User talk:Pbritti

Suggestion

I suggest you strike your WP:PA at the DeSantis TP.[1] In my 16 years here, no one before has suggested that I am NOTHERE. It is a quite absurd accusation as I fit no part of the definition. Indeed, NOTHERE is a reason for an indef, site-wide ban. Please try to be WP:CIV in future. If you have a question about someone's editing practices, are how they contribute to the project, you are welcome to ask politely on their UTP. Rgds. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

rejection of the article "The (un)Australian"

Hi, Pbritti. I have troubles in understanding the rejection of the abovementioned article. Apart from providing the three reliable, independent sources that are already there (two mainstream press retailers, i.e. The Courier Mail and The Standard (Kenya); and the National Library of Australia), I don't understand what else is needed. I am personally worried because the Standard article has provided some confusion among some circles of opinion that I participate in, with the addition of some tribal taint that may not be positive if the news item is not referenced/identified as satirical in a free, universal, reliable knowledge source as Wikipedia is. Thanks in advance. Diotime (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Diotime: The sources you mention here might themselves be considered reliable in a general sense, but don't approach the standards established at WP:GNG. For example: significant coverage is only provided in The Courier Mail (just listing something and providing a short description like this source don't count) and even then it is only for a single news item (see WP:1E). The Standard's article doesn't count towards notability because 1.) it isn't about The (un)Australian in any real sense, 2.) the manner in which it is used is prohibited original research, and 3.) a news org keeping up an obviously fake article is not exactly a good sign that they are a reliable source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Point taken, I'll try to dig further sources equivalent to The Courier Mail.

(as a side note, The Standard is one of the major press retailers in East Africa, but one should be aware of the more restricted inherent capacities of operators in low-income countries due to surrounding circumstances, in order not to be accused of post-colonialist attitudes; I won't do it, but just that you are aware of the sensitivities this may awaken) Diotime (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Diotime: Best of luck finding sources; I'm optimistic that you can. As to the matter of The Standard, I appreciate your sensitivity on that; in this case, the use of an inherently unreliable article in a primary source way is already precluded. You might be encouraged by the oft-cited essay Wikipedia:Systemic bias (a great standard when considering sourcing from outside the West) and WikiProject Countering systemic bias (a team you might want to join). If you want an expedited review once you feel you've completed the draft to a point when it can be published, ping me here and I'll gladly review it. Thanks for your hard work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Book of Common Prayer (1559)

On 8 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Book of Common Prayer (1559), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that to prevent bishops from opposing the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer, reformers had the entire papalist party arrested during a debate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1559). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Book of Common Prayer (1559)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

On 28 May 2023 you added

Jugge was joined by John Cawood, who had held the position under Mary and was eventually by Elizabeth.

'eventually' what or what 'eventually'? Shenme (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shenme: Please use article talk pages for this kinda thing but in this case the missing word is "reinstated". Thanks for finding the mistake; I'll take care of it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts in expanding Wikipedia's coverage on the Book of Common Prayer! Ltwin (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ltwin: This means the world to me, as with the 1559 BCP article I worked hard to match the caliber of work you put out in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, 1549, and 1552 articles. Your work is an inspiration and I hope that someday soon we could even have a featured topic for the English prayer books! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti, thank you for the complement. I also think that Anglican history and theology (well Christian theology/history) topics in general on Wikipedia need much better coverage, and I'm delighted that we have dedicated editors who are making a difference. I consider you one of them. Ltwin (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

LGBT Ukraine reversions.

I was trying to reuse the citations from else where in the article when giving the 5 key take aways for human rights watchers. However, it is very hard to do that when someone reverts your article after you publish it and before you can add the citations. I was simplifying the take aways. Not everyone has time to read the entire article and tease out the intricacies. There seems to be a bias in the article which blames others for the laws, history and culture of Ukraine. Globally we share a history of being heterometric through time. No one country is to blame for it, what is important is what is the status now and how strong are the protections. Please stop reverting the information. It is a disservice to the community to keep removing this content before I can add the citations and references. Maybe you have a tip or could help? 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@142.189.112.124: You cited Wikipedia and added other unsourced information. Check out WP:FIVEPILLARS if you're confused about any part of the Wikipedia process or policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

DeSantis Military Insignias

Hello Pbritti. I note you reverted my Ron DeSantis 02:51, 13 June 2023, edit, “infobox + insignia png, svg’s re: Navy service”, with your comment, “Not primarily known for military service; ribbon images unnecessary in infobox”. Since DeSantis spent 15 years in the Navy, while only 11 in government and seven in post secondary education, it seems his service was a great part of his life and of particular interest to readers. I have seen the use of military images of others when military service was a part of their life. In any event, please direct me to a MOS, WP:HEP,WP:BLPDD, or other policy, process, or direction applicable so I’ll know the recognized standard. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem: The DeSantis article has a widely watched talk page with a large amount of involvement; do you mind if I move the discussion there to increase the potential for additional input? If you would prefer, I can reply individually here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the MOS that informed my decision was primarily MOS:XMASTREE (sorry, I implied it but failed to link it in my edit summary), but that's something that can be interpreted in a very subjective fashion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: How about both? I would like your input as one with more experience, plus it possibly would be further education to have other views, also. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We can discuss here and should we come to an impasse, consider this me encouraging you to seek third-party input on the DeSantis talk (there are a ton of editors of different persuasions there, so you'll hear from all angles). As to the rationale for removing the ribbons, I linked XMASTREE above. There are also precedents in other major U.S. politician articles, such as John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Even Dwight D. Eisenhower (who many consider more famous for his WWII service over his presidency) does not have ribbon images in his infobox. I don't think there are any strict MOSs or policies that formally define who should get ribbon images in their infobox, but XMASTREE with those three precedents suggests to me we should not include them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem: pinging in case you're not subscribed to this thread. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I see your point. Of course, those presidents had much, much beyond just being a governor who is a primary candidate in a crowded field with one present clear leader, not him. And, of course, the few DeSantis images don’t seem to take away the attention the great list that the presidents had. Let me give it some thought. I’m diverted by other matters, but if it is OK with you, I’ll continue this thread as soon as I can. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Ping me here when you have time. I edit according to US Mountain Time so apologies if you and I don't overlap in availability, but I promise to respond as soon as I can. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Order of Corporate Reunion leadership

OCR has removed Richard Cummings as Universal Primate. What verification do you need to update the Wiki? 2601:981:100:3750:425:3464:4541:D2B5 (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's reliable source policy, as well as Wikipedia's standard for independent sourcing. Unfortunately, for organizations such as the OCR with multiple bodies claiming to be the legitimate representation, it is unlikely any reliable sources exist. Good luck searching. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

I recently added a source by John P. Meier on the Perpetual virginity of Mary to the article. I was wondering what you thought of my edit? Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'm mostly offline today so I'll have to look at the referenced article later. As it stands, the edit looks appropriately phrased! If I have a recommendation, I'll ping you on that article talk page. If it looks good, I'll leave a "thanks" on the edit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Pbritti. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. – Joe (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Draftifications

Hello, Pbritti,

I see that you moved a lot of pages like Draft:Ministry of Consumer Affairs (Karnataka) to Draft space but you didn't take the step of informing the article creator of the fact that you moved their page creations. You need to inform an editor when you move their article from main space to Draft space, every single time. The editor might otherwise believe their page creations have been deleted.

Most patrollers use User:Evad37/MoveToDraft to move drafts as it will post a notification on the talk page of the page creator, informing them where they can find their drafts. It's not too late, it looks like these articles were written by the same editor so please post a message to their talk page today informing them of your actions, the sooner the better. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Rather than many draftification notices, I was going to submit a single message at the end of the draftifications, as this editor appears to not edit Wikipedia until around 06:00 UTC at the earliest. I have given a single short notice per your comment, but I will be adding a second comment at the terminus of the draftifications with each draftified article listed for ease of access. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Alternately, you can use my fork of that script, which allows you to add a reason for draftification which will be added to the creator's talk page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Just tried your script. Really quite slick, like that I can select different people to get notices for the draftification. Probably won't always use it instead of the manual procedure but it's definitely cool. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Relatedly, you've moved Armenia in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages to draftspace twice, which is contra WP:DRAFTOBJECT. If the creator asserts that it belongs in mainspace (as they did by re-creating it there), it's time to stop and try to form a consensus, e.g. by taking it to AfD. Honestly I'm a little concerned that you seem to be over-using draftify so far. How do all those articles on ministries in Karnataka meet WP:DRAFTIFY, for example? – Joe (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: The ministry articles were unsourced/malsourced spam creations and were draftified at the advisement of the admin who blocked their creator from the mainspace. While not required by policy and guideline, at your expressed concern I will pursue an AfD for the Armenia article. It should be noted that I have been encouraged to redraftify recent articles added back to the mainspace when they contain the same significant policy violations that resulted in their initial incubation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  All of the ministry articles I checked were sourced, and that isn't the reason you communicated to the nominator (you said it needs more sources to establish notability and it has too many problems of language or grammar on their talk page). None of those are good reasons for draftification anyway; we have tags like {{more citations needed}} to flag articles that need more sources, notability is a a property of the subject not the article, and there's {{copyedit}} and {{rough translation}} for language issues. WP:DRAFTOBJECT is just an explanation of how WP:CON (which is a policy) applies to draftspace: if someone objects to your move, then by definition you don't have consensus for it. See WP:NPPCON for a fuller explanation. I don't know where you're getting all this 'advisement', but you really need to take responsibility for your own use of the NPP tool. I'm going to make your grant of the NPP right into a one month trial, so we can review if you're using the draftify correctly before making it permanent. – Joe (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: The ministry articles' creator (rather than nominator–I think you meant that) created a series of spam articles that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, which is the explicitly stated rationale for why a new article should be draftified according to WP:ATD-I (besides, see here for the admin approbation I had in dealing with the spam). Additionally, I had far more cause for moving the Armenia article back to the draftspace: it is part of a fairly overt 'puppet campaign (which negates WP:NPPCON's generalist recommendation). Given that I'm rather in the middle of dealing with quite a bit in the real world, I had hoped that a short interlude between noticing the issue and addressing it at the SPI desk would be acceptable. Also, not sure what you really need to take responsibility for your own use of the NPP tool means, as I have explained my actions to you [Addendum: drafting isn't the NPP tool, for what it matters]. You should take responsibility for your punitive actions against an NPP who draftified spam with the approval of an admin and took action against a fairly obvious 'puppet. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: It should also be noted that in the case of the ministry articles, I was following the example set by BoyTheKingCanDance, who had draftified many similar creations from the same spam editor (using the rationale Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace, which was even less than what I provided!). If you feel like my actions were incorrect, you might want to also bring it up with them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah this is what I mean. I'm hearing a lot of "I did this because so and so said so" or "so and so did it first", but when I assigned you NPP it was on the understanding that you knew the relevant policy yourself (and, for example, wouldn't ignore WP:DRAFTOBJECT). After this exchange I'm no longer convinced of that, so I've made the grant time-limited, after which me or another admin can reassess whether you meet the criteria. On that note, another really important quality of a new page reviewer (or any advanced tool-holder, really) is that they can respond to feedback on or objections to their actions with civility and good faith – especially in their first week of having that tool. – Joe (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: You accuse me of not following policy by citing an essay section with no reference to policy, so I explain that I acted in accordance of policy on consultation of other editors and their actions. Your actions are incredibly inconsistent with policy—particularly AGF—and reflect a poor ability to accept error. Please reflect on your missteps here and improve as a tool-holder. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have an odd view of civility and good faith. It's ironic that you call AGF, a guideline, a policy while attacking someone for citing an essay section. And you should have retracted this[2]. @Joe Roe I'm not sure I would have given NPP to someone who had so recently made the PA there, which appears to show bad judgement. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I should have looked at Pbritti's talk page history more carefully. – Joe (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and Joe Roe: Since the both of you seem rather intent on escalating, I would prefer you start by removing NPP so that the air is clear on that and we can remain focused. If you want to discuss further, you're welcome to that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW case request accepted

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged, thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)