User talk:SeminarianJohn/Archive 1

If you are going to continue to add Crowdpac scores to articles you need to make sure you use an accurate description of how they calculate the score. According to Crowdpac's about page (CROWDPAC'S SCORING SYSTEM section), "Overall scores are based on publicly available campaign contributions information" The next section goes on to explain more about their data model. It says "to calculate overall scores for candidates . . . we rely on campaign finance records". They do use voting records but only for specific issues, the CROWDPAC DATA MODEL section says "To calculate scores on specific issues, for incumbent candidates, we use Congressional voting records; for non-incumbent candidates with no voting record, we compare their donors with the donors of incumbents." I am not sure the content even belongs though, their website is reliable for their ratings, but is their rating notable? - GB fan 10:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! I have left a response on your page in case that is easier or faster. Also, thank you for helping to improve it! I completely agree with your editions and thank you for them. If you could see all the edits, I said "record" more generally on some but "voting record" on others. I think I said "voting record" prior to trying to fix it on other ones. It's easy to conflate candidates with "voting", but I had meant to fix that and, so, I thank you for doing it as well. I too added that it is based on "publicly available data" to make it as accurate as possible. As for your question, it is my contention that it is notable enough. I was actually not the first editor to use it. It had been used by an editor on the "Susan Collins" page. I helped to edit their description, which did not include the numbers exactly right, and checked out the scores. It appeared to be a good source, and I had heard of them before. CNN even featured their ratings.^[1] I would say they are at least as notable as the Americans for Democratic Action and American Conservative Union. In fact, I am hoping to add those as well for the relevant sections. I also think ProjectVoteSmart is a good notable source. I hope you can help me on those as well if you see any of those editions pop up. Again, thank you for your message!

Sincerely, SeminarianJohn (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Happy Holidays!

Dear SeminarianJohn, I thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have noticed that you are very active and are doing your best to improve Wikipedia, which is what it relies on, member contributions. I have noticed that you have changed the information on statistics for mainline protestant denominations. First, I noticed that you have frequently used World Council of Churches statistics, I would ask you to refrain from using those as they are horribly out of date (they were last updated in 2005). I have also noticed that you have often conflated the number of adherents with the number of members. The convention on Wikipedia is to use the official membership numbers of the denominations, as they are usually the most current and the most accurate (there are of course exceptions to this). The self reported number of members usually already includes inactive members, which I had seen was often your motivation for posting adherent numbers. Thanks for your cooperation and happy editing! 1517today (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for messaging me. I added a talk section under the ACoC article for discussion on the sources, and I also responded on your user talk page as well. Thanks for the chat.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 21:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi SeminarianJohn, and thanks for your contributions! I see you've been around for a while, but just in case you weren't aware, there are special administrative restrictions in effect in the area of U.S. politics, and since I see you have edited some articles of that type, you should know about them. This is something that everybody editing in this area is supposed to get, it's nothing to do with past edits of yours, so all is good. There is a requirement to display the exact wording, so rather than say it in my own words, I'll include it using the template, below. Again, thanks for your edits, and feel free to contact me anytime. Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this! It does help to keep up to date. I appreciate it and your kind words too.SeminarianJohn (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

For your information, "blessed to" is Orthodox jargon (and by "jargon" I am implying it's inappropriate for use on Wikipedia) for "given permission to" or "given a dispensation for". I agree with your removing it because of what it appeared to mean to you, and would mean to most readers; while I suppose that the original sense should be restored, I personally have bigger fish to drown that to edit that at the moment. Thanks, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

On wikipedia, 'jargon,' 'insider language,'are not employed. As wikipedia is an encyclopedia, encyclopedic writing style is used. Thank you for acknowledging that the dictionary definition of blessed is what would be understood to most readers. There are rules and standards on wikipedia and those are followed, including when other editors revise or edit my edits when a compliance or wordage issues is needed. It is nothing personal, and I regret that it appears you took this personally. If you have any doubts, please peruse wikipedia's articles and policies on the use of neutral language per encyclopedic writing styles, and feel free to start a Talk section in the article. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Additionally, it is already appropriately noted in the section on liturgics that the Western Rite uses the term 'blessed' in relation to authorization. Therefore, the concern that this terminology needs to be addressed is already accounted for and is not needed in the summarized intro. Any further discussion should take place on a Talk page, thank you and be well in this time. SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You have totally misunderstood my comment! You *removed* jargon, and I'm pleased; however, I don't think you were aware that you had done so.

Note that I wrote '(and by "jargon" I am implying it's inappropriate for use on Wikipedia).' Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the tone of the message. I retract my concern that it was intended to be snide. I misunderstood your phrase about drowning fish. I certainly don't want to be a drowned fish, my friend! Thank you and thank you for correcting my understanding of your tone. SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You are most welcome! And I should not have used my mangled idiom for "have bigger fish to fry". Although I've now spent far more time replying here than correcting the matter, what I should have done is used, say, "permitted" to recapture the meaning lost by your edits, and perhaps I shall.

Many articles about Eastern Orthodox matters are flooded with jargon, much of which I've removed over the years. It behooves me to identify the most frequent offending words and idioms and write about the matter for WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you edited under other accounts? Do you have an affiliation with other Wikipedia accounts? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No. This is my only account (and has been). Why do you ask?SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You have no affiliation with the accounts Sarah Dinner and Renamed user 8j-Z%nKkVr? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, and I am not familiar with those users or their contributions. Can you share why you ask?SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Just looked them up with the links you provided. I am not familiar with them.SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you take the time to explain why you ask though. I responded to your page as well. I reviewed the edits made by the users following the links you provided, and it appears one of them did edit a date on my userpage (which seems inapppropriate given it is not their page, and please share how to report that if you know how) in 2018, but they never left any notice on my TalkPage or interacted.SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked because there is a strong similarity in the types of edits all three accounts do: rankings and ratings about the purported bipartisanship and centrism of various congressional representatives. This also includes an inexplicable edit by one of those accounts on your userpage. It's beyond me why an account with so few edits would edit your userpage after a two-year hiatus (just before an editing spree). What could have happened is that someone controlling both accounts mixed them up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

On another note, because you have been editing much longer than I have, can you share how to report someone editing your account? I am bit concerned about that; it seems they just edited a date, but even so someone should not be editing my userpage.SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There is not really a lot of similarity between myself and their writing styles. That edit was certainly odd but it was not after a 'hiatus,' to my knowledge anyway; it looks like they did that in 2018 which was when they disappeared. I also write in Spanish and Romanian (something you can see if you look at my full history) and I doubt those users do or even speak those languages. I hope that you are not allowing disagreements over content to spill over into a personal animus. I am a tad concerned you are trying to unfairly imply something here. I hope that is not true and remain open to the possibility that there is no ill-will here.SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

And, yes, I looked again. Check the dates. That account was active in 2018 and made an edit to my date (again without my permission, I can only assume they thought they were doing me a favor but that is still not okay) but was very active in 2018. It was not after "after a two-year hiatus" as you stated. Please, do not allow legitimate disagreements over content to become a personal animus. I don't have one and I hope you don't either. Like I said, I doubt the other users happen to edit in both Spanish and Romanian! Kind of a unique thing that is uncommon. Hope you're doing well.SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, please do not ask these questions here or make claims here. If you have concerns, follow a legitimate process. Thank you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

John!

I just undid your edits at Universal Life Church, but because I undid it in to steps, it's not going to show up with the usual alert to notify you that it was undone. As such, I thought I'd leave you a note, and while I was at it, explain why it was done.

1. I first removed the last reference, because it wasn't about the Modesto-based Universal Life Church, which is what this article is about. The group that was suing Tennessee was the ULC Monastery, which is a bit of a spin-off group and is separate. This is a common problem, a lot of people see ULC Monastery and assume that it's the same group (particularly since through much of the article you cited, it referred to them simply as ULC.)
2. Your addition said that it was compared to "diploma mills", in quotes... but that quoted term appeared in none of the sources (with the caveat that I'm going off of the Google Books version of the 60 Minutes book, which doesn't have all of the pages of that article; if you're working from the book itself, you may have that phrase.) The Irish Times source referred to "degree mill", and I might have just edited it to that, if it wasn't for...
3. The base of your statement was that ULC was being criticized; the 60 Minutes section seemed praiseful of them as an operation, and the Irish Times piece is just a listing of online divination providers, and calling it criticism is reading into it.

You may have some useful information on ULC, it's just that as phrased and sourced, what you put down didn't hold up. Don't let that discourage you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your reasoning. I will revisit it as well. I think it being referred to by a reputable source as a "degree mill" is criticism. I have never heard of that designation being positive. As for the book, published by Simon and Schuster, it was hardly praiseful. I guess I can quote Hensely himself but he referred to his own operation as a scam... That said, you share valid reasons for continued work and finding the right clarifications. I will set to it.SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times stuff you added is good, but the Irish Times material remain problematic. The first piece refers to ULC degrees as cheap and fun; it's hard to see that as criticism. The other two pieces are actually a single piece, with the second being clearly a sidebar for the former (they're both on the same date, and the second is clearly a listing of contact information for things discussed in the first.) And in those, it's not the Irish Times saying that ULC is a degree mill, they're quoting someone else... and even then, he's not even specifically saying that it's a degree mill, but is the grandfather of them. (My grampa, Meyer Gertler, was the grandfather of several authors, but he wasn't an author himself. He sold boys' shirts.) If you want to get anything from that, it would probably have to be the grandfather quote attributed not to the Times, who published it, but to the individual they are quoting. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe they were different dates, but that is something we can easily check. I believe one was 1999 and was 1998 unless I really saw one of the years incorrectly (and hey maybe I did I'm not trying to argue with you here :) ). I think given the context it is hard to see how the Irish Times is not criticizing it, given that the Irish Times refers to the ULC DD as a degree mill. However, I am an editor who knows that this in the end is not about my opinion or so and so's opinion but about what is accurate and consistent. How do you feel about deleting the Irish Times refs and just going with the NY Times that we have consensus on?SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Both "Male-only to mail-order..." and "Online orders" were dated Apr 27, 1999, and the way the latter was written, it was pretty clearly not an article unto itself. But yes, I'm find with leaving the NYT in place as long as the IT material is gone. Be well! --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you meant now. I was thinking of the two full IT but yes you are correct that the short one and the article were the same date. I am glad we have come to an agreement and I have appreciated this conversation. Be well too!SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

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

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

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

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

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

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar is under a 1RR (one revert per 24 hours rule). I highly recommend self-reverting your recent edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the notice. I did not revert and I did not add anything that was not in the RS or that had not been reached by consensus. I think you will find that there are editors making personal attacks and who seem to have a connection against NPOV. Thank you for your consideration. SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your first edit today restored the dollar amount, despite it previously being removed. That was your first reversion. Your second edit today re-added the amount after an intervening removal. I am happy to explain further, or answer follow-up questions, but I'll emphasize that without self-reversion you may face a block (not by me, I'm not an admin). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I see you self-reverted. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I reverted on the related areas. The only one I did not revert was where I added their rationale for their vote on the Infrastructure bill itself. I thought that feedback should be included (setting the personal animus I believe I have received for some reason (again, not by you I understand you are simply informing me of the rules here), and there is a history of some editors trying to push their own control over articles at the expense of objective factual information that is NPOV and RS. For example, I was once accused of having a sock pocket and that was found to be false. So, I ask you please review those editors' histories and how they are behaving. Thank you again and as you are much much more knowledgeable about the rules, I think you would be far better to examine that than I.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I notice you have added "which included $1.2 trillion in spending" etc to a number of politicians' biographies, where it is not highly relevant. You are edit warring to keep this addition in the articles, with highly aggressive edit summaries. This is tendentious editing as well as uncollaborative. Stop it or you may be banned from editing biographies. Bishonen | tålk 19:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

I will revert any recent additions; though, I will draw attention to that I experienced those reverts as vandalism and please note the personal attacks. I do not believe I made any hostile comments in my edit summaries. However, that is subjective I suppose and so I will recuse myself from any further edits. However, I ask, please, that you review the material and the personal attacks made by some editors. Thank you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Basically all the personal attacks in the relevant discussions are coming from you. --JBL (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you share where that is? I definitely disagree about that. And, I think relevant editors can see the difference in behavior given that I did not remove anyone else's material, only added, and I did not use revert, and when it became clear some feel very very strongly about what I thought was clearly RS, I self-reverted. I will let that speak for itself. Thank you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

JBL, Bishonen shared my edit summaries and reading them again, outside of the emotional moment, I can see that they were not gracious to all editors, and by being vague they can be read as attacks on more than one person. That was a mistake. I did not intend them as attacks nor did I experience them that way, however, what is important is that is how they were experienced by editors with whom I had not prior conflict. I apologise for that. What I would ask please, is that you look at where an editor referred to my initial contribution as "weasel words." I was hurt by that and experienced that personally as it assumes bad faith and I felt attacked. I intentionally did not undo or erase what they had added though because I thought it did improve the article and I added that improvement to the wiki-linked Infrastructure bill. I should have started a talk section first rather than editing again. I did not know that re-wording constituted the same as a revert per the 1RR rule. Knowing that, I will be very cautious of that. I apologise that you felt attacked. I did not want to do that but what matters is that is how you experienced it. Please, forgive me. SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism? Really? You'd better have a read of WP:VAND, especially WP:NOTVANDALISM. Not everything that's factual and sourced belongs in an article; it also needs to be relevant there. An edit summary such as this is completely inappropriate. Comment on content, not on the contributor, as the policy against personal attacks says. So is this edit summary. AFAICS, you're the one instigating an edit war, and you're certainly the only editor violating the 1RR restriction. I'm glad you have been self-reverting, but you're still being very aggressive. Can you share where the personal attacks from the other people are? Bishonen | tålk 19:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. I think that I made sure others' feedback was included in other articles can speak for itself. And, while I disagree with you, you will notice that I decided to self-revert on other articles as well where what I thought was normal information could be an issue. Also, yes, I can. So, if you go to the article for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an editor said this in reference to my addition. I suppose adding new content from a big vote carries that misfortune that someone will become upset, but wording can be edited without assuming bad faith and making, ironically, aspersions against another editor. "tone done weasel words and aspersions cast, give the stated reason, not against infrastructure but a stand against removing BBB "Progressive Democrats had revolted anew on Friday, with many insisting that they could not back the measure without a vote on the social welfare bill."" And JBL made this edit summary specifically about me as well "Undid revision 1055489730 by SeminarianJohn (talk) many things are significant to the legislation but your obnoxious edit summary doesn't explain why it's significant *to Ilhan Omar* who is, after all, the subject of this article::: In another article, Zaathar reverted without adding an edit summary." They specifically addressed that to me and since the edit summaries, yes mine included, need to be about the content that applies to all of us.

I do not really know how else to share how I am experiencing those discussions other than to point out that I have done as you asked out of respect for what you shared and because how I experience it is clearly not how someone else is experiencing it. And, where I experienced hostility and a personal attack, someone else is feeling that way now. I don't want that and if someone else is feeling attacked I definitely respect that. SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I only meant to say that I felt editors were making personal attacks. However, you are correct that in saying "editors" I too was not focusing on content. I was not thinking that, and I apologize for that. I will definitely be more cautious in how I word something when I am experiencing hurt over what I felt was a personal attack. Also, I did not revert anyone's work. I think it is unfair to say I intentionally violated any 1RR rule which I read. Knowing you cannot edit the same specific sentence/paragraph, I will remember that.SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And, specifically, this is what I added to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act wiki-link because I thought much of the re-wording was an improvement. "added information that has been included, by consensus, on related articles for the six Democrats who voted no. They voted 'no' and stated their opposition was due to the bill being decoupled from the social safety-net provisions of the Build Back Better bill. Adding this to add the clarification that is on their articles per consensus from some editors."SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You clearly didn't understand the 1RR rule if you think it's unfair to say you violated it. Edit warring to add something is no better than edit warring to 'remove someone's work' (and the 3RR rule is just the same in this respect). I have trouble finding the 'attacks' you refer to re the AOC article. You don't seem to be using quote marks in a logical way. Which bits are the attacks, and where are they? Do you know how to create diffs? I know these technicalities can be intimidating, but the Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide explains it in a simple way, I like to think. Knowing how to do that would make your Wikipedia life easier. Anyway, thank you for reacting so well to my warning. Bishonen | tålk 03:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

Thank you for your last comment. I appreciate that. Because you know about the technical process and rules, and I am not as familiar as yourself, I did what you said I should do.

No, I did not understand it at the time. That is correct. I didn't say it is unfair to say I violated it. I said I think it is unfair to imply, not necessarily you as I am speaking generally here, that I intentionally violated it. I did not and that is why when I received the notification I self-reverted including on one article that I had not done more than 1RR. It was not my intent to do any 'revert,' even one, that fell under the policy restriction. As for diffs, personally, I have not had many instances where I have had to use them. However, I will take a look at the link you sent me. I do not know what you mean by not using the quotes in a logical way, but these are the two comments I am referring to:

a) Jesse Rafe "tone done weasel words and aspersions cast, give the stated reason, not against infrastructure but a stand against removing BBB "Progressive Democrats had revolted anew on Friday, with many insisting that they could not back the measure without a vote on the social welfare bill."

b) JBL "Undid revision 1055489730 by SeminarianJohn (talk) many things are significant to the legislation but your obnoxious edit summary doesn't explain why it's significant *to Ilhan Omar* who is, after all, the subject of this article"

Again, thank you for taking the time to respond and I appreciate your last comment. And, I think I will just sit out some of the more tedious editing for a while until I familiarize myself with more of the terms. Thank you for the link on diffs.SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hope these are the correct links for diffs. Both edit summary comments that made a derogatory remark about me were in the Ilhan Omar "View History." Neither focused only on the content but made commentary about me. from JBL , from Jesse Rafe Thank you again. I know I shared the quotes but I am trying the links (diffs? I hope I am doing that right) you suggested. SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Right. Well, you know, calling your edit summary "obnoxious" is kind of personal, I agree, but it's still not like calling you obnoxious. And it's nothing like dragging up an individual's history by writing "A user, who had been given a 6 month ban on post-1932 politics for misuse" in an edit summary, yet. That's really unnecessary. I don't agree about the other edit summary — "weasel words" and "casting aspersions" are much-used Wikipedia jargon, which refer to content, not individuals. ("Weasel words" has its own MOS section, MOS:WEASEL, and "casting aspersions" has an information page.) As for your links, they did the job this time, as they included the edit summaries in question, but, well, they're not real diffs, and won't do the job when you're talking about text that was added to the page. Compare these diffs: , . I got those by clicking "prev" in the history. I think you probably got yours, which are whole versions of the page, by clicking the date. Bishonen | tålk 07:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

Thank you for understanding and for explaining some other aspects such as jargon. I misread the intent if that was their case. And, yes, as I said above you are right. I should not have made a reference to someone's previous ban. Overall, I thank you for understanding and for giving me the benefit of the doubt (meaning the opportunity to fix my errors and apologise for those errors) after you gave your warning. And, I will keep practice those diffs then. I am not used to that! Thanks again. SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Le Marteau. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Presbyterian Church in America ‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Le Marteau (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not add any new content. I changed the verb tense for a statement that dated back to 1995 per the cited source. I changed "is" to "was." However, to clarify why for those who did not read/check the cited source for its date, I have now changed it to read that "In 1995, the PCA was..." That was 27 years ago. SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RS is specifically the guidance that applies here. "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." - Wikipedia:RSSeminarianJohn (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

For the interested reader, I have replied to John's criticism of my actions on my talk page, where he has duplicated this effort. Le Marteau (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RS regarding "Age matters" in relation to the RS is not any criticism of you. While I thank you for inviting me earlier to address this on your talk page, your reaction both in your revert and here are wholly inappropriate. Referring to changing "is" to "was" (since 1995 is in the past, 27 years in the past) is not "ham-fisted." The claim should honestly not have even been there since it reads more like an advertisement (as other editors noted in the article's talk page). However, I avoid wading into that debate which is why I chose to merely correct the tense. 1995 is not the present and therefore the Wikipedia:RS guidance clearly and uncontroversially applies. There was literally no change to what was attributed in the cited source, the book published in 1995. Have a happy holiday season. SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you PLEASE keep the discussion about our dispute on one page? Please? Le Marteau (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no intent on arguing over verb tense when something was in 1995 and I do not know why that upset you so. You invited me to share on your page. I added what I said here in case readers see my talk page and know that I did take the time to respond to you. Have happy holidays. SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The question of verb tense is now moot, since you have added the date of the assertion in question, the issue went away; thank you for that. The paragraph is fine now, does not depend on primary sources, and now properly reflects the purport of the sources. Le Marteau (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Le Marteau. I hope you have a happy season. This is my favorite time of the year. :) SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Stroness. Your recent edit(s) to the page Church of Scotland appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stroness (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that it was not the census results.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem.Stroness (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @SeminarianJohn. This is a request for help, not a criticism. I have been focussing lately on the ordination of women in the Anglican Church in Australia. There are many articles related to this topic I have been working on. I noticed a citation source sometimes used that is related to women priests and LGBT people in the church. It is a personal blog of an Anglican priest who villifies women priests and LGBT people and allows nasty comments on his blog against those people. I don't want to mention the name of the blog here. I am going through some articles to remove this source as it does not meet Wikipedia reference standards especially for statements about living people. See WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPREMOVE. It is difficult to work out from the history of an article which editor is using the blog as a source, but from what I can see in the history of the article Anglican Church of Australia, it looks like you may have used the blog as a source in the Same-sex unions and LGBT clergy section at ref numbers 87 and 92. If you are the editor who has used this source, I want to alert you to the action I might take in deleting the citation and asking for another or removing the sentences referred to by the citation. I don't want to see this nasty personal blog used on Wikipedia as a source, especially for living people. If it was you who added these sentences and this source to the article, could you please delete the citation and add a different, more neutral one or remove the sentences? You can also suggest other ways we can handle this. LPascal (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@LPascal Thank you for the message.I don't know which blog you are referring to, and that is okay that you do not want to share it, and if at some point I used a personal blog that may have been a mistake. Perhaps, I did not realize it was a personal blog. If it is, of course, I support removing it especially if this blog is used to vilify people and therefore is not credible. Thank you for asking me to also take a look. I appreciate it your request to work with you on it. SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I saw one of the references and identified the blog. I updated with the Church Times. SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @SeminarianJohn. I have now gone through all the citations on Anglican Church of Australia and deleted a few more citations. They were all from the offensive personal blog or another site which just re-publishes articles from the blog. You will see from the edit history the names of the two sites I have deleted as sources, so I hope you are able to avoid using them in future. I know you didn't realise the nature of this source if you did use it previously. I will be going through other articles as well and deleting those sources. Sorry if I do that to other articles you have worked on, but not sorry I am removing links to a personal attack blog. Thanks for looking at this. Go well. LPascal (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please obey WP:RS/AC, see also WP:FRINGE. Mainstream historians decide what amounts to historical fact, not theologians. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There was absolutely nothing in my edit to suggest otherwise. However, the name of the author should be given. One book does not amount a consensus and I read the book cited and it does not provide the list of scholars. The text looks excellent, but it is only one book. You must also follow WP:CON WP:CONS. Thank you. SeminarianJohn (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I also do want to be clear I will report you to the admins if you engage in an edit war when my edit was both simple and straight from the cited text in complete compliance with WP standards. Have a good day. SeminarianJohn (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that you review WP:THREATEN. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not mean that as a 'threat'. I simply meant that I will notify you of a discussion/report as you did. Your comment on my page is way out of the simple edit I made merely naming the author. You did not follow WP:AGF and were very aggressive. It gave me concern. Have a good day. SeminarianJohn (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:CON is about the consensus of Wikipedia editors. WP:RS/AC is about the consensus of scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please, do not post any further on my talk page. Thank you. SeminarianJohn (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I just want to make sure someone updates what happened at the General Conference in the 2020-2023 section. Since it said the 2020 General Conference was postponed, I felt that section should say something. But my contribution was mostly a prediction and not the final result.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

··Thank you, friend. I am also checking in on it and planning to update the article for outdated information. Thanks for including me and for helping! SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I see you added the most recent votes to the sexuality section but I still don't know what needs to be done in the 2020-2023 section. I found some places where present tense was used when the events have now happened, and I made sure the final paragraph said the General Conference was the first one since the delay in 2020 when I found a source. I feel like the section needs some sort of final statement now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you should have removed so much information. I think the history of changing views should still be there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the history is there. What I removed was related to the previous bans most of which used present tense language and was applicable only during that time. However, if you'd like to add things back, this is an open forum for collaboration. I am not opposed to history and tried to leave the core history there as well. SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article as it stands now, you probably made the right choices. I did see one fix you missed and I'll get to that, but it's possible the history belongs in Homosexuality and Methodism. Take a look at these edits. I'm pretty sure I've made a mess of what's there. I was relieved to discover a duplicate section, because of a reference error message, after I made the first edit, so that information was there to begin with.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me too. I was just thinking about how the page "Homosexuality and Methodism" has a lot of the history.SeminarianJohn (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Some people have made changes in that article. Hopefully the result will be good and everything will still be there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to edit the lead, but my computer kept freezing. So anything that could be removed from the article needed to be. It's too long.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Byzantine Christianity. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ordination of women, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Byzantine Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello SeminarianJohn. I would like to see you with a question about the article on the Anglican Communion, which we both intend to keep up to date. I have learned to do more research since we last spoke. I generally use the most recent year's data in all the tables I am updating (I recently updated the WCRC, WLF, WMC, DECC and others protestants world communions). Several churches are growing and I am adding their new statistics, but unfortunately others are declining and I am updating them as well.

In the case of the Anglican Church of Australia, you or another editor added the number 4,865,328, putting it as 2016. However, that number was actually published in [ https://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/8978/1/LLF%20Report%20for%20NSG.pdf 2001] (24 years ago). The source you mention, from 2016, does not report a new statistic, but rather an old one, originally published in 2001. The Australian Census is super detailed, allowing people to choose the specific denomination within Christianity with which they identify. The most recent Census, from 2021 (only 4 years ago) reported 2,496,273 Anglicans in the country. Therefore, I think it is inappropriate to leave both numbers for the Church of Australia, since they differ by 20 years. In this case, only the Census statistic is recent. What do you think?

A similar situation can be applied to the number of members of the Anglican Church of New Zealand. The number 459,711 was added to the article, with reference to the church's website, archived in 2019. However, this number is the actual number released by the 2013 New Zealand Census (12 years ago). Therefore, the church website did not report any original statistics, but rather those from the Census. However, there have been 2 new censuses since then. The 2023 Census reported 245,301 Anglicans. Therefore, there is a 10-year difference between the numbers from these 2 censuses, and they are all from the same original source (the national census). Therefore, I believe that it does not make sense to keep the numbers from an old census if we have the new census, don't you think?

For some churches, we really don't have recent data, so we should keep the old ones. But for these two, we have data from 2 and 4 years ago, from the national censuses. Don't you think it would be better to just keep the census numbers? Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi friend, thank you for posting this! I will need to take some time to read more thoroughly through your reply here. I do know the Australian number given in the study was not from the census as the number does not correspond to the census year. However, I do agree that the numbers posted should definitely reflect the, probably inflated, claim by the Church of Australia while also keeping up-to-date with the census and the number of people who actually actively identify as Anglican. I really appreciate the way in which you have organized the statistics in the "lower estimate" which probably reflects the number of baptized Anglicans who are actually active with the "upper estimate" which are the number of baptized persons claimed by the churches themselves.

Give me a day or two to read through these. Thank you! SeminarianJohn (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, Daniel, I like the work you have done for the article on the Anglican Communion. I think that keeping the numbers given by the denominations is fair, given that other articles are also reporting the self-reported memberships, but I also think your contributions to identify the number of active Anglicans is a huge benefit to the quality of the article. It shows that while the Anglican Communion's churches claim, altogether, over 100 million members, the number of actively self-identified Anglicans is closer to 60 million. That is information that would be useful for all denominations, including others like the Catholic and Orthodox who typically report all baptized members regardless of whether they are active or not. SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello dear SeminarianJohn! I agree with keeping self-reported numbers. However, I believe that, unfortunately, you misunderstood my previous message.

My suggestion is not to remove self-reported numbers, but rather outdated numbers.

The Roman Catholic Church publishes an annual report of membership numbers. The same is done by several denominations.

The Anglican Church of Australia, however, has not released membership numbers since 2001. Therefore, the number 4,865,328 is 25 years out of date. The 2023 Census number is the only up-to-date number we have.

The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia also does not release its own statistics. The number of 459,711 listed on its website is from the 2013 Census, not from its own report. And the 2023 Census, 10 years more recent, reported 245,301 members.

If the Catholic Church stopped releasing annual statistics, like these two Anglican provinces, 25 years later, only independent sources would be updated sources.

I have no problem with self-reported numbers. I'm just saying that these two churches have not provided their own numbers in over 25 years. In that time, several new members have been baptized and several long-time members have died.

Numbers from 25 years ago do not reflect reality. 25 years ago, the Presbyterian Church (USA) had 2.5 million members. Today it is almost down to 1 million. 25 years ago, the Presbyterian Church in Rwanda reported 120,000 members. Today, it claims 1.6 million members.

In other words, in 25 years, a denomination may have lost 60% of its membership or multiplied by 13.

Do you understand my reasoning? Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I do, and I think that the way the statistics are organized at this time is adequate. I think it is well balanced with both the lower estimates that you have carefully catalogues and the upper estimates often provided by the denominations themselves. 2016 is not yet 10 years ago. Numbers provided by denominations in a peer-reviewed study that was published in 2016 is still relevant. Peer-reviewed studies from academic journals from libraries like JSTOR and Cambridge University Press carry more weight than even reliable news publications.

A good reason for keeping the status quo, and the range provided that gives the lower and upper estimates accurately, is to refer again to the PC(USA) example. The PC(USA) only reports active members who are confirmed. Their reporting no longer includes inactive members nor baptized members who are not confirmed. For example, the last statistics provided for inactive members and baptized members not confirmed was around 2006-08 and there were 818,000 of them. Some denominations report all baptized members (including inactive), some report both figures, and some only report active members (like the PCUSA). Therefore, it is accurate and I think appropriate to include both and state that there is a range.

To sum that up, I agree with the edits you have made most recently and I think the range provided, from the lower estimate that tends to capture only the active members to the upper estimate that tends to reflect the churches' own self-reported numbers, is helpful. I think the Anglican Communion article for example is of high quality because of this catalogued and carefully cited range.SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. I reverted an edit of yours on the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy page because it was sourced to a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and contentious claims like this one need to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. Once we have secondary coverage of this purported split (believe me, I see all the social media chatter; more clarity is needed from a secondary source), we can cover it on Wikipedia. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have no objection to that process. Thank you for messaging me. SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SeminarianJohn! I started a discussion on the discussion page of the article List of the largest Protestant denominations and marked your name. I believe it is of interest to you to discuss what is the largest Protestant communion in the world. I will await your collaboration. I believe we can reach a consensus on the matter. Thank you very much in advance. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I never replied here @Daniel Silva Mendanha Thank you for including me!SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)