User talk:Jujutsuan/Archives/2016 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just a friendly warning from someone who edits in the same areas that you do. Some people on WP are given more leeway, then others. I highly suggest being very careful with the

Thanks for the heads up @

talk

) 14:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Humor is easily lost on people within WP. I have seen many "conservative" editors on WP thrown off over humor. Humor on WP is usually a one-way street.Marauder40 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you write anything humorous in future then please do let me know - it will be lovely to see it. By "some people given more leeway" presumably you mean editors that are perceived to be gay or lesbian? It must be one big conspiracy mustn't it. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You are a perfect example of an editor that gets more leeway then conservative editors, if I had posted this edit [1], but changed the words from being about a religious person to being about a gay person I would be immediately brought up on the ANI board, probably by you. It is very routine for people to accuse religious people of having a bias, but if someone accuses people of other groups of having a bias they are immediately brought to ANI. Marauder40 (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you making the accusation of corruption? Are you suggesting that I have undue influence within the site? That the Wikipedia "system" is rigged in my favour? That I am shown favoritism on the grounds of my sexual orientation? If this is the case then I suggest you bring forward the evidence now or immediately retract your claim. I do not argue that all editors who have a religious faith are biased. However, it is clear that there are some editors with a religious faith that try to justify that faith by manipulating evidence/ sources to suit a particular narrative or agenda. That is not acceptable. I expect editors with a religious faith to make edits on occasion that are contrary or in direct conflict with their state religious belief - that would be evidence of unbias and objective editing. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I was carefully reverting, not moving, your hijacking work on

I've copied your article to Draft:Xian (abbreviation) for the moment, and reverted the moved article to the redirect it used to be, and will now ask admin help to move it back. Aaaargh. PamD 16:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there: We don't delete pages that are candidates for merging. In the case where the content is merged, the old title would become a redirect. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for educating the newbie,

talk

) 17:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Stub tag goes at the end, and you've just added it redundantly to an article with two specific stub tags. Please take more care. PamD 07:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And the "See also" on

Xian (abbreviation) wasn't appropriate - Xmas

is already mentioned in text.

Regarding this edit to Kakure Kirishitan. A person may be prohibited from teaching. But when one speaks of a general prohibition, one says "it is prohibited to teach", as in "all people are prohibited from teaching". If one writes "it is prohibited from teaching", that implies that the pronoun it refers to a specific entity that is the subject of the prohibition. One could write: "The missionary society was reprimanded; it is prohibited from teaching." In this case, the sense of the sentence is that the missionary society (the antecedent of the pronoun it) is prohibited, but that teaching is not generally prohibited. When one writes "It is prohibited to teach." the antecedent of the pronoun It is actually the phrase "to teach". (I'm something of a grammar geek.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 18:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry for the bother at the above talk page. I could not see a "merge" section and was distracted by the separate move discussion. I hope you don't mind, but I completely moved my comments, removed your comment pointing me to the discussion, and renamed the discussion's section. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all, @

talk

) 02:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, cheers. I added the note here because some folks don't like it when their talkpage comments are changed/removed. In this case I thought it was the best way to solve my mistake.

I see you're fairly new here, so a belated welcome to you! Your merge and move proposals have raised two very important points (lack of history in the main article and inconsistent naming across articles) so despite me "opposing" your suggested solutions, I'm glad you've raised them. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, @

talk

) 02:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, I've noticed that you have described yourself as a Spanish - English translator. Are you able to help out with any of the Spanish articles listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 08:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 09:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to mention that probably 80 or 90 per cent of them are deletion material. In that case, if it's too long you can just add the appropriate templates rather than taking the bother to translate it all. Thanks for helping out. There is another one there about a jazz festival. The English article has been there for a long time and someone added Spanish summaries. To me most of that text looks unnecessary and/or repeating the English and I removed some that was obvious to me. Do you think any of it is worth keeping? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed the spanish and the banner. It was mostly copied in from Wikipedia en español. Deus vult!

talk

) 09:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting - OED doesn't mention "

Please clarify this cock-up edit summary in another edit summary, for the article history: " Christogram ‎ (merged content from article name)". Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No need for obscenities, @

talk

) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI : The British slang term "cock-up" is not an obscenity. See the

Cock-up article. Afterwriting (talk

) 00:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

What talk-page? Use links for heaven's sake. You seem to have unilaterally decided it was a good idea to merge

WP:RM procedure. I think all this is likely to be reverted. Johnbod (talk

) 14:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I did put the link. Look again at prev reply. There was an old discussion that had (informal) consensus to do it but never did. Per Wikipedia:Merging#Step_4:_Close_the_merger_discussion_and_determine_consensus. I was entitled to make the merger. Chrismon had next to nothing in it anyway. Take a look at its history if you'd like. It's all nice and neatly in one coherent article now.

Look, I know you're not on here as a form of social media, but lighten up a little, and consider cutting back on the vulgarities. Deus vult!

talk

) 14:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

talk

) 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion, which you failed to addd to yourself, or refer to. Try Wikipedia:Competence is required. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

talk

) 15:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Johnbod, I can't find that merge discussion either, but I saw AnonMoos argue on Talk:Chrismon that content shouldn't be merged. In addition, JSTOR (and Rosamond McKitterick's The Carolingians) offer very different content and context for Chrismon, which seems to have escaped some of the earlier editors of the article, who appear to have focused on pictures and trees. I'll revisit this when I have time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Recently I noticed these:

• 06:27, 13 May 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+49)‎ . . List of canonizations ‎ (This article redundant with the content of the proposed merge target) (current) (Tag: Visual edit)
• 06:26, 13 May 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+48)‎ . . List of Catholic saints ‎ (The other list is redundant, s/b merged into this one) (current) (Tag: Visual edit)

For many months now I am working on improving both of these. The list of canonizations is in sequence by each Pope.

The list of Catholic saints is in sequence by that saint's date of death.

Prior to me joining Wikipedia both these articles were in their given sequences.

In addition, there is another (shorter) article, List of saints by pope that also has a merge proposal tag.

* Recommendation – First, the "List of saints by pope" should be

• List of authors of names published under the ICZN
• List of biologists
• List of chemists
• List of inventors

Secondly, by making the redirect, we are then dealing with just the two articles not three. Cheers, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 17:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A fourth list

Yes, I see there are differences between

Found another link to List of saints that is a wikitable for content. Check out the See also section and bottom navbox there to see more articles. Wonder if there are a few more out there? Yikes! — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 17:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with your request for opinions at

@

talk

) 23:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I certainly didn't suggest that your intent was to get biased opinions. I believe you. You've only been around for a few weeks. I probably would have (and did) make worse errors in judgment at that point in my involvement with Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I left a message on the

Sincerely, Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 01:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Junkie. I assume you're editing in good faith too. For my own curiosity, would you be so kind as to point me to a few other canon law articles, or a list of them if one exists?

Many of the articles, since they're about arcane legal jargon, tend to stand alone (e.g.

Excommunication (Catholic Church), but since I named that one, I suppose it doesn't really count as evidence. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk

01:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking that, if consensus could be reached, the format "WXYZ in Catholic canon law" might be best. It avoids the parenthetical disambig and makes it crystal clear that it's a canon law article. What do you think? Deus vult (aliquid)!

talk

) 01:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I would object to that based on the length of "in Catholic canon law". It seems to me to not conform to the short title policy (I don't know the short link to it). There seems to be a lot of extra words in that title. That's why I advocate for "(Catholic Church)", as annoying as the parentheses might be. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 01:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously this would apply to everything but

talk

) 20:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 01:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, for whatever strange reason, all the scholarly literature that I've seen uses J's in, e.g. "jus novum", and I's in "Codex Iuris Canonici". So I'd like to leave that be. When I added the terms "jus novum", "jus antiquum", etc. I excerpted exactly as I found it spelled in the scholarly sources. Same with the "Codex Iuris Canonici". Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 01:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

My off the top of my head explanation for this historical accident would be that the "Corpus Iuris Canonici", as well as the "Codex Iuris Canonici", are in the tradition of the "Corpus Iuris Civilis", and Roman law uses I's, since the J was invented in the Middle Ages and was thereby incorporated into Ecclesiastical Latin in order to disambiguate the "yuh" sound and the "e" sound that I makes in various contexts in Latin. I would guess that is why canon law terms such as "jus novum", which were invented by the canon law jurists and do not purposefully try and mimic Roman law, us J, while other terms such as "Codex Iuris Canonici", which do use Roman legal spellings, use I. But again, I don't have sources for this speculation on my part. But I do have sources for using I in one context and J in another, which is why the apparent discrepancy exists between those articles. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 01:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

@

Chicbyaccident: I would love to, but as you can see below I've been blocked indefinitely on a bogus charge of "sockpuppetry". Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 21:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 00:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would you suggest capital "O" (in the same fashion as some American English speakers seem to do)? It's just a noun in this sense, right?

talk

) 07:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@

Religious institute (Catholic)#Categorization. I'm not aware of this being an American/British English distinction; what do you mean by that? I would agree that capitalizing "Order(s)" when they refer to the type of institute and not to a particular one is gratuitous and improper. I've seen that on a few pages (maybe even the OFM page), but I'm currently powerless to correct instances of it. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 07:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see the point. When I'm referring to the

talk

) 08:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@

Chicbyaccident: Thanks. I'll probably need all the luck and support I can get. With regard to the capitalization thing, the difference is when you're using the name vs. making a descriptive reference to it as an order but not calling it by its name. E.g., "the Order of Friars Minor is..." (obvious proper name); "the First Order is..." (proper name); "the Poor Clares are the Second Order of the Franciscans" (proper name); "the order is..." (descriptive, common-noun reference). Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 08:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't get too detailed when it comes to article names, especially when translated. Hildesheim Cathedral is a working common name in the English Wikipedia, even if it's not the official name, not in English, not in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wrong page? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 09:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Account blocked for no reason

@

@

Chicbyaccident: Please contribute to the investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esoglou/Archive. Thank you for doing so already, @Zfish118:. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 22:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc, Casliber, Courcelles, DGG, DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Salvio giuliano, and Keilana: You are all listed as Arbitration Committee members. Please help. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea how and why that happened. Isn't the one blocking another account like this expected to give a proper explaination?

talk

) 21:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@

Chicbyaccident: I wouldn't really know, though that would make the most sense. I've only been able to glance at a few of the relevant policy pages in the last few minutes. I've tried pinging everyone I know on here along with the arbitration committee members, hoping someone will know what to do. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 21:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jujutsuan. I see you're speaking to Bbb23 below about an appeal, which is the correct first step. If you are not satisfied with the resolution of that discussion, the next step is to appeal to the Arbitration Committee via email: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you. I will do this if the result is unsatisfactory. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 01:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

To the one who blocked me

@Vanjagenije: and @Binksternet: and @Bbb23: I am not a sockpuppet. I created my account as Crusadestudent fairly recently, and changed my username to Jujutsuan in the last couple of days. I have no relationship to Theodoxa, FindingEllipsoids, Dooodoooo, or Justarandomeditor. I recall trying to revert some vandalism by Dooodooooo at one point, but another user got to it first. I think I have seen Justarandomeditor around, too, but I am not him/her. Please unblock my account. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I was also not given any notice nor any opportunity to defend myself against the claim per this policy. If notice was given to anyone besides Crusadestudent or Jujutsuan, I didn't get it, because I'm not them. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Second thought, don't do that, bad idea. File an unblock request. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Go to

WP:GAB. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk)

21:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Thank you. Do I need to do anything else? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, link to the SPI in your unblock request. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esoglou/Archive. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done. Thanks. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: What's the usual turnaround time on unblock request? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It depends. If you are guilty of this, you have a very small chance of being unblocked. See

WP:STANDARDOFFER. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk)

22:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jujutsuan/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked on a false charge of sockpuppetry. I created my account as Crusadestudent fairly recently, and in the last few days changed my username to Jujutsuan. I am not Dooodoooooo, but instead tried to revert vandalism by this account (IIRC, another editor made the revert before I could.) Now that I think about it and review Justarandomeditor's history, I made that account before Crusadestudent because I didn't want to edit as an IP, but subsequently forgot my login info and haven't used it or attempted to use it since then. I had even forgotten that I made the account, and I have no intention of reviving it. The other purported sockpuppets are simply not correct. I often use a public computer, so it's quite possible that computer-sharing or IP-sharing has occurred. Please unblock me.

The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esoglou/Archive.

Accept reason:

See my comments below in the section entitled "Unblock". Bbb23 (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

*This is a

@Vanjagenije and Bbb23: What's up with me not getting any notice on this, or a chance to defend myself? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Why would you get notice? There is no such rule. Technical data (

WP:CHECKUSER) shows you were abusing the system, and we take that as granted. Vanjagenije (talk)

22:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: If that's so, then why does the investigation page say "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below." How am I to know about it if no one tells me? And how would I be able to defend myself?:

"If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. If there is a good reason for the evidence provided, point it out in your own section."

Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It says that you may defend yourself, but does not say that you are entitled to do so.

SPI Clerks and CheckUsers decide whether or not to notify the user for every specific case. If the technical data is clear, no notification is given. Vanjagenije (talk)

22:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: A better question is why accused parties aren't notified at the start of an investigation. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: That is, at the point when the accusation was made, but technical data hadn't been gathered yet. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't normally comment on these sorts of unblock requests. However, the technical and behavioral evidence is strong, so the block remains. Do you think this edit is cute? And that's from an account you admit to being yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: At the moment I probably did, though I can't say I remember making that edit. I've matured in my editing since then. Care to take a look at the any of the many substantive edits I've made? Or are we going to base my indefinite block on one edit war against a bot (do you really think I thought I could win?) that I've quite obviously given up on and moved on from? Also, like I said in one of the sections above, I use a public computer often, so similar IP's don't mean much. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sock accounts are almost always indefinitely blocked. It's the master that we sometimes block for a shorter time or unblock if we deem it appropriate to do so. In your case, putting aside Justarandomeditor for a moment, the master here is FindingEllipsoids. I don't promise anything, but you're unlikely to get anywhere until you acknowledge that account belongs to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: But it doesn't belong to me. Period. Full stop. That account is not mine. If any one of them is the "master", this one (Crusadestudent/Jujutsuan) is. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: But honestly, does FindingEllipsoids' contribution list look anything like mine to you? I've never even heard of several the things that user has edited. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: What about this? The Editor Interaction Analyser doesn't even show us editing any of the same pages! I would appreciate if you would clarify what technical evidence there is, exactly. On my end it does not seem that there is any. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 23:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: Regarding the Justarandomeditor account and the claim that I am FindingEllipsoids, I would just like to quickly point out a couple of things, in good faith that they will be considered seriously:

1: I have not attempted to and do not plan to revive this account, as I have previously said.

1.a: So if you wish, go ahead and leave that account blocked. It doesn't matter to me.

2: While I have made rookie mistakes, made technical mistakes that resulted in some headache (see the technical fiasco that was

Xian (abbreviation)

for a while), broken policies I didn't know existed or was poorly acquainted with very, very early on (hence the early level-4 warning), and gotten myself into a few arguments/edit wars, I have not made any such edits as on that account since then (and I've stopped edit warring, too. There was a recent instance where I genuinely thought I had made a sufficient, non-reverting compromise, but the other editor did not agree and proceeded to issue a warning).

2.a: Per

WP:NOPUNISH

, "Blocks should not be used ... where there is no current conduct issue of concern."

2.b: Consequently, since my "Justarandomeditor days" are over, so to speak, it would not be valid to block me on account of the Justarandomeditor edits in question.

3: I do not understand how anyone could think I and FindingEllipsoids are the same user.

3.a: As I said above, FindingEllipsoids' contribution list and mine look nothing alike.

3.b: Additionally, the Editor Interaction Analyzer doesn't show a single page we've both edited.

3.c: Lastly, FindingEllipsoids has not responded to my request to discuss our mutual blocking. If I were him and I were clandestinely trying to make it convincing, wouldn't I have waited a few minutes, switched accounts, and come up with something to make the two of us sound completely different, probably saying something inconsistent with his habits and history in my desperate attempt to deceive everyone?

3.d: Per the investigation page, I know the CheckUser bot/system/whatever it is thinks differently. But I, for one, think the inconsistency in our editing habits says otherwise, and implore you to examine it closely for yourself.

4: As you can see here, Dooodoooooo's account has already been blocked indefinitely based on its username, and is consequently a non-issue.

Once again, I hope these observations are taken into serious consideration. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 05:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Our mutual blocking

@FindingEllipsoids: The blockers seem to think we're the same person. How can we prove to them that we're not? Please respond on your user talk page and ping me with this code: {{ping|Jujutsuan}}. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 23:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@FindingEllipsoids: Looks like we've been unblocked as not being sockpuppets. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

@

@Afterwriting: Out of curiosity, what did you mean when you said, "One particular thing, however, which does stand out to me is a concern with Latin spelling and style"? Was that related to the "Roman" thing or something separate? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs)

I meant that a concern with Latin was a similarity I noticed about yourself and Esoglou, especially regarding Latin incipits. Afterwriting (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That's merely a coincidence. I'm not surprised that another editor in the Catholicism project (was he actually a member? idk) would know Latin; some Catholic schools still teach it, and some Catholics learn it on their own for various reasons. I happened to study it in high school. The incipit thing is something anyone who's studied Latin for a time would know about and probably be find irksome. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 03:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Will vouch

These users have vouched for me without my requesting it. I had only pinged above several users with whom I have worked looking for answers on how to appeal, not directly asking for testimonials. I am grateful for the support they have shown here and on the investigation page. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I will personally vouch for @
  WP:Catholicism articles. This issue gets opened every few months by a new editor, often raising very similar arguments. Any resemblance between CS/Jujutsuan editing and any other editor touching this issue is overwhelmingly likely to be coincidental. CS/Jujutsuan editing behavior has occasionally been confrontational, in part at least because he was new to project, and unaware of the various truces and compromises behind certain edits. He has always seemed genuinely surprised by the reaction of others; I have no reason to believe that he is a sock-puppet of some other user with an axe to grind or agenda to push regarding some the issues he has editing on. These accusations of sock-puppetry come as a deep surprise to me. I might have expected his primary account to be given a temporary ban for mildly disruptive editing. I recently suggested that he take a break from editing certain controversial pages specifically to avoid formal sanctions. He was very receptive to this advise, indicated very strongly a good faith desire to fit in and help the project. I do not believe that his behavior ever suggested attempting to circumvent the rules in any manner. --Zfish118^⋉talk
  02:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zfish118 and Bbb23: Thank you Zfish118. I hope you don't mind my pinging the most relevant editor (Bbb23, who seems to be able to decide whether to unblock me or not) so he sees this. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 02:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I support - having watched some discussions I am also interested in, such as Catholic Church - thinking that Jujutsuan tries to help the project and learned from mistakes, . The Latin incipits are of interest to many users (including myself, see
  Soli Deo Gloria/gloria), - that's a very weak argument for similarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk
  ) 06:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt and Bbb23: Thank you Gerda. I hope you don't mind my pinging the most relevant editor (Bbb23, who seems to be able to decide whether to unblock me or not) so he sees this. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 08:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

One ping is enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for double-pingging you. I'm not sure how that happened, though. I only added you to a ping in my reply two lines above. Maybe when I reformatted it saw your signature as a ping. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 07:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You didn't. Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant: one ping for Bbb23 is enough. I don't deal with SPIs, sorry, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: If you mean that I pinged him on both your comment and Zfish118's, I did that because they were hours apart, and I wanted to be sure Bbb23 would see both. I should have made sure to sign afresh, so the timestamp would be updated, rather than copying that as well. Thanks for your support. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 08:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Better sign the thread at the bottom. - If possible, relax, - probably easier said than done. The last time I watched an unjustified sock suspicion isn't long ago ("Withdrawing the accusation, and am not going to file an SPI; conflicting lists of pro and con pieces of evidence that friends and enemies can argue about will not be productive"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Although it looks like it was resolved I also would like to say that I would highly doubt that this user is Esoglou as the original report that stirred up this entire mess claimed. I have had discussions involving Jujutsuan/Crusadestudent and before he was banned I have had discussions with Esoglou and their editing styles are totally different. It is clear from his editing pattern that Crusadestudent is a much newer editor then Esoglou was. The only relationship between the two is an interest in the Catholic Church and conservative articles. The only thing he is guilty of is editing in controversial areas where some people tend to report/investigate people that have opposing viewpoints. This is a pretty clear case of
  WP:BITE. Marauder40 (talk
  ) 13:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marauder40: He was alleged to have been a sock of Esoglou. He was found to be a sock of another account. If you're claiming that BITE refers to the filer, it was a good-faith allegation. If you're referring to me, CheckUsers evaluate technical evidence and BITE doesn't enter into it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe BITE applied, one of the many areas of BITE is accusing someone of being a sock, "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet."" seems to fit here. There are very few parallels between Esogolou other then similar areas of interest which can easily be explained as someone interested in the Catholic Church. Yes other accounts did show up, but I know it is very common for new users to do that, since they don't know all the rules yet. The actual sock had what? like 8 edits? Sounds more like a case of someone that should have been warned first, not reported and banned right away. Marauder40 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

--This discussion has been resolved.--

@

@

WP:CSD#G5, the criterion used to justify the nomination. It states that "To qualify [for speedy deletion], the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 06:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee, MrX, and 333-blue: Boing! said Zebedee has taken care of this. Thank you. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 07:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I suspect it was down to a misreading of the SPI, which actually cleared you of having a connection with Esoglu. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

Jujutsuan, this page and your pings make me dizzy. You do know I have this page on my watchlist and don't need a ping to know the page has been updated? I feel like I'm in an ad campaign complete with testimonials from people who have used the product (you). Also, you should not be recommending to other editors that they add their post-SPI comments made here to the archives of a case. As ith most archives, that's generally not permitted. I have removed those comments.

Anyway, I've thought very long and hard about the merits of your unblock request. I've also consulted privately with one other member of the SPI team. Although I'm not completely satisfied with all your explanations, I've decided I'm no longer persuaded behaviorally that your account is a sock of FindingEllipsoids. I'm also well aware of the public terminal issue. I was aware of it when I ran the check, but just because two accounts use a public terminal doesn't necessarily mean they are separate people. However, it does raise the possibility of it. It's also more complicated than at first blush, but I can't go into that and still protect your privacy.

Technically, even if your account is not a sock of FindingEllipsoids, your are still an admitted sock of Justarandomeditor. At the end of the day, that troubles me the most, not the relationship because you at least were honest enough to admit that from the outset, but the vandalism. You say you've matured, but it wasn't really that long ago.

Looking at all the factors, though, I'm going to extend good faith and unblock you. Arandomeditor will remain blocked, but I'll remove the tag from the userpage. Dooodoooooo was already blocked by another admin and will also remain blocked. Again, I'll remove the tag. I will unblock FindingEllipsoids as there's no basis to retain that block based on my decision.

I'll start taking care of these procedural issues as soon as I've posted these comments. Hopefully, you won't let this experience interfere with constructively and collaboratively editing Wikipedia in the future. After all, you can go home and report your marketing campaign to be a success. :-) As a CheckUser with considerable experience with socks, it's infrequent that I believe what a user says as an "excuse" or "reason". You did a commendable job convincing me, although a little less energy would have been appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 [I'm deliberately not pinging you ;) ]: Thank you for taking my rebuttal seriously. I understand your concern about the Justarandomeditor account, but I assure you it hasn't happened again (as you s/b able to verify) and it won't happen again here. If it were to happen, it would only be fair for the relevant disciplinary procedures to be implemented. My apologies for the numerous pings—I couldn't be 100% sure I was on your watchlist, and I wanted to be sure you saw everything. I don't think you've actually removed the request to copy the comments; I'll go ahead and do that myself now. Again, thank you. Best, —Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for not pinging me, and thanks for being gracious. Good luck with your editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: See also these NGrams:

• the Assumption
• the Immaculate Conception
• Mother of God
• Theotokos
• perpetual virginity of Mary

Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 08:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

		The Random Smily Award
		For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award. Originated by Pedia-I.--Zfish118⋉talk 18:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zfish118: Why, thank you! I'll treasure it. (No, really, I will). Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 21:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Heads up that your otherwise excellent edit may be reverted by other editors on that due to the substitution of "pro-life" for "anti-abortion"; this is another long running but largely dormant dispute that is best avoided when possible. The phrase "pro-life" is more accepted on United States related pages, but not universally. I have found it best to make edits to only one section or topic at a time on abortion-related pages, to avoid uncontroversial edits, such as the list of pro-life organizations you added, from being reverted at the same time as contested edits made at the same time. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zfish118: Thanks for the heads-up. Given that it was in the US section of the article only, based on what you said I think it should be okay. If not, I'll reinstate the other aspects of the edit should it be reverted. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 02:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware of the existance of

@

Chicbyaccident: I was not. I found my current Catholic userbox somewhere obscure (maybe on a list of Xian userboxes?), and liked it because it has a Marian icon (Perpetual Help) instead of the keys. Thanks for pointing this one out though! Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. What about

talk

) 13:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@

Chicbyaccident: Thanks. I've switched mine to the new template. Looks like you even managed to put in a background color. Nice. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 13:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jujutsuan. I'm not challenging this edit. But I need some clarification. Maybe I have misunderstood, but did you remove a citation to a source "that doesn't exist" because it is "not available online for proper identification/verification". Wikipedia frequently uses scholarly sources that are not available online. Did I miss something? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Hello. I didn't remove it just because it's not available online, if that's what you're wondering. The publication info was clearly a mashup of two different works, The New Encyclopedia of Islam and The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam. So I concluded that the source doesn't exist as listed. Since Concise isn't online and the statement wasn't reflected in the Mary entry in New, I removed the content as unverifiable and improperly sourced. I hope that clears it up. Best, —Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 14:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure you knew that we don't remove citations to sources simply because we can't find them online. But as I said, I don't have a problem with your edit. Sundayclose (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely. I think I may have even added some references from non-digitized books myself at some point in the past (or at least I didn't check to see if Google Books had them). Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 14:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's an explanation of my reversion of your edit: a group's website isn't a neutral source for a claim about alleged members of that group. Every group imaginable claims that Joan of Arc was one of their members (Neo-Pagan websites claim she was a Neo-Pagan, Baptist websites claim she was a Baptist, lesbian authors claim she was a lesbian, etc), but we don't include any of those fringe ideas as valid facts. You would need an RS to claim she was a member of the Secular Franciscan Order. I have never seen any historian make such a claim - Pernoud never did, nor Pierre Champion as far as I know, nor other historians who studied Joan of Arc in depth. The only slim evidence I know of would be the fact that her priest at Domremy (Pierre Minet if memory serves) was a Franciscan, and her rings and banner had the slogan "Jhesus Maria" which was used by the Franciscans; but that slogan was also used by the Dominicans, Carmelites and Augustinians; her confessor in the army was an Augustinian, and many of the clergy in her army were Dominicans, as were many of her staunchest supporters; so her connection with the Franciscans isn't any more solid than the Dominicans or Augustinians. Ryn78 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ryn78: Thanks for explaining. The list of members at the OFS page might need to be looked at, then. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 05:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally find all of your edits immature and biased - smacking of desperation. However, it's up to you what edits you make. Nevertheless, I warn you that I will not tolerate being trailed around - you looking at my edit history to work out what article you want to "amend" next. If you do it again then you will be reported for harassment. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 06:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Catholicism. You want me to go on? On each one you have sought out material that is critical of Catholic teaching or individuals and amended it or removed it. Contaldo80 (talk

) 13:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Even if true, that would have nothing to do with you. You obviously just like editing in the same areas.
2. I've edited to eliminate unwarranted anti-Catholic POV, either removing the content or amending it, as appropriate to each case. Unfair or outright inaccurate presentations of doctrine, deliberately defamatory statements ("Opposition to LGBT rights" vs "Opposition to LGBT movement), etc. If you want to refute an argument (even though WP is not a soapbox to do so), it's best practice to refute the best version of it, not a caricature.
3. I got to those pages by clicking wikilinks or running searches, not by trailing you. I know we don't seem to like each other very much, but I'm not obsessed with you.
4. Ever played the game "Five clicks to ____"? It's a lot of fun. You ought to try it out. Start on a random page and see if you can get to <fill in the blank> in 5 wikilinks or less. You'd be surprised. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 20:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Since when did you become a closer? What gives you the right to close this? What do you mean there were no opposing votes - what about my vote? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:NOT#DEM, I'm not sure your vote would be enough to claim non-consensus. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 20:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Also:

WP:RM says, "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

One last thing: I did in fact add the {{RMnac}} tag as required. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 20:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Since when did you become a closer? What gives you the right to close this? How can the proposer also be the closer? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

When there is unanimous consensus, an involved editor can close (see the closing instructions). Which, since I missed your vote, there appeared to be. But given the absolute weakness of your vote, I don't see that as sufficient to merit reopening. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 20:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Despite my reservations about your vote, since I did make a mistake, I'm going to reopen. Just give me a moment to do so. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 20:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Reopened and moved back. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 20:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Jujutsuan, for the second time in just a few days you have closed a discussion in which you were a participant. This time you're not just a participant, but you are the editor who proposed the move. And the second one was after you were reverted with an explanation that it is inappropriate, per

@

WP:CLOSE guidelines. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 20:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised by the miscrediting. I perceive

talk

) 20:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Reopened and moved back. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 20:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing your mistake. My point is, you are too eager to do things your way. It would have been a simple matter for you to ask someone else to close. Then you wouldn't have closed prematurely. You need to make more effort to proceed cautiously in such a serious matter as moving a page, rather than following the letter of the law.

Chicbyaccident, the first inappropriate closure was done in good faith and overlooked in good faith. But the second one raised questions about judgment, and the only way Jujutsuan can be aware of the problem is if someone points it out. I am assuming good faith for this second premature closure, but I want Jujutsuan to avoid behaviors that create serious problems. Sundayclose (talk

) 20:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your very honest comments above. There probably have been a few times when others (myself included) may have come down a little too hard on you. I hope you won't be discouraged. You really have made some good edits and helpful comments. Before I registered I found it very helpful to simply read talk page discussions without taking part. It can take a while to adjust to the give and take in article editing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I also hope that you will spend some time reflecting on your own editing behaviour and how this is perceived and received by other editors. While you have made many improvements to a number of articles I have regularly been annoyed and frustrated by some aspects of your editing, especially your repeated disruptive habit of changing established article names without any attempts to first seek any discussion and consensus. As an apparent new editor you have been acting like a bull in a china shop so it should be no surprise that many of your edits have been - and should be - reverted by more experienced editors. We all make mistakes and we all sometimes become stubborn about our own views and say things in ways that we shouldn't. The important thing is that we continually learn how to become better and more co-operative editors. I look forward to improved "interactions" with you from now on. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have found a series of edits that you have made on a range of articles provocative and unhelpful. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, thank you for being gracious about my suggestion. I thought "Addition?" and "Marian devotions and expansion?" were good and productive topics to raise, and only specifically referring to the MOS dispute was a step backwards. --Zfish118^⋉talk 18:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Zfish118, I am also concerned about Jujutsuan's editing. I just hope that they keep the cool, while the editing gets hot. I admit, I can be hard on users such as Jujutsuan, but I try to act my best, despite some of my worst days on Wikipedia. I also, look forward to communicating more. Thanks for your comment, Afterwriting. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 17:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time just stop abusing the Wikipedia process to promote your personal biases. Your behaviour is deplorable. Afterwriting (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I could say the same. Where is this "requirement" or consensus of which you speak, which mandates that every. last. instance. needs a full-blown discussion? It doesn't show up in the talk page archives, and no WP policy is that specific. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 04:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As you've already been told before, it was part of the consensus process when the Roman Catholic Church article name was changed which all editors are expected to respect. That includes you. Afterwriting (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So far I've had to take your word for it, and as is plain to see you're quite POV yourself. For all I know you're grossly exaggerating the terms. Would you care to either give me an approximate date for this agreement, or point out which page of the archives it's on? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 04:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for the common courtesy of being shown the difficult-to-find, if not obscure, rule I'm expected to follow. My own searches for it have been thus far fruitless. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 08:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan: Even my patience is wearing thin. Afterwriting is one of the most diligent, bias-free editors I've encountered in Wikipedia, and to suggest otherwise is baseless. He is not personally attacking you, except to the extent you seem personally vested in the edits you propose, which have been disruptive to the project. I've tried gently coaching you, hoping to direct you towards a more productive path, but this is becoming increasingly frustrating. I have repeatedly warned you that the Catholic/Roman Catholic issue is a minefield, yet you keep poking this beehive, and keep getting angry when you're stung. Proposing edits that have been rejected in the past, and lashing out at those oppose them, is only going to result in more accusations of sock-puppetry and other rules violation. Lashing out at those who accuse you is only going to push you closer to getting banned. If you want to become a productive, respected editor, you need to learn to pick your battles, and choose less controversial edits to pursue. --Zfish118^⋉talk 13:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what your experience with Afterwriting has been, but with me he's been among the most impatient and imperious personalities on WP, with an apparent vendetta to viciously fight as many edits of mine as he can, no matter how benign or good-faith. Yes, he has made personal attacks, from name-calling to the fabricated accusation below. (If there were technical evidence, it would be different; but 1) the claim is a weak one, that I paraphrased an edit summary ergo I'm a sock, and 2) the evidence was a boldface lie.)

Regarding the "Roman" consensus: I've looked for this policy, I've asked to be shown this policy, but I still haven't seen it, and I can't seem to find it. Given his tendency to call names and lob baseless accusations on nonexistent, outright fabricated evidence (see below), I frankly don't trust him in particular not to exaggerate the terms of the consensus agreement—so I asked to be shown. Apparently nothing less than a hardline "don't touch any instance of 'Roman' ever for any reason at all" isn't good enough, and

WP:IAR

don't apply in this case.

Since he reached back a month to find his "evidence" of sockpuppetry only after I initiated the RM on

WP:BOLD

and just moved Catholicism to Catholicity and seen what happened, but I knew that was a horrible idea, so I went the RM route instead, and even put a notice on the Christianity, Catholicism, and Anglicanism projects (the only projects the page is part of) to get a variety of voices in the discussion. Isn't that what editors are supposed to do—discuss and collaborate, going the formal route when something is likely to require discussion? I didn't lash out, I responded to a pretense to know my motives from someone who clearly has no patience for anything I touch whatsoever.

You, Zfish, have been one of the kindest WP personalities, and I am appreciative of that; I hope you see I'm not out to cause fights, and would be happy to discuss things coolly if only certain other editors (mostly Afterwriting) would stop looking for excuses to attack me. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 13:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

On the Catholicism -> Catholicity discussion, Afterwriting pointed out that the proposal was an example of biased editing. He did not explicitly point to you, but the proposal. I actually do concur with him in that regard, but chose to focus on the definition and purpose issues instead, which were weaker arguments, that you had the exact answer I anticipated you would respond with. I did this in part to avoid provoking you. It is frustrating to have to tip-toe around strong personalities. Afterwriting took a direct approach to point out that the name you had proposed was unnecessarily biased, and you responded by taking it personally, again, how I predicted you would react. This strong reaction to every bit of criticism is itself disruptive to the project. You could very easily be suspended or banned for these outbursts. You chose the correct path by making it a proposal, but it was a proposal that was very unlikely to pass. If you step back, and look at Afterwriting's comment, it was phrased passively to try to avoid a direct accusation against the proposer. Since you have already been through a round of sock-puppet accusations specifically for your pattern of editing regarding removing "Roman", it is very suspicious when you continue making proposal regarding the naming of church articles. Afterwriting also restored the use of "Roman" in the Catholicism article, an edit that required no response from you, since you specifically stated you were not involved, yet you chose to revert him. You are at least partially responsible for the conflict you are having with him. There is a basic understanding in Wikipedia that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is explicitly stated for British versus US English, that articles should not be changed from one version of the language to another without good reason. In WP:Catholicism, the same basic approach applies to Catholic versus Roman Catholic. If the article is unambiguous as written, it should not be changed without a compelling reason. At Catholicism, someone changed it, and it introduced unnecessary ambiguity as Roman was used to explicitly differentiate between (Roman) Catholic Church, and the greater Catholicism topic. Afterwriting only fixed a poor editing choice by some third party; your choice of reverting him, while claiming to have been uninvolved, is highly suspicious, and his accusation of sock-puppetry seems to have been made in good faith; lashing out in the manner that you have been looks bad, even if you know yourself to be innocent. If you want to restore your reputation here, you will really have to recuse yourself from nearly any possibly potentially controversial edit. Being able to identify such possibly contentious edits is a mandatory skill to be successful here. You might maybe consider a voluntary topic ban to stay away from any Catholic related article for some time, gain experience editing topics where you might be less personally invested. I fear that if you continue editing as you have been, you will be formally banned before you learn the necessary skills to succeed. --Zfish118^⋉talk 14:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll stick to cleaning up messy references for the time being. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 20:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Jujutsuan – Daily I visit the

I would recommend visiting the Teahouse for the reasons I've just mentioned. Helping to improve Wikipedia can be a positive and worthwhile experience. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your POV obsession with changing "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" throughout Wikipedia, on the

Despite your recent denial to User:Bbb23 and everyone else of using other accounts here is some very strong evidence to the contrary.

1. Edit summary of the

"Removed the inaccurate colloquialism "Roman Catholic", replacing it with the proper term "Catholic" (except in quotations). The Church hierarchy has never approved the name "Roman Catholic"; see Lumen Gentium I.8.)"

2. Edit summary of the Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church article by User:Jujutsuan on 3 May 2016:

"Removed the inaccurate colloquialism "Roman Catholic", replacing it with the proper term "Catholic" (except in quotations). The Church hierarchy has never approved the name "Roman Catholic"; see Lumen Gentium I.8.)" I wonder what the odds of these very similar words being used by two totally different people are? Afterwriting (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, you caught me! Another user knows how to use Cmd+C and Cmd+V to copy and paste things! (After I had paraphrased that from someone else!) I figured out the third-grade skill of how to paraphrase things from other people! I must be them! Oh, you're such a good detective. (Is that you, Batman!?)

NOT. After paraphrasing from Cor ad cor, I copied and pasted that into several edit summaries, and someone else copied it from me because either 1) They were feeling justifiably lazy or 2) They liked my wording. Your lack of evidence is... disturbing... Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 05:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Edited after I figured out the chronology—Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"two totally people"... grate grammar ewe has their. In a rush to fling baseless accusations, much? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 05:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So, here's the chronology:

1. Cor ad cor, 28 Apr.,
   Catholicism
   : "Removed an inaccurate colloquialism. The article on the Roman Catholic Church is titled simply as "Catholic Church". The term Roman Catholic has never been approved by the Church's hierarchy and is not present in the catechism, the documents of the Sec..."
2. Me, 2 May, Eucharistic adoration: "Removed an inaccurate colloquialism. The article on the Catholic Church is titled simply as "Catholic Church". The term "Roman" Catholic has never been approved by the Church's hierarchy and is not present in the catechism or the Vatican II documents."
3. I made various similar edits with variations on that summary. Once I found the wording in Lumen gentium, I finally arrived at:
4. Me, 3 May, Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church: "Removed the inaccurate colloquialism "Roman Catholic", replacing it with the proper term "Catholic" (except in quotations). The Church hierarchy has never approved the name "Roman Catholic"; see Lumen Gentium I.8."

Cor ad cor did not use the same words as I did. You sir are the dishonest one. I've corrected your boldface lie in your original post here, and I will revert any attempt you make to reinstate it. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Now you're really getting desperate and even more ridiculous. It is your lack of credibility and honesty which is disturbing. Your (sic) first use of the phrasing was on 2 May and followed that of the other (sic) editor on 27 April on the

Catholicism article. So you have contradicted yourself and provided even more evidence of your lack of credibility. Afterwriting (talk

) 06:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed my comment based on the chronology. Excuse me, but I didn't remember immediately where I originally got it a month ago; I didn't remember it being Cor ad cor, but I did remember (or seem to remember) someone else copying it later. Once I checked the chronology, it became clear that you had fabricated your claim of my copying Cor ad cor's identical wording, and that I had paraphrased it from him/her. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You are only digging a bigger hole for yourself by making such ridiculous comments. Afterwriting (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What's ridiculous, exactly? Aside from the accusation itself and your gratuitous use of "sic", that is. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

And if Cor ad cor were a sock account of mine, do you really think I, who am so "concern[ed] with Latin spelling and style" as you say, would have included such an egregious typo in my sock name? It's clearly supposed to be a Latin phrase, but "loquator" isn't even a word. I assume the user meant "Cor ad cor loquitur" (Heart speaks unto heart),

John Henry Cardinal Newman's motto. No one "concern[ed] with Latin spelling and style" would make that kind of obvious mistake. And Latin mottoes with disputed meanings don't just spring up out of thin air, so it's obviously a deliberate reference. The only other possibility is that the user meant "Cor ad cor loquatur" (May heart speak unto heart), turning the declaration into an aspiration, but loquatur is still at least a word, where as loquator is gibberish. Again, no one "concern[ed] with Latin spelling and style" would make that kind of obvious mistake. I rest my case (for now). Jujutsuan (talk | contribs

) 09:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@

open a sockpuppet investigation. Bickering on a talk page will do nothing besides make you both look silly. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥

) 06:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi
  WP:TPOC is what you are looking for. OldTraffordLover (talk
  ) 07:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the policy. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 08:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So glad I could join up with the talk page party fiasco. Hopefully, this whole fiasco with Jujutsuan and fighting between @Afterwriting: die down. As much as I like both editors, this is getting tired and disrupting the peace of the Wikipedia community. From what I can see from the outside, it is hard to tell whether Jujutsuan is a sockpuppet or not, unless I see more evidence for or against. I will leave that up to whoever wants to start an investigation into sock puppetry. People, let stop with the fiasco on talk pages and starting making tasty edits to Wikipedia. I recommend that you read Peace while the editing gets HOT! Thanks, CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 17:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Synoptic need not be capitalized; if used with "gospels", both words should be capitalized. A Georgian (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@

re}} | talk | contribs

) 11:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@

re}} | talk | contribs

) 08:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The description at the dab page accurately described the article, which it is meant to do. You presumably didn't read Yahweh before you changed the text. You're probably getting confused with the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. If you read that article you will see that "Yahweh" isn't used in Jewish texts. It is used of course in Christian Bibles so I've added a bit to the description of Tetragrammaton. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@

re}} | talk | contribs

) 11:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, an easy mistake to make. I probably would have at one time. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at

Hello, I'm UK and not going to get involved in an edit war about a US issue. However how exactly is Omar Mateen's apparently nominal political affiliation relevant? Was he targetting Republicans? On another edit reason you say "Do not include unless notable or relevant to the crime involved", about another subject. I presume therefore that you satisfied yourself that the relevance of Mateem's link to one party, had demonstrably been shown to be relevant to the crime covered by numerous RS, .... or not? Pincrete (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @

re}} | talk | contribs

) 14:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

My point is that the relevance is neither established by RS (rather than by our opinions), nor are the affiliations broadly covered, nor is any impact on elections yet clear. There are numerous 'hot button' issues here, one party is soft on terrorism/supported by terrorists (not that terrorists are noted for involvement in the democratic process, but hey, why quibble), gun control etc. , but it is up to RS to make those connections, not us. At the moment it looks like a crude attempt to 'throw dirt', in what is probably a very incidental affiliation, but I'm taking this discussion to talk. Thanks for the reply.Pincrete (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jujutsuan/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

re}} talk contribs

) 14:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your request does not address the reason for your block. It seems to indicate that you understand that you violated the rules - but not that you are going to work to avoid doing so in the future (in fact, it reads to me like you are only done with this specific edit war). I am afraid that I am unable to unblock you at this time. SQL^{Query me!} 03:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• @
  re}} | talk | contribs
  ) 16:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jujutsuan/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

re}} | talk | contribs

) 16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: block has expired. Favonian (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• @
  re}} | talk | contribs
  ) 21:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your statement It's relevant in that liberal/Democrat politicians are pushing for gun control and like to blame Republicans every time a mass shooting happens; there is the issue of

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in addition to the edit-warring. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

22:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@

re}} | talk | contribs

) 22:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a general concern with most of your recent edits to the page in question. Due to those concerns, I'm electing to abstain from taking action either way on your unblock request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@

re}} | talk | contribs

) 22:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• @
  re}} | talk | contribs
  ) 22:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My opinion would be that you should just take your lumps, admit you made a mistake, and wait for the block to expire. While the policy says blocks are not meant to punish, they are intended to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Take it to heart, that if the block were overturned, and you inadvertently ran afoul of some other rule within a short time, you could be banned or blocked indefinitely. Take this time to cool off, and come back with a clear head. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be wise not to start pinging different admins to review your block in the hope one will give you a favorable review. Admins will see your block, among others at

CAT:RFU and, should they choose to, will act accordingly. Blackmane (talk

) 03:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm UK and not going to get involved in an edit war about a US issue. However how exactly is Omar Mateen's apparently nominal political affiliation relevant? Was he targetting Republicans? On another edit reason you say "Do not include unless notable or relevant to the crime involved", about another subject. I presume therefore that you satisfied yourself that the relevance of Mateem's link to one party, had demonstrably been shown to be relevant to the crime covered by numerous RS, .... or not? Pincrete (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @

re}} | talk | contribs

) 14:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

My point is that the relevance is neither established by RS (rather than by our opinions), nor are the affiliations broadly covered, nor is any impact on elections yet clear. There are numerous 'hot button' issues here, one party is soft on terrorism/supported by terrorists (not that terrorists are noted for involvement in the democratic process, but hey, why quibble), gun control etc. , but it is up to RS to make those connections, not us. At the moment it looks like a crude attempt to 'throw dirt', in what is probably a very incidental affiliation, but I'm taking this discussion to talk. Thanks for the reply.Pincrete (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jujutsuan. An article you either created or to which you significantly contributedhas been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's

talk!

) 12:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

) 14:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For connecting the article Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry with the wiki series on the Catholic Church, by placing the series sidebar on the article Indefatigable2 (talk ) 22:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Jujutsuan, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @

re}} | talk | contribs

) 21:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsan: - Wikipedia does not encourage long lists for filmography, etc. It is best to create only selected lists of items that have third-party references. In other words, if the performances/recordings are notable, then someone who writes about the subject will have mentioned them. That's then what goes into a WP article. (Yes, there are lots of articles with long lists - this is a problem.) The biggest problem with Facebook is that it is only for subscribers, so it is not verifiable information for anyone who is not a subscriber to facebook. The person's own web site, if open access, could be used to confirm some incidental facts, but nothing that would affect notability (e.g. awards, etc.) LaMona (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@

re}} | talk | contribs

) 21:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that's how it is. FB is a closed system, even if it is easy to enter. WP does not want to require people to sign up for a service they may not want in order to access verifiable facts, especially a commercial system that does not respect privacy. Academic journals are unfortunately often limited to those with library access, but can often be requested via interlibrary-loan, and one of the WP efforts at the moment is to encourage more Open Access to academic materials. Most "rare" materials would be primary sources, whose use is discouraged in most situations. It is ok to cite print sources on WP, just be careful to cite them fully so that others can find them. That's what libraries are for. LaMona (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll concede as far as the page is concerned, but I don't see how one for-profit closed system (FB) is any less usable than another (say, JSTOR). There's a policy governing social media use as a source, which the single fact cited satisfies, and there's a "registration required" parameter on citation templates just for stuff like this. What gives? Is this some kind of WP war against Zuckerberg?

re}} | talk | contribs

) 04:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice

See also: User talk:Indefatigable2 § Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry

Thank you for your advice! I decided it would be best to follow what you said, and hold off, at least for a little while. Thank you for the help. Indefatigable2 (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem,

re}} | talk | contribs

) 04:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again, friend, for your suggestion on the talk page and proposal to expand the article! Indefatigable2 (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discretionary Sanctions for American Politics 2

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This notice is meant as a courtesy and does not imply any wrong-doing. However, it is partially in response to your edits on

re

}} 06:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you for the information.

re}} | talk | contribs

) 06:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

talk

) 23:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @

re}} | talk | contribs

) 23:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Christianity

Rvt- Addition not on

Template talk:Christianity/Archive 4#Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles

.

Do not add items without

WP:CON. Do not link to redirects. tahc ^chat

17:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Catholic Church in Afghanistan

An editor has asked for a Move review of Catholic Church in Afghanistan. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Book of Glory listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

talk

) 07:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your advocation of personal views

Jujutsuan, I have been viewing your contributions as some of the pages you have edited I have on my watchlist. Your edits show a particular pattern for editing articles related to

talk

) 08:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@

JudeccaXIII

: You made several points. I'll try to respond to each of them.

1. I removed the Gnosticism template per
   WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
   . Just because the article is loosely related to the topic doesn't mean the page gets the series sidebar. If you feel otherwise, I would suggest adding those pages to the sidebar. Other than following policy, I don't really have much of an opinion on that since I'm not "up" on my Gnosticism or Gnostic history.
2. I did not create Template:John; I merely improved it and collapsed it so it would take up less room. I did create Template:Paul, based on my improvements to Template:John, with analogous content. Is there some problem with this? You mentioned it but didn't say anything about it, so I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.
3. Regarding adding Book of Signs and the infobox: I added that, it was removed with a reason given by Tahc, and I did not put it back.
   WP:BRD
   doing its job.
4. Regarding "Book of Signs" and "Book of Glory" in general: If you look at the Gospel of John page history, you'll see those labels were there long before I showed up. Edit: it was added on 25 January 2006 by IP 67.171.152.253. I just made it look prettier. Since "Book of Signs" and "Book of Glory" don't refer to anything else that I'm aware of, I see no reason the latter shouldn't stay as a redirect. Are these not accepted generally? I've seen/known of these labels long before I ever read the Wikipedia article on John. If not, could you point me to a few sources to support that claim? And perhaps a suggestion of how better to outline the gospel's structure and content? This seems to do a pretty good job of it. And what "view" would I be promoting, exactly? Even if not everyone uses the term, I've never seen anything that contradicts the notion that John is basically split in half, one part documenting Jesus' ministry and signs, the other documenting the Passion onwards. That's not POV, that's scholars making a basic observation and giving it a name.
5. Finally, by what authority does your "irritation" allow you to overrule
   WP:BRD
   by fiat? You can ask politely and I might then take it seriously, but where's the policy that says I must comply with anyone's arbitrary demands, much less those of a non-admin?

re}} | talk | contribs

) 10:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC), edited 15:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

(See

re}} | talk | contribs

) 15:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

References

1. ISBN 9780805443653
   . Retrieved 21 June 2016.

WP:BRD

*Since

consensus

.

• My revert here was the revert.
• Per
  WP:BRD
  that makes any discussion to form consensus your responiblity.
• By the way, this is all moot (and should be reverted by you it you don't mind), since even
  WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
  does not apply (anymore, if it ever did).

• A: The
  Christian writters of late Antiquity (post 325)
  under "Early Christianity" which is only this time up to 325 AD. This is now fixed on the template.
• B: Since the article on
  History of late ancient Christianity from Template:Christian mysticism
  .
• C: Even if one or both articles were linked,
  WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is only a "common sense guideline" and would still not make sense here because the article(s) still does not discuss Christian mysticism. tahc ^chat
  20:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I now see that you moved the Template:Christian mysticism in such a way that made me think you had added it. Also now see that one of first three writters in the template was pre 325 (again I my mistake), making the best heading "Antiquity" like this Category:Ancient Christianity.tahc ^chat 20:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @

re}} | talk | contribs

) 10:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss on Talk:Early Christianity#Christian mysticism. tahc ^chat 17:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Christianity

again

Rvt- Removal not on

Template talk:Christianity/Archive 4#Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles

Please stop the bold editting on

WP:CON over on WP:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list

.

Even other changes are best discussed before making the change- esp. for a newcomer to the template such as yourself. If you want to consider moving a link to a different section that you can discuss at

Template talk:Christianity. tahc ^chat

19:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

welcome to Wikipedia, Jujutsuan. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions

. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on

sign your name

using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

helpme

}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Gestrid (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Teahouse Q&A board

. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Your question at

WT:DYK

Hi, I saw your question on the DYK talk page. After you nominate an article, you wait for someone to review it and, if needed, answer any questions and make any changes in the article that the reviewer requests. After the article is approved, it will remain on the nominations page until a

prep set builder comes along and promotes it. Then the prep set will be promoted to a queue, and from there to the main page. You cannot approve your own article, or promote it to the prep area, or hurry the process along. Best, Yoninah (talk

) 19:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Book of Glory

Hello Jujutsuan, I have decided to withdraw the nomination as I have been doing a more extended research possibly suggesting a mentioning of the title from academic views via Google Books search up. I have found enough sources to possibly support an independent article. —

talk

) 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@

re}} | talk | contribs

) 21:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the consideration, but I'm going to decline. I already have a list of articles I need to create myself and I'll be busy off of Wikipedia. I probably just do minor edits if you start a draft. —

talk

) 22:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Off topic, but both here and on

re}} | talk | contribs

) 22:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

talk

) 22:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@

re}} | talk | contribs

) 05:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

K of C as prolife

Hi Jujutsuan. I have no doubt that K of C is prolife, but there are two problems with the source cited in this edit. It appears to pertain only to regalia, not "right to life". And there should be a source pertaining to the entire K of C, not just one province. Sundayclose (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@

re}} | talk | contribs

) 15:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)