User talk:Pbritti#top

Hi Pbritti,

While some reversions to DPharaohFanTribe's editing on Wikipedia (such as the speedy deletion of a jpg file for an improper file name and a deletion of a major edit the DPharaohFanTribe account found by another Wikipedia user and wanted to re-establish in good faith of it being encyclopedic - the DPharaohFanTribe now understands that CV-oriented additions are improper encyclopedic additions), the rejection of additions from the Mike Muse show sourced name plus the encyclopedic addition of D'Pharaoh's native name is inaccurate. The Mike Muse show is a paid subscriber on SiriusXM and is sourced appropriately, even though it is inaccessible for many because of a pay wall, so that change should be added. Currently, according to the Mike Muse show, his full name, if the native name is not encyclopedic enough, should be: D'Pharaoh Miskwe McKay Woon-A-Tai. Please correct this.

The DPharaohFanTribe page has also been keeping up to date with other users that have been making adjustments to D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai's Wikipedia account, and to have the deletion of the most previous edit of D'Pharaoh's heritage also needs to be corrected. That most recent edit, while does not involve his name, has the most up-to-date, sourced information available to keep the encyclopedia page current. It was unethical of you to not properly check the source material and to improperly and rushedly reverse a fair edit, if that is the case. While the DPharaohFanTribe did not make that edit, it did check the source, and it is viable and accurate. His heritage is: Oji-Cree, Anishinaabe, and Guyanese. However, if the source was improperly added, the correct course of action for pbritti would have been to edit how the source appears on the page, not to reject it in its entirety. Please correct this. In case you need to read where the source originates: https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/politics/canadian-warfare-star-d-pharaoh-woon-a-tai-says-film-shows-true-cost-of-combat/article_f71203f6-2b4e-5977-9074-ab09f334c244.html DPharaohFanTribe (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|DPharaohFanTribe}} I'm glad you have such an interest in improving Wikipedia regarding someone you seem to care about. However, Wikipedia isn't for the purposes you are using it for. There are other websites, social media platforms, and offline options to pursue interest in a celebrity and share information in the way that you have.

:Wikipedia strives to main certain standards of accuracy and quality in its presentation of encyclopedic material, standards that you have repeatedly failed to meet through inaccurate, improperly formatted, and copyright-violating additions. I hope that you find success in your interest, and I also hope you find success in editing Wikipedia. However, I would say that the two can not overlap at this time.

:If you want to learn more about Wikipedia's purpose and how to edit effectively, see WP:About and WP:5PILLARS. If you want to learn about what Wikipedia isn't for and the alternatives you can pursue, see WP:ISNOT. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Pbritti While the interests you are referring to are inaccurate to the editing I have been placing on an encyclopedia page, this specific talk page is to contest two specific edits that you have reverted. This is a good faith attempt to correct these actions as you have improperly reverted edits that are encyclopedic, proper to the purpose of Wikipedia as a free online source, and correct.

::The two edits you have reverted are above. To dismiss them while using the reason that this account is not for the purpose of Wikipedia is incorrect. Please adjust the edits ac update the page to reflect accurate, encyclopedic, and professionally and accurately sourced information as I have sourced above. DPharaohFanTribe (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Pbritti

::Thank you for only slightly fixing your reversal edit regarding D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai's heritage; however, you only removed the source involving his Chinese heritage. As sourced above and again mentioned below, this is the most up to date information. Please correct your edit:

:: https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/politics/canadian-warfare-star-d-pharaoh-woon-a-tai-says-film-shows-true-cost-of-combat/article_f71203f6-2b4e-5977-9074-ab09f334c244.html

::His heritage is Oji-Cree, Anishinaabe, and Guyanese and NOT Oji-Cree, Guyanese, and German. You are using an outdated source to reference your editorial change.

::Please also, in addition, revert the birth name change you placed to reflect the most up-to-date and true encyclopedic entry. It is in accordance to the source as referenced above. It should be as follows: D'Pharaoh Miskwe McKay Woon-A-Tai. DPharaohFanTribe (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That other source does not verify that he is not German. I don't see a basis for a change. You are asked to refrain from further messages on my talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Pbritti

::::While you are correct that it does not say he is German, it clearly leaves out the German heritage and includes Anishinaabe, which you have neglected to include. This makes the heritage sentence you included officially inaccurate. The source provided is the most recent and the most up to date and should be used in its place.

::::I am only using the talk page to reach a proper and formal consensus in accordance to Wikipedia's policy, especially in regards to the edits you have made. This talk page is a good faith attempt based on the reversals of your edits, which I am attempting to resolve in a peaceful manner. Please make the adjustments. DPharaohFanTribe (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you reverted my edits on the Coptic Catholic Church, stating that the patriarch's coat of arms isn't the coat of arms that represents the whole church. You are true to an extent, but this isn't the case for the Coptic Catholic Church. In their case, the Patriarch's personal coat of arms is the coat of arms of the Patriarchate, and hence the Coptic Catholic Church uses the Coat of arms of the Patriarchate to represent it.

This can be seen in the official website of the Catholic Church in Egypt: https://catholic-eg.com

The Coat of arms of the Patriarchate (and hence the church itself) does change with the change of patriarch, as it adopts the personal arms of the patriarch.

This is also the case for the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, where they also use the personal arms of the patriarch to represent the patriarchate and the church.

Yes, I can use the logo of the church, but the coat of arms is more preferable as it official. Dylam X (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Dylam X}} You are incorrect in your appraisal of those websites. Unless you can find a source that says "the patriarch's coat of arms is that of the church", then you are mistaken. It is pretty typical for episcopal or papal arms to be present on a website, but they are (almost) never the arms of the diocese of sui iuris church itself. Additionally, you have inserted a copyright violation with your recent edits. That version of the coat of arms is not in the public domain. If you need more clarification on any of the above or have other questions, please reply here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I uploaded the church logo as an alternate to the coat of arms. I did not realise that it was a copyright violation, and I apologise for this recent edit.

::I did not say the Patriarch's personal arms is the coat of arms of the church, I said that the patriarch's personal arms is adopted by the patriarchate as it does not have a coat of arms, and the patriarchate's coat of arms is used to represent the church. Just like the Emblem of the Papacy is used to represent the church itself.

::I've already given you the official church website as evidence for my claim, and there are other sources that can confirm that this coat of arms is used by the church.

::The Spokesperson of the Coptic Catholic Church's facebook page - https://facebook.com/SpokesmanCCE

::Official Church decrees and statements - https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=970036425271508&set=a.511971427744679 Dylam X (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is still not sufficient to justify using a coat of arms that isn't actually that of the church. Regardless, the images are copyright violations. If a version of the image is in the public domain, then we could discuss this further. Until then, I think the discussion is moot. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This is my own work. based on the Images that are displayed in the websites. The imgaes in these websites are in low resolution so I edited the crown and the coat of arms itself so that it can be vectorised. this version is not used anywhere else except Wikipedia.

::::I did NOT copy the image from the websites and upload it on Wikipedia. Dylam X (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::You are incorrectly tagging your images if that is the case. You must correctly indicate license ownership and indicate that something was based on a website rather than only linking to a website without explanation. Because I believe there is a better than even chance you genuinely created the patriarch's COA, I have removed the copyright violation tag on that image. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am currently unable to edit the page description and licence to indicate that this is my own work, due to me being banned from editing commons (temporarily) because of the previous copyright violation. I will do so once I regain ability to edit.

::::::I am not contesting that decision, as I did commit to uploading an image directly from a website, causing a copyright violation.

::::::But the coat of arms is my own work, and I am contesting any claims that it is a copyright violation. Dylam X (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} While I don't believe the block should be lifted, I am willing to make the relevant edits on your behalf. Please indicate any public domain assets that you used to create your vectorized version and I will update the information on the Commons. If that all checks out, I can assist you in an unblock request there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for the offer. If you are willing, I would like you to indicate in the file's description that It is of my own work, based on the sources provided. As for the public domain assets, I would like to the file to be released by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. Dylam X (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Dylam X}} On it. It looks like some of the other images you uploaded might be copyright violations, but others are possibly vectorized versions of seals, coats of arms, or crests. Are there any other images that you're interested in me tagging? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::I will deal with other potential copyright files once I get unbanned. I will either request a deletion myself or if the vector image is of my own work, I will indicate that. Thank you very much for the help, I really appreciate it! Dylam X (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | The Original Barnstar

style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I have very vague memories of interacting with you (I think during a review of Colorado Coalfield War) very early in your Wikipedia career, and again a few years ago when I saw your fantastic work on Book of Common Prayer (1979) (as an Episcopalian it was especially cool to read the history of a book I have seen for most of my life but not really considered deeply). It is a true pleasure to see how far you have come, and how active you have continued to be. I was very impressed going through your userpage and looking at the wide number of articles you have worked on! Thank you for your high quality contributions, and wishing you all the best in the future :)! Amazing work all around. Eddie891 Talk Work 10:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Eddie891}} Thank you for your kind words! It's almost melancholy—I felt like I ran into you more in the past and really did appreciate each encounter I had with you. There are so many editors from four or five years ago that I fondly recall for their kindness in assisting me and others, and you are one of them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm really glad to hear that! I've been a bit less active in the past couple years, but am definitely still kicking around (indeed, have rediscovered my love of writing content in the past few months). Hopefully our paths will continue to cross in the future :) . I've got a few longer term projects I am mulling over digging into this summer... Until we meet again, all the best! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. On 4 March I added 4 statements to Christian worship with specific citations for each. You deleted them a few minutes later with the note . I didn't check back for 6 weeks. Then on 18 April I reverted your deletion, noting About an hour later, you again removed the statements, but did not comment in Talk (the article talk page is pretty stale). So, here we are. Let's talk.

I don't understand your reasons for the deletions, as each statement is clearly sourced to a substantial publication within a main thread of the broad experience of Christian worship. I'm aiming for incremental improvements in an article that clearly needs them, but not to the standard of Book of Common Prayer (1979). Please explain your concerns. Thanks! Justaxn (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Justaxn}} First off, I'm glad you're interested in incrementally improving that very important article. However, my concerns are that your edits are not improvements according to Wikipedia's policies regarding sourcing, specifically the lack of verifiability and reliance on primary sources for some of your additions. My recommendation is finding a scholarly source on Christian worship and using that to improve the article. It looks like you're interested in Methodist worship—I recommend googling around to look at some of what Karen B. Westerfield Tucker has written on the subject! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Let's break these out one at a time. Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, introduction, says "intended as a tool for practical Bible use, reflecting recent discoveries and the breadth of current biblical scholarship ... approximately 5000 entries ... nearly 600 leading scholars ... [who] have been charged to remain sensitive to the broad spectrum of interpretation". I skipped the 2-page article on Worship, Israelite and drew from the full-page Worship, New Testament. That's not a primary source.

::I do live in the Methodist tradition, so those sources are closest to hand but by no means exclusive to the topic. The UM Book of Worship is 750 pages of guidance and resources for worship leaders as they plan worship events weekly in thousands of congregations across the US and the world. The slightly adapted quote "encounter with the living God" is from the second paragraph of the introduction. This is a user's manual, not a primary source.

::The second B/W citation describes how this large community of Christians worships and links present practice directly back to New Testament citations. A specific manuscript of a Bible text is a primary source. The many professional translations through the centuries and recent decades are not.

::Finally, the statements on hymns are from the independent introductions of two denominational hymnals (United Methodist and the unrelated United Church of Canada), each about 700 pages. I don't immediately see a similar statement in the Book of Common Prayer 1979. Hymnals are a constant resource for participants in Christian worship.

::Ultimately, these statements attempt to provide encyclopedia readers an answer to "What is Christian worship?" from the community of people who engage in that behavior, including contributions from many academics in many graduate-level seminaries. Without that voice, answering "Who are you?", is like trying to write the history of gay rights without any LGBTQ+ sources.

::And of course, I make no claim to exclusive knowledge here. I'd loved to see information included from Ms. Tucker's works, but that is a task for another editor and does nothing to negate the value of my contributions. Let's put some of these ideas in the article. Justaxn (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Justaxn}} This is not the appropriate place for in-depth discussion about an article—that would be the article talk page. However, a few comments should be made. First off, The United Methodist Book of Worship is a liturgical book and very much a primary source. I can say this because I own three copies and the companion text that is a secondary source. Additionally, sourcing a quote from the Bible from a translation does not make the Bible any less of a primary source, especially in the way you were using it (that's original research). I would highly encourage you to review (or re-review) the policies and guidelines regarding sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, let's discuss this in the article Talk page, as I originally asked you. Can you move this discussion there? It's beyond my process skill level.

::::Second, I hear you saying that the Eerdmans link is not OR, so I will restore that later today. Agreed? Justaxn (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Justaxn}} I'll move the discussion there in a bit but the Eerdman source is detailing the notion of worship within the New Testament, not Christian worship. While most forms of Christian worship derive directly from scriptural sources, the worship described in the New Testament preceded Christian worship. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = On 23 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aquilegia vulgaris, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aquilegia vulgaris was associated with a fertility goddess in ancient Greece, symbolized sacredness for Flemish painters, and was an omen of death in Hamlet{{-?}} The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia vulgaris. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2025-04-13&end=2025-05-03&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Aquilegia_vulgaris Aquilegia vulgaris]), 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) 00:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Meadow with dandelion near Lindenmühle, Lindenholzhausen.jpg

| image_upright = 0.8

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Thank you, lovely! I'll make it my story today, - the birthday of friends. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:An honor, Gerda! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:: my pleasure - a bishop seemed not the right choice ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:: So he came today and then found it's his funeral day. - I hated to see DYK for Johannes-Passion (Gubaidulina) today instead of Good Friday, but it seems also right in the context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

An attempt at reaquaintance, after a very busy season. Had we engaged over our common interest in W&M, aound some earlier edits I did at the Wren Building article (about which you were encouraging)? If so, how might we have a word about some further collaborative editing here, again around some W&M subjects? (If I am on the right path, recall, I no longer register, but was a registered editor of many years, while on faculty... more to be said.) Is there a path to communicate, other than via your Talk? (Have you an email route within Wikipedia that you would feel comfortable using?) Point me in a direction, from here, SVP. Cheers, The earlier Wren Bldg editor, and W&M, etc. WP contributor. 76.136.112.80 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi! If you're able to, please select the "email this editor option" (see Wikipedia:Emailing users for instructions). I know you have to be register for that, but I am uncomfortable directly sharing my email on the project. My hope was to have the Wren Building article at GA-status in time for the 330th anniversary of its official cornerstone laying on August 5th! If you want to ask me questions or work together on it, that article is the next project on my docket! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Pbritti, I do not see why you have deleted the text I added in Ritual family about the "equal right and dignity" of all rites as per Vatican II. Wikipedia:PRIMARY does not ban the use of primary sources per se. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, there are about a thousand things that could be said about ritual families and their particular expressions within individual churches from exclusively high-quality academic sources. To select a single primary source is not only undue, but breaks the highly generalist scope of that article. More relevant places for a source like that (if it should be used at all) are Catholic liturgy, Latin liturgical rites, Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites, and Eastern Catholic liturgy—but we should be instead referencing secondary RSs that emphasize the importance of that document. Please use article talk pages for discussions like this. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;" | style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol | rowspan=3 | File:NPP Barnstar.png

* On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.

colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)