Hello, Octavius1981, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.
Hello, Octavius1981, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, DoubleGrazing, left the following feedback:
provide significant coverage: discuss the event in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
show lasting significance: analysis published after the initial breaking news has passed, showing historical impact;
are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
are independent: not connected to the event, such as press releases, the event or organizers own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all four of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.
I won't call this outright a hoax, but I will say that to qualify for an encyclopaedia article, we need considerably better sources than hear-say and supposition.
I resubmitted it, including about a dozen "reliable sources," 5 of which were Washington Post articles, and significantly reworded the plagiarized copyright-violation-paragraph.Octavius1981 (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Octavius1981!
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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia and copyright
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Octavius1981! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Absurdum4242, left the following feedback:
This draft is not written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:
Rejected for a couple of reasons - first is the lack of neutral POV and encyclopedic tone. The current form of the article asserts that these are supernatural events which occurred, which fails the neutral POV test - it needs to be rewritten to describe what was reported, without taking a position on whether these were genuine miracles or not. In addition, some of the references checked do not actually link to what the references claim - the citation to the U.S. News & World Report actually links to a YouTube video for example. Other sources are too short to be of use establishing notability.
Next steps
Edit Draft:Seton Miracles to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.
@Absurdum4242:, I have resubmitted it, but these are my responses to your objections, in case you care:
Complying Changes I made
🔘Neutral tone - I couched the word "supernatural" in acknowledgments of alternate interpretations (as "unexplained," "paranormal," "phenomena"), and coallesced this micro-debate into a separate section entitled "Reputed Miraculous Character," in which I acknowledge numerous opposing views.
🔘Encyclopedic tone - I have no idea what you're referring to, other than--perhaps--just Neutral P.O.V. You didn't specify what you meant, and I'd need at least 1 specific example of an error I made, as, I of course believe my own writing to be extremely "encyclopedic," in tone.
🔘Notability - After I first Submitted this Draft, back on 1 June 2026, @DoubleGrazing: also rejected it, on these very same Notability grounds, arguing that my "draft's references do not show that the event meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for events." And I made his required changes. I messaged him saying, "I resubmitted it, including about a dozen 'reliable sources,' 5 of which were Washington Post articles." But now you want to say the same thing? That's ABSURD: When you reviewed it, I then had 12 reliable sources (Newspaper-or-Magazine articles), across 5 years, including one from U.S. News & World Report. Now I've got 21, across 10 years, including additional ones from People Magazine, and others. I could get even more.
. . . But in fact, the topic doesn't need every single one of its cited sources to NOT be "too short to be of use establishing notability," so long as it has a good number of sources, which are good enough for establishing its Notability; . . . and currently standing at 21 reliable sources, this topic certainly does! Also, source-length obviously has nothing to do with the topic's Notability, so I wonder what you're even trying to say there.) In any case, I have compiled the OVERWHELMING evidence for the topic's Notability into its own section, entitled "Media Frenzy."
🔘Broken U.S. News & World Report citation-link - Didn't you bother to go to that link's "Youtube Video," and notice what was on the screen? It was a vague snapshot of the copyrighted Magazine-cover, which I can't display by any other means. So that link DID "actually link to what the references claim," as you wrongly said. Perhaps you want to argue that this is a copyright violation, but it certainly wasn't a broken link, as you wrongly alleged.
🔘Broken citation links in general - The problem was that I was trying to re-use citations over-&-over, when I really just needed to separate them out into multiple more discrete, separate citations. I have done that A LOT, and scrupulously checked the links in other ways, so I think you should find no problem with the links now.
It’s a shame you took it this way, and went on to accuse the next reviewer of bigotry, because it’s a pretty easy fix to get to NPOV. Reword the first part as something like “The Seton Miracles were a claimed example of miraculous weeping statues and stigmata, connected to…”, cut out the editorialising of the “Fr. Bruse and the parish’s lives returned to normal, and the reputation of the events was discarded, as if trivial or inconsequential” section (which is the part that was not an Encyclopedic tone, as well as not having a NPOV, as well as the extended Scalia quote, which is interesting, but not enclyopedic in nature - it reads more like an essay), and remove all the references to the AI narrated, and I’m honestly guessing AI written, self published YouTube video “documentary”, and the Catholic sex scandal conspiracy webpage which claims that the miracles were a supernatural warning of the upcoming Great Catholic Priest Abuse Crisis (an opinion which somehow didn’t make it into the reactions section of this article, despite being the same source for the Scalia quote), and it would be an relatively interesting article… Note too that the YouTube documentary and the conspiracy website are two of the main reasons you’re having notability problems - those should NOT be in the reference list, and are sucking the air out of the room for any more reasonable sources. Maybe add some context to why the church shut down the pilgrimage aspect by linking to the actual Catholic stance on “Private revelations” and how they differ from saintly miracles doctrinally… that sort of thing. I would genuinely like to see this article created, but it needs to be of a MUCH higher quality than it currently is, and taking that to heart is going to be the first step to getting it approved eventually. Absurdum4242 (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Sulfurboy, left the following feedback:
This draft is not written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Draft talk:Seton Miracles, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk07:58, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Warning
Latest comment: 2 days ago14 comments6 people in discussion
What are you talking about? When did I attack anyone? Quote my precise language, and I'll show you that it either (1) wasn't attacking at all, or (2) wasn't attacking THEM, but attacking their error. Octavius1981 (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
"accountability for Sulfurboy's blatant act of religious discrimination"
You say accusing an editor of vandalism is merely "attacking their error"? That's a new one to me.
Your sources that I see on the draft page are terrible, btw. Pointing out that Washington Post is a reliable source is hardly a genuine argument, since none of the articles from WaPo support the "miracles" as being real. Bishonen | tålk22:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC).Reply
🔘My Denial - No, I did not "accuse [him] of bigotry, both in the text and . . . header." Look at my precise language:
.......Headline: "NPOV Draft rejection amounted to nothing but religious bigotry."
.......Text: "to not do so would be religious WP:BIGOTRY,"
I only threatened to hypothetically accuse him of bigotry, and only actually accused his Draft-rejection of bigotry. True, the draft-rejection came from him. But even now I can only strongly suspect (but not know) that he's a bigot. For even now he COULD conceivably have some excuse, such as "psychological shutdown" for his failure, as my judge, to properly render to me my right-of-discussion-and-appeal. See? I wouldn't even accuse him of bigotry for saying something objectively bigotted (as he certainly did, see below). Oh no, on the contrary, I'd only accuse him of bigotry FOR WHAT HE DOESN'T DO. Only non-action would be equivalent to what we Americans most associate with bigotry, e.g, . . .
.......'White Flight' (where you DON'T live together),
.......Discriminatory hiring practices' (where you DON'T hire those qualified), and
.......'Profiling' (where you DON'T assume good faith).
......✅Mere rejection because the topic concerned the wrong religion, and therefore didn't conform to his own Atheistic religion.
See I was actually COURTEOUS to him, when I said: "Surely, you will avoid committing WP:BIGOTRY, by changing your standard-of-conduct, yes?" I could've gone-and-snapped at him, "You're a bigot," but--no--I MAGNANIMOUSLY invited him, with a wink & a smile to expand his horizons to include me. I waited for the flower to blossom; it hasn't yet blossomed, afaik.
🔘The real problem is that he's wrongly reading negative emotions into my capital letters. When I capitalize, I'm usually 😁laughing, but someone could wrongly imagine that I'm 😠growling. To quote WP:CIVIL, ". . . faceless written words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not fully transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, and can sometimes lead to misinterpretation of an editor's comments." That's why I pointed out, Bishonen, in the very paragraph that you find fault with, that Sulfurboy was (wrongly) "accusing me of accusing him of bigotry." I guess, neither you nor he caught that clue.
🔘The tyranny of meekness - See, Bishonen, there's a bigger issue here, that I suspect you're not aware of: Just because I use the emotion of capital letters in my dialogue, doesn't make me a wrongdoer in any way. Emotions/Passions aren't bad, aren't sins/vices/crimes/misbehaviors. Emotions/Passions are only bad, when they overpower what Right Reason knows is right. (The theological term for this is Concupiscence.) So the standard-of-behavior on Facebook should be utter conformity to Right Reason, NOT Puritanical elimination of ALL emotions, which is, IMO, the unreasonable standard that I feel a lot of editors seem to expect to be rendered to them. Any time someone uses any emotion, they throw a grenade, and go to pieces. But if a person has a very salient point, something that CRIES OUT to be heard, then they should be permitted more emotion, to a degree. It's a judgment-call: So much emotion as to rudely fall afoul of WP:CIVBRINE wouldn't be warrented, as that would exceed the measure called for by Right Reason. But neither would expectation that they meekly, humbly whisper their central, #1 argument; . . . because, . . . see, . . . emotions are GIANT clues, as to the relative 'weight' of an argument. Such selective weighting should be taken into account by readers, and personal talk-pages are the place for it. WP:CIVIL says that "an editor's talk page may have a more informal atmosphere than article talk pages." Indeed, I was on Sulfurboy's personal talk page, when he first got offended, and shut down.
🔘Where to go from here - The fact that he recoiled so strongly as to completely shut down, suggests that he understood me perfectly, and knew in his heart that I was correct, and that that thought was intolerable to him. Honestly, he probably just needs to perfect his virtue of humility by training himself to quickly recognize and admit being wrong, whensoever & insofar as he may ever actually be wrong. So I think, for his sake (given that still NOBODY has asked anything of him), and Justice's sake, you should ask HIM to admit error, before you come back and ask anything of me, because . . .
......(1) his fault—if any— came chronologically before any fault of mine—if any; and
......(2) any fault of mine was circumstantial, but any fault of his was substantial to the functioning of Wikipedia, and Substance far exceeds Circumstances, in significance.
I haven't seen you do that. Don't you think that's appropriate? Or was "Miracles aren't real. Sorry." completely fine, under the circumstances?
Yes, "Miracles aren't real. Sorry. We don't promote anything here other than what is factually true. Also, considering your very rude approach on my page and here as well you're going to have a very hard time finding anyone here that wants to help you. I would recommend adjusting your attitude and re-reviewing our policies" was completely fine from Sirfurboy in their role as reviewer of your draft. Your wikilawyering and condescending psychologizing above ("The fact that he recoiled so strongly as to completely shut down, suggests that he understood me perfectly, and knew in his heart that I was correct, and that that thought was intolerable to him.") doesn't help. Bishonen | tålk09:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC).Reply
Additionally, @Bishonen, that's an extremely false statement of yours, to say above, "none of the articles from WaPo support the "miracles" as being real." Here's my file of all the WaPo articles on this topic. Do a CTRL-F word-search on the word "happen," in it, and you'll find that every single WaPo article questions whether this miracle might be real. Octavius1981 (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, @Slatersteven. NOW I am calling him a bigot, because he continues to refuse to talk to me, and at this point he can't still be in a personal, subjective psychological crisis. That's ✅bigotry. But I wasn't calling him a bigot, back then. He first refused to talk to me, not because I called him a bigot, but because I merely associated his momentary position with bigotry, as a warning. Reread what I said above:
......."I only threatened to hypothetically accuse him of bigotry, and only actually accused his Draft-rejection of bigotry."
The Alternative: If I'm not allowed to warn someone that what they're doing WOULD BE bigotry, then Wikipedia is a repressive, totalitarian system, like Communist China, or "Animal Farm," in which everybody knows the truth, but no one is allowed to say, or even hint at it. Absolutely not!
......Right Reason must rule all things, in all respects; therefore,
......Sentimental Feelings may not rule, but must serve whatever Right Reason can demonstrate to be true.
This primacy of Reason is the lesson of the Classical & Western Philosophers, and Moral Theologians.
Here's a warning for you, Octavius1981. Our tolerance for sell-serving bullshit is finite. 'I am right because I compare myself to Aristotle' (or Galileo, that other favourite in such arguments) has never achieved anything much beyond illustrating the sort of monumental arrogance that makes useful participation in a collaborative project an impossibility. I've seen this sort of nonsense many times before. It doesn't work. If you are incapable of writing content that complies with our requirements, that's your problem, not ours... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, I did NOT imply that "'I am right because I compare myself to Aristotle'". My, and all of our rightnesses-or-wrongnesses is based upon who can checkmate, or "take captive" (2 Cor. 10:5) whom, with Right Reason, i.e, hard logic. Appeals to Aristotle, et al. are only left as incidental flourishes, or hints, for those who wish to know what field and school-of-training to go to, to become as capable as I apparently seem to be proving to be, here. Octavius1981 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Generally speaking, when someone implies that you are an arrogant prick, it is inadvisable to respond in a manner that makes said arrogance undeniable. The only 'capability' you have demonstrated so far is the capacity to engage in the same sort of facile sophistry we've seen many times before from individuals who mistake Wikipedia for a platform to promote their personal belief in miracles and/or flying saucers, their Einstein-refuting physics, or their snake-oil cures. Not what Wikipedia is for. Try elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." There is no argument being made to exclude something as offensive, but just as undue. In fact, the correct articel Weeping statue has already been pointed out to you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia has many, many articles on religion. What we don't have is articles promoting claims of 'miracles'. Claiming 'censorship' because you can't use a website for a purpose for which it isn't intended is about as credible an argument as complaining that after you join a golf club they won't let you ride a dirt-bike on the greens. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Blocked
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You continue your attacks and wikilawyering above. ("He first refused to talk to me, not because I called him a bigot, but because I merely associated his momentary position with bigotry, as a warning. Reread what I said above:......."I only threatened to hypothetically accuse him of bigotry, and only actually accused his Draft-rejection of bigotry.") You have been blocked for a month. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk12:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC).Reply
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.
Hello Octavius1981! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
