User talk:SAWassen

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Episcopal Church of North America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Articles of Religion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SAWassen. I took a look during New Page Review a bit ago at Episcopal succession in the Anglican Catholic Church, which is very thorough, although it looks like it still relies heavily on a self-published source (example). I came across the page again in the New Pages Feed and noticed that you have edited extensively on the Anglican Catholic Church, Archbishop Haverland, and other ACC-related topics -- do you have a particular connection to the ACC or is it a more general interest? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, so the Morningstar site isn't great, I know, but it cites Ward's book, and unfortunately Ward's book is only partially available on Google Books. Getting a full copy of Ward to be able to check page numbers is on my to-do list. But I try to do more citations rather than less.

I'm a member of the ACC, but I don't have any official position. SAWassen (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I live in Orvelte. Are you going to put all my edits to the English and Dutch pages for Orvelte under the freaking microscope because I live here, too? SAWassen (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea where you live and haven't looked at any of your other edits. I review new pages on church-related topics, which is how Diocese of Congo (Anglican Catholic Church) came into my reviewing feed and why I saw your copyright violations there (I assume that's why you're asking). Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I edited everything and added citations. I even ran the article through a plagiarism checker to make sure nothing was wrong. Did you add the note about not being objective? That's why I was asking. I have the print sources for this article, that's how I made it. You've bugged me about "objectivity" before, and I'm tired of it. You know the articles you create, I know the articles I create. That's what we do here. It seems to me that you're just another ACNA person with a bias against the continuum. That's what this looks like to me. The REC and the TEC get to have Episcopal succession pages with barely any citations, but if the ACC tries to have one, it gets questioned and noted and held under suspicion. All I expect here is fairness. SAWassen (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Please don't make assumptions about me like you're just another ACNA person with a bias against the continuum. See WP:ASPERSIONS. I edit a lot on the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Chile, the Province of Alexandria, and the Anglican church in Malawi, too. I have a pretty broad interest in Anglican topics where there's not a lot of other editor interest (unlike, say, the CofE, the Anglican Church in Australia, or the Episcopal Church) and your assumption is ill-founded.

2. I have no objection to there being a page on episcopal succession in the ACC. If I hadn't believed that it met notability requirements I would have nominated for deletion when I first reviewed it; I didn't. My only concern on that page, conveyed above in this thread, was overreliance on a self-published source (not even an affiliated source, that would be OK for a list topic) but someone's Google Sites page).

3. Earwig's Copyvio Detector showed a clear overlap of verbatim passages copied from a copyrighted source on Diocese of Congo (Anglican Catholic Church) before I deleted them and requested revdel. You've added back several passages that, per the Copyvio Detector, show close paraphrasing and in some cases outright copying. This is an objective problem and I hope you won't keep adding copyright violations back to the article.

4. As for objectivity, I didn't add any note about objectivity. I added a template about the article's overreliance on affiliated sources. Most of your citations are to The Trinitarian and TraditionalAnglican.ca, which are affiliated with the subject or its mother church. While some use of non-independent sources is acceptable, overreliance on them creates problems for WP:V.

Hope this helps make clear my perspective. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

1. I have noticed a clear pattern of some editors holding articles to strict standards, but not others. There's no clear criteria for the notes on multiple pages dealing with continuum contexts, and I don't know how to get them off because they're just there because someone thinks it should be. Whatever.

2. We've discussed already that that site cites an otherwise hard to access book of high reliability.

3. My plagiarism checker didn't flag anything. There's only so many ways to say someone was consecrated on a certain date. And the (old) website for the diocese in Congo is, fyi, itself derivative. Cribbed from the sources cited. There's only so many ways to summarize certain facts, and Wikipedia is supposed to be derivative! I think a human can see whether "close paraphrasing" is just writing a basic English sentence, frankly. I don't see how a major overhaul can be done without a serious loss of facts. If you want to try a rewrite that's fine, because apparently my neutral voice is too general for bots.

4. The Trinitarian is, also, while the official gazette of the ACC, published by an independent editor. Sorry, but again, this feels like being told like you can't cite the Episcopal News Service (even though everyone does). So that's where I think bias does come in. I do understand that it's not the same as a peer reviewed journal, but I believe it meets better standards than you have assumed. SAWassen (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t assume it has poor standards and I’d like it if you would not attribute opinions to me I haven’t expressed. I simply said it’s not independent. It may be perfectly appropriate to use in this article and others, just like ENS is, but if an article about an Episcopal diocese had ENS for two-thirds of its sources I’d consider that also a case where more third-party sources are needed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The page Fidèle Dirokpa does not meet the standards you say articles should hold - the Anglican Ink article is actually just a copy of the diocesan Facebook post. And then there are two other church affiliated sources. So yes, I do feel that the continuing Anglican articles are viewed with suspicion and judged to higher standards than other articles. I'm not saying this to accuse you, but this is a general trend that I have observed. I have revised the page with more sources, but I, again, can do nothing to change the similarity of official names and basic facts. Copyvio is flagging very basic sentences like "On October 16, 2012, he was consecrated first Bishop Ordinary of the Missionary Diocese of Congo." as violations. A basic statement of a fact like this is not a copyright violation. I have looked through the CopyVio report, and I only see about a half dozen instances of similar editorial language - all of which are given in their cited sources. Therefore, I ask that you remove the header alleging "significant copyright violations". SAWassen (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The content that was most clearly a copyvio has been revdel'd from the page now and thus the template has been removed. I still think the content you restored is over the line of close paraphrasing but I'll leave it for another reviewer to examine since we disagree. If you disagree with me about the third-party sources template, you're free to remove it. As for the Fidele Dirokpa page, I didn't create it and I didn't review it but I agree with you, and it should be cleaned up and/or tagged as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to Diocese of Congo (Anglican Catholic Church) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)