User talk:Ptikhon

This is Ptikhon's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Council of Constantinople (1583) (October 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Council of Constantinople (1583) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ptikhon! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Second Vatican Council, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I am new to editing Wikipedia, but I don't see which sources I cited which are considered unreliable. Many of them were the same sources from articles linked about those subjects, so if the sources I gave are bad it would seem to suggest that those other articles are also citing bad sources. Could you explain what precisely the problem was? Ptikhon (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, the Marcel Lefebvre biography would not be neutral, the citation you gave for the Bella Dodd quote in your first edit did not support the quoted text, and AA-1025 is not reliable (see Marie Carré's article). Also, the inclusion of those sections would seem to violate WP:UNDUE, giving undue weight and presentation to fairly minority fringe opinions. User:Veverve, who reverted your first edit, may also have more to say. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if I am citing for a section on controversies, I would think that it's inherently a non-neutral topic? I'm not a Sedevacantist, I don't agree with the stuff I cited, so i realize that AA-1025 is unreliable. But I don't see why that means it shouldnt be included? It's on a section about controversies, so it makes sense its reliability is controversial. Could it be added as a citation/source if there is mention of it being unreliable? These sources are used in the articles for Bella Dodd, Marie Carré, etc, so are those articles badly cited and in need of editing or are you saying the context here changes it? And I don't see why the opinions cited are any more fringe than the already cited section on Sedevacantism and sedeprivationism, highly fringe positions. Marie Carré, Lefebvre, AA-1025, etc, are things commonly referenced by Sedevacantists and in their books as arguments for the invalidity of Vatican II, and are also used by traditionalist Catholics as evidence of it being infiltrated even if they dont call it invalid. Ptikhon (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]