Talk:Alexandrina of Balazar

message: Please read my article. If you like, correct and put it in due place. If you don't like, delete all. Thank you. J.F.
2018: Shouldn't exist clear medical evidence to make this an interesting / useful article??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:1340:3FC:9CD3:F302:41F6:D4D3 (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I changed the fact that Pius XII was contacted by her bishop, given that Pius XII became pope in 1939. However, it is clear that the bishop wrote to Pius XI in 1938. But, is there any evidence (beside her website which is not WP:RS) that Pius XII was influenced by that letter to Pius XI to consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart? If so, please provide it, else it will have to be assumed to be guesswork and speculation. 
The Vatican biography specifically states that Jesus spoke to her, but there is no mention of a Marian apparition. Is there a WP:RS reference for a Marian apparition? Thanks.History2007 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pius XI or XII

message: please justify the text and additional links you wish to add to the article. Those do not look like WP:RS to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe take a step back? You're restoring random fansites like . Theres no chance in hell thats a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Also note that none of sources in the "further reading" section which you've restored are WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

text: The restored external links are equally perplexing, what is the point of linking to the Italian translation of her autobiography? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish to add? You came in as I was editing text, removed lots of sources and book and external information that has been there for many years within minutes, I would guess you didn't read them all but just removed them. So please don't use language like that, I was just restoring what was there - come on, you didn't read them. Not going to interact on this right now, later, as it seems a full discussion and all kinds of WP stuff to go through. Hopefully others watch this page. This is a very well known person and moved popes and all to act on her wishes, not a guy who came to bat once for the Boston Braves or something. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed the sources back on the 12th when I determined that none of them counted for notability purposes. Did you review them before restoring them? It took me well over an hour to review them the first time, hard to imagine you did it in a few moments. I would at least think that the fansite doesn't resist more than ten seconds of scrutiny, its clearly not a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

text:  are you planning to interact with this discussion today? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Was waiting to see if anyone else chimed in. Maybe this should also be presented to the Article Rescue Squad. Which external link is the fan club? The sources have been there for years and probably have educated many readers, I don't have the books, etc. so can't check them. You found no sources that you think are notable? Randy Kryn (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is in my comments above, alexandrinabalasar.free.fr (technically there are actually two, but we use http://www.blessed-alexandrina.com/ only once unlike .free which we use repeatedly). Genuinely none of the sources we currently have now contribute to notability. Just check out the further reading section, you won't need more than a minute a piece to determine that they're about as far from a WP:RS as its possible to get. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

text:  if you're worried about me winnowing down the article and then nominating it for deletion don't be, I find its best practice to let the notability tag sit for at least the better part of a decade before proposing an article about a long dead historical figure be deleted. You can search my history at AfD, I just don't regularly bring articles there even though I regularly tag articles for notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reassurance. Yes, on pages where tags go up and lots of sources are quickly removed I do have a concern that they are being primed for an AfD. On the additional reading list, are Amazon links not allowed? All the books look interesting and on topic but I have not come close to memorizing the entire MOS and the subtle ins and outs. Some of the external links seem fine, although the one you pointed out I could see contains lots of data but didn't stick around long enough to read how much (I don't like clicking and hanging around most sites as the bots and cookies load - even the now advertising-ridded Britannica). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the books, they're religious fan-fiction or biographies by non-experts. Interesting and on topic isn't the standard, WP:RS is. If you don't like clicking and hanging around most sites then perhaps you should avoid adding sources you can't verify to a page as you did here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Books on topic would be a standard for 'Further reading' per common sense and WP:FURTHER, they are not being used as sources but are pointed to as further existing information which may interest readers (Amazon links are accepted? I wasn't clear on that). As explained, I reverted your quick mass edits of sources, further reading, and external links which have been on the page for years, not "added sources" - they'd already been added and you removed them en masse, and on a quick look almost all seemed relevent. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: When you restore something you take full ownership of it, so yes *you* added it. If you aren't willing to be a responsible editor you need to cut back on editing. Books which are reliable sources on a topic are a standard for further reading, it does the reader a disservice to point them to non-WP:RS besides for the organizations page. Again "relevent" is not the standard for sources, WP:RS is. Do NOT restore sources removed by a good faith editor without evaluating them for reliability even if they appear relevant. Thats disruptive editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Further reading' sections do not seem to be covered by WP:RS as they are not considered sources. WP:FURTHER covers them. Do you differ on this (if not, please consider not labeling future edits from Further reading sections as not RS compliant). Your criticism and claims of disruptive editing are fine in nitpicking, but please note that when many years old entries are removed en masse then you should expect concern, talk page analysis, and questioning. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  These aren't links to the sources as covered by WP:FURTHER, they're links to Amazon where the source can be bought. They serve absolutely no encyclopedic purpose and per WP:ELNO should not be used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

text:   I still object to those books, note that the objection is based just as much on what the books are as where they're hosted... They just aren't due because they aren't WP:RS and they won't help the reader. Linking to fan-fiction just isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Added back and removed Amazon links in recognition of the talk page discussion at external links. Now there is a larger problem, by calling the books 'fan-fiction' you are saying that the books and the topic are fiction, showing a clear bias against the topic. Maybe you shouldn't be editing these types of topics per this clear bias. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: By your own admission you've refused to review these books because you're scared of cookies, how do you know what is and isn't in them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I read all the Amazon links. These were not written or listed as fiction. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Review the actual sources, then get back to us with why you think these books should be used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration