Veverve

Veverve, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Veverve! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - Eastern Europe

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Due solely to the volume of content you've added to Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018) I'm informing you of these rules; I haven't reviewed your edits on that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Veverve. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Granting of autocephaly.

Since you have breached WP:3RR, I suggest that you set out your case in the talk page. I opened a new topic at 2RR.Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Today is Christ’s birthday (according to the Julian calendar)! May God bless you and your family on this joyous day!--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus:Thank you for your kind words! Merry Christmas to you too! I hope you will have a good year and that fortune will be clement with you. Veverve (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can only repeat last year’s wishes!--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: Well, like last year, thanks a lot! Veverve (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your creation of and hard work on Reactions of the Orthodox churches to the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism. Cheers! Calthinus (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: (I now see in December that I completly forgot to ping you back in January) Thanks a lot! I did not expect to get it for this article, given that it is Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine which made it Template:In the news recently. Thanks again! Veverve (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Religion in Ukraine

Hi, if you have time, can you check recent edits to the above article. I don't know much about the subject. Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Done. Feel free to ask me if you need another check. Veverve (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Many thanks for your help. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Patriarchal Exarchate in South-East Asia

Please, don't do such reverts. Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe has never had parishes in South-East Asia. By the way his surname in Chashin (Чашин), but not Chasin (Часин). ~ Чръный человек (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello.

First, the background is a recap of the situation. I agree the AROCWE never had churches in SE Asia, but it still happened shortly before the PESEA was created and I thought it was a good idea to talk about it. Moreover, the background you put before to replace mine had no reference whatsoever. I agree that the current "Background" section fits the article better (especially since you put references this time).

Second, the title of primacy of the primate of the Patriarchal Exarchate in South-East Asia is "Archbishop of Singapore and South-East Asia",(https://mospat.ru/en/2018/12/28/news168464/) it is not "Metropolitan of Singapore and South-East Asia". That Sergius was elevated to a the rank of Metropolitan does not change that the title of the primate (i.e. regardless if it is Sergius) is "Archbishop of Singapore and South-East Asia" Veverve (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact is that for a long time the Russian Orthodox Church did not create any structures on the territory of South-East Asia. This was done in order not to aggravate relations with the "Ecumenical" Patriarchate of Constantinople, which claims control over the entire Orthodox Diaspora. However, after the latter's invasion of Ukraine, Russian Orthodox Church broke of Eucharistic communication with Constantinople, and decided that it is free from any previous agreements with Constantinople. For this reason, 2 patriarchal exarchates were created now, but not earlier. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

On 26 Feburary 2019 the Internal regulation of the Patriarchal Exarchate of South-East Asia was adopted: "The supreme ecclesiastical authority in the Exarchate belongs to the Synod of the Patriarchal Exarchate in Southeast Asia (hereinafter referred to as the “Synod of the Exarchate”), headed by the Metropolitan of Singapore and Southeast Asia, the Patriarchal Exarch of South-East Asia (hereinafter “Exarch”), and consisting of diocesan bishops of the dioceses of the Exarchate. The vicar bishop of the Diocese of the Exarchate may, at the invitation of the Exarch, participate in the meeting of the Synod with the right of an advisory vote" (original, translation). ~ Чръный человек (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You are right, I will change what has to be changed. Veverve (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Чръный человек: Done. Thanks for your great help! Veverve (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it will be useful for you: "Мы всегда с уважением относились к Константинопольскому патриархату и закрывали глаза на его претензии на попечение над всеми православными диаспорами, - сказал отец Александр. - Но теперь этот подход имеет мало общего с действительностью, уже нет никаких оснований Константинопольскому патриархату считать себя правомочным брать под свое духовное покровительство вообще всю диаспору, как в Западной Европе, так и в других частях мира. Теперь приняты новые решения о том, как будет окормляться русскоязычная паства и те люди, которые относят себя к членам Русской православной церкви. Церковная жизнь для русских общин в Западной Европе теперь будет развиваться по другому руслу." (We have always respected the Patriarchate of Constantinople and turned a blind eye to its claims to the custody of all Orthodox diasporas, " father Alexander said. "- But now this approach has little in common with reality, there is no reason for the Patriarchate of Constantinople to consider itself competent to take under its spiritual protection the entire Diaspora, both in Western Europe and in other parts of the world. Now new decisions have been made on how the Russian-speaking flock and those people who consider themselves members of the Russian Orthodox Church will be pastoraly cared. Church life for Russian communities in Western Europe will now develop in a different direction.) [1] ~ Чръный человек (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have now added a small section about this in the articles of the PESEA, the DROCSP and the PEWE. Veverve (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Plese improve my articles

Eugene (Reshetnikov) and Elisey (Ganaba) ~ Чръный человек (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Done! Next, could you translate those articles: 1, 2, 3? Veverve (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Bishop of Bogorodsk, the vicar of the Diocese of Chersonesus" those are not the same offices, was he appointed at both?
  Vicar of the Diocese of Chersonesus is office; Bishop of Bogorodsk is title. Vicar Bishop must have a title. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

See Patriarchal parishes in Italy, Diocese of Singapore (Russian Orthodox Church) and Diocese of Thailand. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Honorary citizens of Seoul has been nominated for discussion

Category:Honorary citizens of Seoul, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 05:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Koukoulion has been nominated for discussion

Category:Koukoulion, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Gregory (Korobeynikov)

Hello Veverve, per our last discussion, here is the lattest article I've been working on which involves the Orthodox Church in Russia, which you can find at User:Inter&anthro/Gregory (Korobeynikov). Before moving it to the main space I wanted to make sure that the information in the article is complete and up-to-date as you had told me. From what I can tell the Old Beliver Orthodox Church has a simplier organization than the Russian Orthodox Church, so the article might be easier to review and add to. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: my corrections are done. Next time, please include a link to the original Russian article in your message. Veverve (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Grammar

Dear Veverve, sorry to bother you with this, but this appears to be a recurring problem as evidenced by my most recent edits. I wonder what your mother tongue is, though it is none of my business, strictly speaking. The actual problem is that the way you edit often defies the rules of the English language. Apart from that, we are not here to chronicle each statement by this or that official, etc. This is an encyclopedia that seeks to explain things (events) that are of enduring notability in a way that makes sense and is comprehensible to a layperson; ″Wikipedia is also not written in news style". Regards, Axxxion (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Siluyan (Kilin) & Eumenius (Mikheyev)

As with last time the drafts I've been working on can be found here and here. The Russian language articles can be found at Siluyan (Kilin) and Eumenius (Mikheyev). Thank you for your work, feel free to look over the two drafts at your own pace and add what ever I missed from the Russian language counter parts. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: I am working on it! Do not forget to put a Template:Translated page on the talk page of the article when your article is a translation. Veverve (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you finished editing the drafts? I noticed you haven't edited them much in the past few days. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro:Ah, sorry! I had kind of forgotten about those pages as I have been busy lately on Wikipedia and various sister projects. I will finish your pages during this week-end. By the way, do you use WP:CXT (cf. WP:HOWTRANS)? Veverve (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No I haven't heard of it yet, but I will look into it, thanks for letting me know. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro:

Draft:Siluyan (Kilin): done. I have to congratulate you since your article is more complete and referenced that the Russian one.

Draft:Eumenius (Mikheyev): done. Veverve (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro:Do not forget to add the version= for Template:Translated page. Veverve (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: also, try to remember to put a WP:SHORTDESC with Template:Short description whenever you create an article. Veverve (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Opinion of the Catholic Church on the Vulgate"

I still continue to think that this section should be shortened and renamed into something like "Opinion of the Catholic Church on the Vulgate"

There has been a lot of too and fro here, but so far editor Calicem has been unable to substantiate his speculations from any notable recent scholarship

So I am inclined to propose scrubbing the section on the Inerrancy of the Vulgate; and replacing it as you suggested. TomHennell (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, @TomHennell: I agree with your agreement. Veverve (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

talk page

Please discuss rather than reverting, at the discussion I opened on Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church. You're miscounting. That's why the other editor reverted herself. Elizium23 (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Due to your disruptive behavior, I requested a ban for you: here.--UkrainianSavior1 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@UkrainianSavior1:The link provided links to my request for you to be banned. Veverve (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve:And likewise, I have provided the same in turn. UkrainianSavior1 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Epiphanius I of Ukraine at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Epiphanius I of Ukraine

Hello! Your submission of Epiphanius I of Ukraine 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: sorry, after asking and seeing my DYK did not meet the criteria, I forgot to ask for deletion. Thanks for reminding me.

Mar Thoma Syrian Church

Hello Veverve. I notice you've been recently active on this page, so may know something about the disputes there. Can you understand why some editors want to label this church as protestant? This seems to be an unusual claim, if the church itself does not make this statement. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I am active only because this page is on my watchlist and there is an ongoing dispute. I tried to make the two main parties discuss, but they seem unwilling to discuss. Sadly, I do not know much about this specific church, so I cannot give you any insight or untie the Gordian knot. Veverve (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: No, they really don't. Maybe an arbitration would fix this months long problem. Veverve (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Firstly, I didn't say they're fully nor Western Christian-like St. Thomas Christian denomination. As I saw, based on the page's history is strongly implying they wanted to be somewhere as Semi-Eastern Christian with Protestant elements, as a way to compromise with its Colonial invaders and its Catholic/Protestant missionaries.

For you Veverve, that problem that I really wanted to discuss with that user, in my thought, but I feel psychologically and neurologically can't do that, like what wording to replying user back for a example; if that user is mostly makes that more bad English grammar. Or even if I could did replying the user, that user will make probably going on silence like I and he trying going into the user's talk page, and still continuously undoing by previous edit. Chad The Goatman (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Um, @Veverve:, I've spent considerable time copyediting the section you started working on (as you requested). I'm going to move on to something else; let me know when you're finished. Miniapolis 15:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I am really sorry! I thought you had finished the section, hence why I started correcting factual errors you had introduced by copy editing. You can start the copy editing process again. I will correct once the article is completly copy edited. Sorry again! Veverve (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve:, I copyedit in as small sections as possible precisely to avoid edit conflicts and am pretty sure I maintained text-source integrity in my edits. Since you reverted work I put a lot of time into, and I would have to start that section all over again, it looks like you need another copyeditor. I'll make a notation at WP:GOCE/REQ of where I left off. Miniapolis 16:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Vulgata Sixtina

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Vulgata Sixtina has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: thanks a lot! I will allow myself to change a few things in the article, I really hope it does not bother you. I appreciate your work and do not want to disrespect what you accomplished. Veverve (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve: You're welcome. Feel free to change what you wish. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vulgata Sixtina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Lang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Moscow–Constantinople schism edit revert

Why did you revert my edit? The content as it stands is grammatically incorrect.St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@St Judas the Lazarene:Adding a line break in the middle of a sentence does not fix it. You probably made atypo mistake. Veverve (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, did I do that? Sorry, my bad. FYI, 'announce' is a verb only. The noun is 'announcement', but in this situation 'statement' would be the typical word to use in English. --St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@St Judas the Lazarene: yes, you did. Feel free to correct again, but this time without introducing a superfluous line break :) Veverve (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Nova Vulgata copy edit

Hi - just to let you know I've accepted your request at WP:GOCE/REQ to copy edit Nova Vulgata. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions or comments on the process or copy editing choices. I'll let you know if I have any questions too. Regards - FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@FiveFaintFootprints: thanks for accepting my request and warning me! If you could, could you reduce the number of quotes in the article by paraphrasing them? Veverve (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

One's already done! Thanks - I'll keep working on those, then. Regards - FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I need you review

I have created two vast artivles in ruwiki and tranferred to enwiki by tranlsation: Joining of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate and Orthodox International Youth Festival "Bratya". ~ Чръный человек (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Чръный человек: Archdiocese_of_Russian_Orthodox_churches_in_Western_Europe#Disbandment_by_the_Ecumenical_Patriarchate_and_aftermath really needs to be merged with Joining of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate. Veverve (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Чръный человек:could you either try to correct first Orthodox International Youth Festival "Bratya" by yourself or request copy editing or both? By the way, if you request copy editing do not edit while the copy editor is working on the article. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sixto-Clementine Vulgate

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sixto-Clementine Vulgate 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Bible translations into Geʽez at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sixtine Vulgate

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sixtine Vulgate 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 Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sixto-Clementine Vulgate

The article Sixto-Clementine Vulgate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sixto-Clementine Vulgate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sixtine Vulgate

The article Sixtine Vulgate you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sixtine Vulgate for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply from JasonWikis

Hey you asked me about my Confraternity Bible...

I don't believe I own that particular volume anymore, however I do have other Confraternity bible's like it. I could take pictures of them if you'd like me to. Sorry for taking a little while to get back to you.Jason WikiP (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@JasonWikis: Thank you for replying, it is not a problem whatever time it took you. Yes, I think it would be good to take a picture of them; more precisely, if you could take a picture of a cover to illustrate the article, that would greatly improve the article.

Also, I asked you if you had taken any other picture and uploaded them to WP or Commons.

Veverve (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sixtine Vulgate

The article Sixtine Vulgate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sixtine Vulgate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Vulgate manuscripts at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bible translations into Geʽez

Hello! Your submission of Bible translations into Geʽez 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! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Vulgate

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Vulgate has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I add a "Citation needed" tag in the Manuscripts and early editions section to a sentence at the end of the second paragraph which made no sense to me. Another editor has tagged the Contents section for having no citations. I'll just add that there are many, many other sections and even quotations that lack adequate citations. Much work remains to be done in this area.

Best of luck with the article moving forward.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Oxford Vulgate

Hello! Your submission of Oxford Vulgate 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that the same is true of your Benedictine Vulgate nomination: neither is eligible because of the large volume of material copied to each from the pre-existing Vulgate article.. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bible translations into Geʽez

Hello! Your submission of Bible translations into Geʽez 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! Yoninah (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Vetus Latina has been nominated for merging

Category:Vetus Latina, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Theodore (Kazanov) & Tikhon (Zaitsev)

Hello Veverve, if you have free time feel free to edit Draft:Theodore (Kazanov) and Draft:Tikhon (Zaitsev), these are drafts I started back in November but unfortunately I've procrastinated on finishing them and moving them to the article main space. The former especially needs some work. The Russian language articles can be found at ru:Феодор (Казанов) and ru:Тихон (Зайцев) respectively. If you don't have free time don't worry, I'll try to get some work done on these two as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Both have the exact same infos in their "Eastern Orthodox Church titles" templates, could you fix this? Veverve (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I think when I started the draft on Theodore (Kazanov) I had just copied and pasted from Tikhon (Zaitsev) and forgot to change that aspect. I've just re-edited it and the information in Theodore (Kazanov) should now be correct. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve: I think the two drafts are ready to be moved to the main space now as articles, unless if you have any other major edits to make. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Sorry, I did not take the time to review your articles and currently do not have the time to do so. Feel free to publish them. Veverve (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thank you for your help. Feel free to edit and improve these articles in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Bible translations into Geʽez

On 28 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bible translations into Geʽez, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bible translations into Geʽez date back to at least the 6th century, making them among the oldest in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bible translations into Geʽez. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bible translations into Geʽez), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Aldine Bible

There are two references (Fletcher III 1988; Symonds 1911) which don't have corresponding full citations. Could you add them please?

If you want to be aware of those missing refs in the future, you can install User:Svick/HarvErrors.js. If you don't know how, let me know I'll walk you through it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: thanks for telling me! The references have been added. Veverve (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Black Legend

Hi V. Just re the Black Legend article where you reverted my edit. The second part of text that I removed was the following:

Past Spanish ownership of about half of the United States is unknown by most Americans.  Spanish foreign minister Josep Borrell said that he saw a re-emergence of the black legend in European coverage of the Catalan independence movement, particularly by the English-speaking press (which unquestioningly accepted unverified injury figures).

This information is fully sourced, but is cited later on in the article, and is part of a rewrite that I am doing of that section. It will remain in the article, but hopefully as part of a more coherent paragraph. I will remove the part about Catalan injury figures, because it is OR, and not mentioned in the source. If there is another source which mentions Borrel saying it, I'm totally happy for it to remain in the text.

The first part is OR:

References to black-legend constructs are used in Argentina to argue in favor of protectionism against Spanish companies.

It is the interpretation of the editor who first added this paragraph that Cecchini and Cicolillo are using "black-legend constructs" rather than the opinion given in the source (which is Cecchini and Cicolillo's article). If you know of a source which states explicitly that "References to black-legend constructs are used in Argentina", then that should definitely be in the article.

Anyway, like I said, I am in the process of streamlining that section to reduce repetition and remove OR, I'm going to add a new version tonight (probably) which will include all the info in the first quote except for the phrase "(which unquestioningly accepted unverified injury figures)", but will cut the second quote as OR (unless you know of a source which supports it, then I will add that).

I am a bit rubbish at editing in one go, and so I'd be really grateful if you could wait till I've completed the edits (I'll put a note in discussion), and look at the section yourself and make any improvements you feel might be needed to the final version as a whole.

All the best and hope you and yours are doing well in this difficult time.

Boynamedsue (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: Hello! I hope you are doing alright. Sorry for reverting your work, but I did not know you were working on the long run. Veverve (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it's my fault for forgetting to log-in, and not stating it was an on-going edit. I suspect you might have checked before reverting if you'd seen a username. In any case, I hadn't started the re-write proper yet.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote

Dear Veverve,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Syrian Church

Hi. Please don't label edits as vandalism when they are not. This is not helpful to Wikipedia's aims. What is going on on Mar Thoma Syrian Church is a content dispute. It is disruptive, but not vandalism. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcing WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Old Testament editions has been nominated for deletion

Category:Old Testament editions has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

expression "the quite similar"

Hi Veverve,

in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennium_Bible&diff=next&oldid=972159032 you use expression: "the quite similar". Are you sure? It's very strange to me.

MichalZim (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@MichalZim: I am no native speaker, but it seems correct. Veverve (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi Veverve,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Discretionary sanctions - abortion

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Elizium23 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Scripturae sacrae affectus moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Scripturae sacrae affectus, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: I have added some sources. Is that enough? Veverve (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Veverve, that's fine. I've moved the article back to mainspace. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Becciu Scandal

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial... sure but Becciu scandal is real, and Pope Francis is victim like the whole Catholic church. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/world/europe/Cardinal-Becciu-Fired.html Please try to document yourself the section simply said that the Pope kicked Becciu out.--Peter39c (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC) It's certainly not gossip to steal 200 million euros.--Peter39c (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Fratelli tutti

On 30 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fratelli tutti, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pope Francis's encyclical Fratelli tutti is the first to be signed outside Rome? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fratelli tutti. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fratelli tutti), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: is it normal that I do not see this fact in the 30 October DYK list? Veverve (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 05:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Veverve (talk)

It's on the main page now, and will be there until 12.00 UTC. We have just started running two DYK sets a day because of an increasing backlog of hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Linking in infoboxes of popes

Howdy. We don't link the reign/term dates of heads of state or the rest of the popes. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Thanks for your message. I believe it is useful to link those parameters. Is there a consensus or a policy which would forbid it? Veverve (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You'll note, at Richard Nixon (for example) that January 20, 1969 isn't linked to First inauguration of Richard Nixon & August 9, 1974 isn't linked to Resignation of Richard Nixon. It's the practice across Wikipedia, to not link the dates. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: If there is such a practice then I accept it. Veverve (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Page moves

Thank you for your help with page moves. When you move a page per a Requested move discussion, as you did at Talk:Russian True Orthodox Church (Lazar Zhurbenko)#Requested move 10 November 2020, please close the request by following the instructions at WP:RMCI. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin (Likhomanov)

Hi Veverve, it has been a while, but I am currently finishing up working on Draft:Benjamin (Likhomanov), and was contacting you to see if there were any improvements you wanted to make before it was moved to the mainspace. The Russian-language version of the article can be found here. If you are too busy don't worry, there is no rush. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Ok, I will try to have a look. Veverve (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: done. Veverve (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Veverve,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Old Testament Vulgate manuscripts

Hello Veverve! I have been preparing a much expanded list of Vulgate OT manuscripts for a while now. Meanwhile, you have created a new (and much needed) page for Vulgate manuscripts. I think it'd obviously be a good idea for us to work together. Could you look over my project User:JaneStillman/Vulgate and tell me what you think? Cheers JaneStillman (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@JaneStillman: Thanks for the message. I have a few remarks.

1) why are some sigla and names in bold? Is it done on purpose?

2) please explain in the article how you used Mardsen's work to modify the table, and name said work.

3) You must convert the references which are on the "[1], [2]" formats (e.g. "Bible of Maurdramnus [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]") into proper refs (i.e. footnotes).

4) I have corrected the current table at Vulgate_manuscripts#Old Testament recently; did you include my corrections? I believe you did not, as the names of the rows in your version were still in bold, and the two tables do not have the same content for "Maurdramni"; if you have not done yet, please include my corrections.

5) EDIT: I just updated the Vulgate manuscripts article to separate manuscripts containing whole bibles from those which only contain the OT or part of it and only contain the NT or part of it.

6) EDIT: what is the "*" referring to?

Veverve (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@JaneStillman: Oh et, si tu préfère, tu peux me parler en français (je viens de voir ton Babel). Veverve (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@JaneStillman: There is still a "*" at "Tegernsee*". Veverve (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@JaneStillman: any news? Veverve (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@JaneStillman: any news this time? Veverve (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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

Reverting

I am at a complete loss why you revert, without any explanation, accusing me of vandalism, there where I only add a new article and make a link with its parent article. I would be more suspecting you of vandalism if you cannot give a reasonable explanation for your behaviour. --Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Andries Van den Abeele: You changed the text to to say it is an archbishopric, while the curent text says it is a Matropolis, without sourcing your change. Veverve (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You are much too rapid in your reaction. My change was a and remains the first step in order to make an article devoted to the Benelux orthodox church and linked with the mother church of Constantinople. The article is now placed and tells it all. The Benelux orthodox church is both: an archbishopric and a metropolis. See: Orthodox Archdiocese of Belgium and exarchate of the Netherlands and Luxembourg. I hope that you next time will be more considerate and less hasty. Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Visual editor

I think you're tripping a couple of bugs in the Visual Editor. I've had to repair places it's added "nowiki" and some garbage "div" in there. Check the tags after you edit, it should inform you what happened. Elizium23 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: thanks for the warning. Could you tell me where those mistakes have appeared? I cannot look at all the tags after my edits, as it would take too much time for the task I am currently accomplishing. Veverve (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

nowiki added, span added and actually the second one didn't recognize it in a tag, so even tougher to find! Well, you can just rely on the good will of people cleaning up after you... it's not so many after all. Elizium23 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Antiespaña

Hello Veverve. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Antiespaña, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G6 and G8 are for technical maintenance or when the page doesn't exist. Use WP:RfD if you want to delete it. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Heads up

Re Special:Permalink/1004437962#Visual editor, our article on the Christian name Lucas was protected on Saturday for eight months. This was three days after a certain administrator !voted "delete" in an AfD discussion for lack of content and two days after he deleted content added subsequent to his !vote in a WP:INVOLVED act. He blocked the contributor in another WP:INVOLVED action. Anyone want to raise this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? @Andrew Davidson: @Bearian: @Mr248: @Peterkingiron: 95.149.135.141 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not an admin and do not have the buttons to block, etc. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are pinging me. I know nothing about this issue and don't want to get involved in it. Mr248 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why did you restore a link to a Greek Orthodox cathedral in Birmingham in an article about a Russian Orthodox cathedral in London?

It's fairly obvious these are two different buildings. 89.240.113.241 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not think they are different buildings, you would need to provide documentation for this. Veverve (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If you hover your mouse over the link you will see a picture of the building to which the link goes. If you compare the picture of the London building you will see it is a different building. I consider that to be sufficient documentation. 89.240.113.241 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Psalm 43 query

Hello, Veverve. I'm puzzled. Maybe you can explain to me how the Hebrew Bible is "not a source" — and how https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2643.htm#1 doesn't satisfy pertinent sourcing requirements. As noted in my edit summary (diff), this fits the practice at Psalm_45#Hebrew_Bible_version. Noting that the edit was in response to an edit request from Gerda Arendt (diff). This isn't actually an area to which I ordinarily contribute, for whatever's that's worth. Thanks! El_C 11:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: you did not state mechon-mamre was your source. Stating "the Hebrew bible" is not a valid source, much like "the Vulgate" or "Plato's Republic" are not sources: you have to state the name of the book, the edition and the page number or the website in a footnote.

If you want to have the Hebrew version of psalm 43, I agree. Veverve (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict, seems resolved, but now I typed it:) The text is the official Wikipedia source, and also the King James Version, and these two (but no others) are supposed to appear in all psalm articles. It's a slow process. Compare BWV 84. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what's happening! Anyway, Gerda, the edit with my adjusted Hebrew formatting is there for future reference. Thanks for your patience, Veverve. El_C 11:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Bartholomew I of Constantinople

Hi, I see you reverted my mobile edit (different IP but it's me) on Bartholomew I of Constantinople that fixes a broken link. I've reverted your revert and invite you to check that the link is indeed broken without my edit ([2] doesn't load for me, [3] does). No further action is needed if you do, this is just to prevent an unnecessary revert war. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Veverve! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What to do with Category:Dissident Roman Catholic theologians?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Wikipedia mini globe handheld

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juvenal of Jerusalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Two kingdoms doctrine

Hi, you have been reverted my edition. I don't agree. Please read the meaning of the whole paragraph. In Sermon on the Mountain an opposition to injustice is exhorted; otherwise there would be no contradiction mentioned in the paragraph... and then there would be no reason for two kingdoms doctrine. --Jmarchn (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jmarchn: Hello. I believe "repay evil with retribution" is opposed to "passivity in the face of oppression". Veverve (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have not understood what the Sermon on the Mount does not propose passivity in the face of oppression!. You can read, for example, The Sermon on the Mount: A Theology of Resistance. --Jmarchn (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jmarchn: It is not up to me to decide what this semon is about. I am simply stating that your version of Luther's vision does not contain a contradiction, contradiction which is supposed to exist as it is mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph. Veverve (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Jerusalem Bible

Did you even look at the page? The section twice mentioned Tolkien's involvement in the translation of Jonah; there's no reason to do this, and absolutely no reason to revert blindly as if I were a vandal. 2600:1003:B84E:A0BF:F8C6:904:6CD4:B2DC (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Pisanie

Hello. Do you happen to know what this might be called in English? The word is Romanian, but I assume such inscriptions exist in other Orthodox traditions as well. — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: Hello. Sorry, I really do not know how those writings are called in other EO churches, or if they even exist in other EO churches. Veverve (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Чръный человек: maybe you could help. Veverve (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaticinium ex eventu

Hello, I improved on and added links to a previous edit that you reversed. You keep reversing in spite of citations to the contrary. Please stop. This is neither helpful, nor does it benefit the quality of the article. Rusdo (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Saints

I have reverted your move of List of Cornish saints, and noted on the talk page my reasons. I see you are engaged in moving many other pages to claim RC exclusivity. I think this is unhelpful and likely to be seen as disruptive - other churches have saints, some of the saints on the lists may be saints in other churches as well as the Roman Catholic, and some may not be saints in the Roman Catholic Church. I suggest you undo your moves and in future use WP:RM for such wholesale and likely-to-be-objected-to moves. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: the articles I moved are exclusively about RC saints, yet are called "List of X saints", as if all the saints from this region were only RC saints. Feel free to change all of those articles to include saints from other churches and then to undo my moves. Veverve (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

That is untrue. For example, in List of Cornish saints the very first saint is Austol, who is RC, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican. DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I should not have moved List of Cornish saints, as it states it concerns all saints from Corwall without mention of a specific Church; it was my mistake. Veverve (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ignatius (Deputatov) & Cyril (Nakonechny)

Hello Veverve, sorry to hear that you have retired, but checking your contributions log it seems as if you not totally done just yet. Two drafts I have been working on about Russian Orthodox bishops I think are near done, if you'd like to have a look you can find them at Draft:Ignatius (Deputatov) and Draft:Cyril (Nakonechny), if your not interested anymore that's fine. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Sorry, I am not interested anymore. I really do my best not to edit anymore unless it is really needed, and a fortriori I do my best not to edit on niche subjects anymore. Still, I thank you for your request. Veverve (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Christian Church

Can you shorten that short description? Editor2020 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Anupam^Talk 23:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Traditionis Custodes

Why did you revert the change involving the removal of the word "revokation"? Without any evidence that this is a revokation of Summorum Pontificum, that wording does NOT stand. 108.66.108.145 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

While it appears you have been out of retirement to some degree for a while, I can't help but appreciate the incredible work you have done on ensuring the article for Traditionis custodes, a major document in for many Catholics, received the deserved treatment by an experienced editor. Additionally, despite hiccups and miscommunications, you maintained a general disposition toward cordiality and productiveness that serves as inspiration for a hobbyist such as myself. Thank you for your contributions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

		The Christianity Barnstar
		For your excellent, constructive, and polite work on the article Traditionis custodes ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church

Hello! Your submission of Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church 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 as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not add original research or primary source material, as you did at Catacombs of Rome. Your original edits there were reverted because they included block quotes without attribution. Please do not re-add this material again without a discussion of its appropriateness and presentation. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: I do not get it: there is a source to my paragraph. Please AGF and do not call my edits vandalism. Veverve (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it was unsourced, nor did I call it vandalism (though your blind revert re-included vandalism that was not dealt with before your series of edits). Either its a quote from you (original research) or from someone else (without attribution). Either way its not appropriate. Please take it to the article talk page. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church

On 23 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some canons of the canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church contradict each other? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

[Untitled]

You just reverted my edit of Priest shortage in the Catholic Church. I raised the number of priests involved in the sexual abuse scandal from "hundreds" to "thousands". The list of cases on Wikipedia as well as those reported in the media document thousands of actions taken by the Catholic church and courts against priests found guilty of sexual abuse. Why do you wish to keep this number at "hundreds" in the article?

https://apnews.com/article/europe-france-sexual-abuse-by-clergy-sexual-abuse-religion-ee99d7921e5a1b8c45c770bf5af7ba38

Gavin (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kaiwen1:

1) No number was given in the sources given, so I undid your edition and removed the numbers.

2) Even if you use other sources for giving a number, this would be WP:SYNTH. Veverve (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard Williams Morgan

Hi, Veverve

I have reverted your changes to the Richard Williams Morgan article, since you had effectively erased most of it. You claim it was unsourced - the facts of RWM's life are readily found in the sources quoted in the list of 'Sources' - if you wish to turn these into numbered inline references please do the research first and then do so - most of the facts can be found in more than one of the sources, and it would probably require three of four numbered references at the end of every sentence. And RWM had an importance much wider than his involvement with the Ancient British Church, which is I assume your own interest! John O'London (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@John O'London: Hello. I undid your undoing. Any unsourced claim of this sort can be removed. If those claims are sourced and you want to keep them, then feel free to source them with inline references. I do not have to make any research to put inline references and keep those claims, as I am happy with simply removing those unsourced claims. Veverve (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the history you will see that the article was created over more than 10 years by several dozen contributors drawing on the sources listed in the list of Sources. As I understand it, inline references were not thought essential by Wikipedia at the time it was created (I believe there are still plenty of Wiki articles without an inline reference for every fact). John O'London (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@John O'London: Yes, policies were different at the time. Veverve (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

So, won't you agree articles that were originally created with a list of Sources instead of one-by-one inline references should be left intact until they can be 'improved' to meet modern Wiki standards, and should not be torn up root and branch, leaving someone to try to reconstruct them? I see the Welsh DNB gives a link to the Wikipedia article - which is a bit pointless at the moment, since you've even deleted material that is found in the Welsh DNB! John O'London (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@John O'London: Enough time has passed (numerous years!), and this article is still not up to today's standards. I did not remove the sources, so other users can use them to expand the article. It is better to have few reliably sourced or easily checkable information than having long articles, as WP:CITOGENESIS should be avoided. I am not giving the benefit of the doubt to parts which have been improperly sourced for years, and leaving unsourced information until a saviour comes and takes the time to check them and check the sources is not, in my opinion, a correct way to proceed. Veverve (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

How do we take it from here? Although I've been contributing to Wikipedia for years, I'm not experienced in the by-ways of procedure and policy - how do we get a second opinion or arbitration? I must admit I wasn't aware whole articles could be effectively deleted simply for not having inline references and for using an out-of-date system for crediting their sources! Is this now official Wikipedia policy?John O'London (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@John O'London: I think it falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability. A third opinion can be requested at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Veverve (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve:Thank you for the work you've done on the Richard Williams Morgan article recently (apparently on the basis of the single source you could get access to). I'm afraid your reliance on one single published source gives a very unbalanced picture of Morgan's life and career!

I had almost decided to give in, dig out my research notes from 20 years ago, call up the source books at the British Library (Freeman and Brown are much more reliable than Thomann, and there's also a recent thesis that describes RWM's role in the Tractarian movement) and rewrite the whole thing from scratch.

However, I came across this Wikipedia template:

Should you not have considered adding an appropriate template to the article rather than wholesale deletion? In fact the "unreferenced" template didn't apply anyway, since it clearly says: "This template should only be used on articles that have no citations or references at all" and "In articles containing a list of sources at the end, but no inline citations, including parenthetical references or in-text attributions, consider when the article would be significantly improved by detailed attribution of sources to specific claims."

So it seems that what YOU should have done was simply to attach the template This would alert the unwary reader that the content might be untrustworthy - (and only then could you legitimately complain that the article was "not up to today's standards"). And I may be the only person who has RWM on my watchlist, but it would at least have alerted me there was a problem before you took root and branch action. Although frankly I don't think a brief biography like RWM's will be "significantly improved" by adding a numbered footnote to every sentence. (Look at the Oxford DNB for example - they don't have footnotes, simply a list of sources at the end.) John O'London (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@John O'London: Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Sorry, I am not goinf to wait indefinetly until someone decides to take the time to verify every claim in every source: it was never done in years in the RWM article, in fact I have been the first person in years to care enough to improve substantially the reliability of this article. I know of the existence of those templates, and believe problems should be fixed, not thrown under the rug. Also, yes, Wikipedia does not work like some websites and encyclopedia do. Veverve (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve:What it says is "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." Are you challenging the verifiability of the information in the original RWM article? If so - do it, on its talk page. But you've actually made it clear you don't have access to the sources cited and that you know nothing about the subject - so why do you take it upon yourself to decide what in this particular article requires verification? Will putting online references to the same limited number of sources make it any more verifiable? Certainly not by the ordinary reader - as you've discovered, there are very few sources available on the subject, and they are not easily accessible. You claim to "have been the first person in years to care enough to improve substantially the reliability of this article". Frankly that's rubbish. You destroyed an accurate and reliable article to replace it with some scanty third-hand references from a source that isn't even about the subject of the article. Please leave it alone. John O'London (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@John O'London: If you want to argue that I breached any policy or request my ban from this particular article, you can do it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I will not try to explain to you how an article with no inline citation is not an accurate and reliable article. Veverve (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Pope Francis

Your reversion on my edit instead should have been an edit to include German in Francis's list of fluent languages. He is still not fluent in French, English, etc., nor does the source claim that he is. I am going to edit the article again to fix that. If you have any issue with the newer edit, please talk it out with me instead of simply reverting it. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Images I helped creating

On WCommons, I have directed the work on this timelines where I introduced a nuance betwen True Orthodoxy and Old Calendarists, and True Orthodoxy and the ROCOR and ROCOR(A).

• File:Timeline of the main Old Calendarists and True Orthodox Greek Eastern Orthodox Churches (2021).svg
• File:Timeline of the main schisms from the Russian Orthodox Church (1589 to 2021).svg

My train of thoughts was that True Orthodoxy considered the sacraments made by mainstream churches to be invalid, whereas Old Calendarists and the ROCOR(A) did not. However, according to the definition I found and added at True Orthodoxy, Old Calendarists are a variant of True Orthodox. In Greece, the movement is known as Greek Old Calendarism, due to historical circumstances so the difference is semantic not on the essence; therefore, from what I undertand, all those independent churches at File:Timeline of the main Old Calendarists and True Orthodox Greek Eastern Orthodox Churches (2021).svg should all be either in blue as "Autocephalous Old Clendarist church" (my preferred opinion), or in orange as "Autocephalous True Orthodox church". I do not know if the ROCOR(A) and the ROCOR were or are traditionalist, so I will leave them as they are.
@Чръный человек, Lipsio, Sawyer-mcdonell, and Ribose carb: what do you think of my idea to change the Greek timeline? Veverve (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Common Word Between Us and You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Spencer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)