You did want a paper. Maybe see what paper he used to refer the thing to Sequoites? I do have to go do some work, but I tried to find any more sources on the topic using scholar. Bubblesorg (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bubblesorg: That certainly couldn't hurt. I'm (probably) going to off-project for the rest of the day. Do you mind if I ping you here or reply on the talk page once I'm able to assist more later this weekend? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense --Bubblesorg (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Doweld is using Bell 1949 as the authority in this circumstance.--Kevmin § 19:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

But are there others? I emailed Alexander B. Doweld (have not heard back tho) --Bubblesorg (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)