User talk:Benkenobi18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Greetings...[edit]

Hello, Benkenobi18, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.
I hope you like it here and decide to stay!
Happy editing! Babedacus 01:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Dioceses[edit]

Hi! Do you have some content to add to these numerous articles on Roman Catholic Dioceses that you have been creating? --Stormie 05:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do, I am making them in preparation to add to them as I have with all the other Catholic diocese pages.

I am also about to create a list similar to the Argentina dioceses for all the others, Brazil, Bolivia, Columbia, etc so the same can be done there, once I have 'filled all the holes' in the Argentina list.

Lots of work needed here to just get them up to a basic standard, let along the 5 sentences with the ordinaries or so. :)

Re: Roman Catholic Dioceses[edit]

Yes I do, I am making them in preparation to add to them as I have with all the other Catholic diocese pages.

I am also about to create a list similar to the Argentina dioceses for all the others, Brazil, Bolivia, Columbia, etc so the same can be done there, once I have 'filled all the holes' in the Argentina list.

Lots of work needed here to just get them up to a basic standard, let along the 5 sentences with the ordinaries or so. :) Benkenobi18 06:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Catholic dioceses[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Santiago_del_Estero

This is with content.

What I will do is first add these two sections, then the actual article later on, for all of the dioceses.

Apologies for the alarm mate, but I was just getting things ready so that I could just drop the lists down there first. Can't add the info until the pages are all set up first. :)

Benkenobi18 06:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Just thought I should ask, since an article with no content other than a category might get deleted by an admin with an itchy trigger finger. :-) --Stormie 06:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well just tell em to hold off. I'll try to put a bit of stuff in all of em before I have to go to bed so they won't be blank. Benkenobi18 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Category pages on Provinces[edit]

Wasn't too sure what you intended by deleting the explanation of what the category page was there for, that is, the scope of the eccelisiastical province. (Alaska, Baltimore, etc.) If you disagreed with the category itself, I can understand that, but the explanation is kind of important since most people don't understand that a archdiocese doesn't "run" an ecclesiastical province, the metropolitan does. Student7 11:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You brought up something very important that's been bugging me for a long time with the organisation of all the Catholic diocese pages. For now, I've been just working at making 5 sentences plus the ordinaries for every South American and North American diocese, a few pages are better, with pictures, and stuff from people who actually live in the diocese, but most have absolutely nothing down.

The only reason I deleted the 'test' pages is I was trying to figure out what you were doing, and why there was a 'test' page for every group.

For now, I really like what the Argentina page has done, have a list of the dioceses, with the diocesan structure laid out for each of them. I will be making a similar one for the Antilles Episcopal Conference in my 'Caribbean' section so that makes it easier to find all of the dioceses. I'll do the same for the other south American countries, as well as for the ones in Central America.

I'm not going to touch the US or the Canadian ones as those are in much better shape. So feel free to do what you want about organising the page in such a way that you have the correct structure as well as the Catholic dioceses. I think it can be done better, I just have been more busy getting each diocese page up, and some reasonable organisation in place.

Benkenobi18 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've looked at Argentina. It seems well organized. I'll examine those pages more thoroughly. I was attempting, somewhat after the fact, to categorize templates so they could be at least scrutinized and perhaps critiqued by others. Don't really have a good format for that yet. I've had to crawl around other sites and other countries to figure out what to use for infoboxes and templates. Hate to reinvent the wheel! Hope you can (have?) invented a scheme that might facilitate a search. Everything now at the "pope" level!  :) At little too high up for parish churches or even dioceses. (there are other editors busy on this but not on categories). I appreciated the information! Student7 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
My template for all the pages at least at the diocesan level is the "Diocese of Willemstad." :) I am trying to get all the pages to look the same, at least until people can start posting pictures :) I've cleaned up the top level page now, just working my way to the bottom, so that it will just be diocese things. I would also like to see a link to 'diocese' 'archdiocese' 'metropolitan' 'ecclesial territory' 'apostolic vicariate' on the top level so people can look these up and understand the terminology. :) There is already a good one on the military ones.

Little context in List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Honduras[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Honduras, by Evil1987 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Honduras is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Honduras, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Okay...[edit]

You meant List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Nicaragua, right? I took off the tag when I saw that you had put information on it. If you don't want things to get tagged like that, I would make good use of the preview button and submit the information when its either completely done or good enough to not be deleted.

Either way, its fixed now. Sorry if I caused you any anger. ^-^ Silver seren 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict thing. ^-^;
But I still think the same on the new pages. You should at least have some information on the page.Silver seren 02:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


WTF?!!!! Now that is definitely vandalism! And you were accusing me of stuff? Silver seren 02:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You confuse me utterly...Silver seren 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That was a really bad joke...Silver seren 02:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm bored...that's why I did it. ^_^ And tired. *yawns* 10:30 here. Silver seren 03:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful[edit]

Hi! I'm glad you have a lot of enthusiasm to add to the articles about the organization of the Catholic Church. However, a few things you've done have not been terribly cleanly executed:

  1. Your structured list of dioceses, which I've moved to List of Roman Catholic dioceses (structured view), may be a violation of the compilation copyright of Catholic-Hierarchy.org. We can't just copy his work in a slightly different format here, without permission. Please either check this with someone at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or obtain permission from the owner of the Catholic-Hierarchy.org website.
  2. You moved List of Roman Catholic dioceses to a name which is not compliant with the Manual of Style. I've fixed that, but please be careful.
  3. At least two articles listing diocese - List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Nicaragua and List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Honduras, started with the sentence: The Roman Catholic Church in Nicaragua comprises one ecclesiastical province each headed by an archbishop. While it's very tempting to use a copy'n'paste to populate articles like that, one should be a little more careful. Countries with more than one province will be fine, but countries with only one ecclesiastical province need the word "each" removed. I've already done that for Honduras and Nicaragua, but you should go through any others you've created and fix them, too.
  4. I'd also consider changing "comprises one ecclesiastical province" to "is organized as one ecclesiastical province" (and "is organized into five ecclesiastical provinces" in plural) or something similar.
  5. In List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States and other lists, you added a colon after each occurence of Province of X; the colon is not a useful addition. (Adding Ecclesiastical in front is ok, though.) Section titles do not need colons, because they are section titles. If the list was preceded by ordinary text, a colon would be appropriate.
  6. In List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States, you added Archdiocese of Samoa-Apia to the list without any indication that the archdiocese is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, even though the other diocese is. (The reverse mistake exists in the section Ecclesiastical province of Agaña, and is not something you did.)

Again, I'm glad you're enthusiastic about contributing to Wikipedia, but it's better to get things right the first time, so other people don't have to fix your mistakes. Argyriou (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages[edit]

Please be more careful when moving pages. --- RockMFR 20:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.Marlith T/C 23:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Ireland[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Ireland. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Owen× 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, ok.

Couple things here.

1. Look at the page. :) The page is horrible right now. It has two copies of the list. 2. Let me finish my edit. I am not finished editing the page. 3. List of Roman Catholic dioceses in North America

This is what I am trying to do here.

Benkenobi18 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

XD, your right. There are two copies. Thats really sad. I would advise you go to Owen's talk page or the article talk page to tell them about it. Geez...I can't believe they never noticed that. Good job for noticing. Oh and yes...i'm watching you. O_O Silver seren 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. In that case, please use the Edit summary line to explain your actions when you make such massive changes; this will prevent similar misunderstandings. Owen× 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, just was trying to finish up the edit :) I'm not trying to experiment I've made quite a few lists here. I am going to work on the opening writeup see if I can't improve it. Benkenobi18 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia category[edit]

What's up with this and similar edits by you? They look like vandalism to me. -- Hoary 04:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are tagging living people with "homophobia" tags, which is wrong. There is already an article called "Homophobia" no need for a category as such.

Benkenobi18 04:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't believe the category should exist, you may nominate it for deletion at WP:CFD. Depopulating a category to circumvent the deletion process is not an acceptable action. --B 04:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Nominated. You have a homophobia page, no need for an abusive category.Benkenobi18 04:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Block looming ahead[edit]

You're not getting it. You've been warned not to remove a link to that category, other than with very good, explained reason. But you remove it anyway. Will I block you for 3RR, will somebody else do so, or will you see sense?

Before you're blocked, you may wish to complete the process of applying for the deletion of the category. -- Hoary 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I already explained why I was removing the tags. It is abusive to tag living people with the homophobia tag.Benkenobi18 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Such is your personal opinion. Persuade Wikipedia that the category should be deleted, and then all these links will be removed. Till then, your persistent removal of link to the homophobia category from article on homophobes is vandalism. -- Hoary 04:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the first who has had problems with the Category. See the Category discussion page, you can't just willy-nilly tag people as "Homophobes" because you don't like them. It's wrong and hardly vandalism to restore what was there. You adding the tags is vandalism, not their removal.

Oh, and I've not touched the 'homophobia link in the article on homophobes'.

Benkenobi18 04:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop hand nuvola.svg

This is your last warning.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Eric Robert Rudolph, you will be blocked from editing. Groupthink 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I know my limits. I've made my point. As much as you may dislike these men, I think that it is wrong to call them names. Wikipedia isn't the place for namecalling, but for encyclopedia entries. By all rights, you can state this is what a person is and what they stood for and what they did in their life. But you can't tag them as a homophobe unless they use the title themselves. Benkenobi18 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Octagon-warning.svg

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our polices concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Maxim(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I said why I edited the page. I don't see why I should be blocked when I am trying to prevent a lawsuit to wikipedia. Benkenobi18 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. 'Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons.'

'If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.'"

These all apply to Mr. Whatcott.

Benkenobi18 16:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My rant[edit]

Dear Benkenobil18, The 3RR wasn't really involved in that rant. It was more my deletion-related frustration boiling out. However, I took a short wikibreak, and I'm pretty much O.K. now. Your truly, Maxim(talk) 23:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia[edit]

I noticed that you participated in the recent CfD of the category "Homophobia" [1]. It has been re-nominated for deletion, on the same grounds as before, and I was making sure you had an opportunity to present your interpretation of policy on this matter. The discussion can be found here. Best. --Cheeser1 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you. I'm not surprised, this category has been deleted and restored, and now it has come back again. Thank you very much for the heads up. I am sorry I have not been able to continue my massive editing project, I've been working more lately, which means less time for wikipedia.Benkenobi18 21:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic dioceses in England and Wales[edit]

Hi,

I'm just trying to work out what you're doing with these articles....

Two issues I've spotted at the moment:

Wasn't aware of the wikipolicy against the Ampersand. The reason for the 'duplicated' content is to adhere to the split between the Roman Catholic church in Great Britain and the one in England and Wales. The split isn't my creation. It reflects the current polical and social reality in both to refer to Great Britain apart from England and Wales. We have a couple options. First we can destroy this difference, by merging them all into a single category, "Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain." This would also deal with the ampersand problem. It would delete and remove the category, "Roman Catholic dioceses in England & Wales and replace with Roman Catholic dioceses, and avoid the need for two lists. Suggestions of how to go forth and do this would be appreciated. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Diocese of St Asaph seems to have got into a terrible mess. You seem to have performed multiple moves, from its original location to Roman Catholic Diocese of St Asaph, then to Anfglican Diocese of St Asaph, then - by copy and paste rather than using the move function - to Anglican Diocese of St Asaph. The page is now at Anglican Diocese of St Asaph (which I think is probably redundant as there has only ever been one diocese of St Asaph, though it has been part of at least three different churches), with the edit history left behind at Anfglican Diocese of St Asaph, and double- and triple- redirects between the various articles. I think I'll need to get an administrator to sort this one out. Please be careful! If you've just done a move and realised it's the wrong one, you should be able to move it straight back using the Move function; if not, ask an administrator. Never copy and paste article content as a substitute for moving it; this loses the edit history, which violates the Wikipedia licence and means that contributors can't get credit for their work.
Diocese of St. Asaph was problematic. First of all, it was filed as a CATHOLIC diocese, which is inaccurate. It used to be one but became an Anglican diocese. So it is not really a Catholic diocese and doesn't belong in the same category as the other Roman Catholic dioceses. It does belong in both the Anglican dioceses and the 'Anglo-Saxon' dioceses, which refer to defunct dioceses that existed prior to the reformation. My apologies. I was cleaning up the category and found this anomaly and was unsure of where was best to put it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that you're doing a good thing that needs to be done; but please be careful that you don't duplicate pages or destroy other people's work as you do it. You seem to have attracted a few objections from other editors; I know it's hard doing this kind of large-scale slog work, but you do need to be careful not to lose other people's work and to clean up behind you.

Thank you for the kind comments. I am sorry for the mistakes. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TSP 11:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Federer[edit]

I've explained yet again on the deletion page. Let's allow the debate to run its course and we'll see what happens. Biruitorul (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Records of Roger Federer[edit]

Umm... hi! two things, 1. What recommendation did I give? I've never talked to you before have I? 2. I am kinda new at the editing thing. I mostly just fix typos and undo vandalism. Finding sources and referencing... seems standard enough, but I guess I could try to help out as best I can. What do you need? I didn't really understand what you were asking of me. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vilnius[edit]

Sorry, I am not completely sure about your recent edits to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vilnius ([2] and [3]) and Archdiocese of Vilnius ([4]). The end result of them seems to be similar to a sort of cut and paste move. Would it be a good idea to revert these edits and tag the article "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vilnius" with Template:Db-move (that is, "{{db-move|Archdiocese of Vilnius}}")? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

I see that this is an ongoing problem, so please, please be more careful...when you move a page, please fix the resulting double redirects. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dioceses in the Catholic Encyclopedia[edit]

Hi,

There are quite a few diocese articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Do you want me to seperate them out for you so that you can either create the articles or improve the article with a CE link?

JASpencer (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start here Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Diocese. JASpencer (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) Defunct dioceses may still (in fact almost certainly are) notable, although I'd understand if they aren't in your scope. (2) I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Thanks for the reply. JASpencer (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There are bound to be many dioceses that have articles in Wikipedia but due to naming conventions or the passage of time are noted as not having an article. Delete these listings if you can (a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia may help the article, your call). JASpencer (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Margaret Court. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JD554 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Court[edit]

"Rv" means "revert" while "rvv" means "revert vandalism." My edit summary for the Margaret Court article was the former, not the latter. Before you criticize someone for having reverted "vandalism" without justification, as you did here, you should be sure of your facts. Tennis expert (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, don't delete commentary on your own talk page. It's a very poor show. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism report[edit]

I don't see the vandalism you alluded to. First you must warn the user, preferably using the proper templates in a timely manner. Then you can report them to AIV. To do so, follow the instructions in that page. Please do not use the Bot section as you did before. -- Alexf42 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I just spoke with the user and warned him about the vandalism. I apologise for the mistaken reporting. It was a real hassle to restore, and I was unsure of how to report the vandalism. Thank you for the prompt response. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, please always add Talk messages to users at the bottom of the page and sign them with ~~~~. When posting an internal wiki link, don't use the full URL, just the internal wiki part with [[article name in between square brackets]]. -- Alexf42 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation[edit]

It's a fundamental principle of categoraisation on Wikipedia that an article is placed only in the lowest level category which applies, so RC dioceses should be placed only in the relevant category either for England and Wales, or Scotland, and not under GB as well (see WP:CAT). Similarly, having two substantially idenitcal templates merely clutters the article, and offers no real benefit to the reader. perhaps the ebst solution woul be to amend the GB template so that it shows the split into England and Wales + Scotland more clearly (by grouping the provinces under a relevant heading for example). I've undone your edits on thsoe articles I happen to already have on my watchlist, but it would be a good idea to sort the remaining diocese out as well. David Underdown (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I was undoing the earlier changes!! The category Great Britain is the only one that should exist if you get rid of one or the other!! Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I did look at some of the history, but it does make sense that the articles should reflect the functional structure of the church in Britain - which is really that there is no such structure, there are separate hierarchies for England & Wales, and Scotland. So Category wise, there probably should be a top level category, but the only things in it should be the sub-categories, one for Scotland, and one for England & Wales, each then containing the relevant dioceses—Possibly the top-level category mgith include the articles for Roman Catholic Church in .... (or whatever the precise name is), which should then also be listed as the main article of the relevant sub-category. Similarly with the templates, in their current state they give a mis-leading picture of the organisational structure, if they're re-organised to reflect the actual division, then yes the GB template possibly should be the one to use, but at the moment using the Scottish or Enlgish & Welsh template gives the reader a better idea of the real picture. David Underdown (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, please read how categorisation works, only the lowest level that applies is used, A scottish Diocese is a member of the British category via its membership of the Scottish category, there is absoutlely no need to put it directly in the British category directly as well. David Underdown (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actaully, the rot sets in higher up the category tree Category:Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain is a mess in and of itself. Categorisation isn't really my thing, you might be better off talking to user:Jaraalbe who seems to enjoy sorting these sorts of messes out, and can probably explain it better than me. David Underdown (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, all the other ones are wrong too, assuming that things are sensibly set up as sub-cats of each other. Only the lowest level category shoudl be applied, but that's why things like the navbox templates do also have their uses, as they can be sued to illustrate how something fits into a wider structure. I have asked Jaraable if they might take a look at the structure and try to sort it our per Wikipedia standards. David Underdown (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
maybe it was, but that doesn't mean it was right. David Underdown (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
One nav box is possible, but possibly sensistive - despite what you said earlier there are RC dioceses whose boundaries are within Northern Ireland, the point is that the c church is still organised on all-Ireland basis (as is the Church of Ireland of course). I understand that some irish folk don't particualrly like the term British Isles, so naming could get a bit clumsy. Part of the problem of course is that modern policitical boundaries don't necessarily match the Church's boundaries. David Underdown (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought you now understood that there is no need to put the England & Wales dioceses directly in GB cat, they become members of that by the Engalnd & Wales cat itself being a subcategory. Please stop, this is now bordering on disruption, the GB cat was speedily deleted from discussion below, persistently recreating deelted material can leading to blocking. David Underdown (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally I do see the GB cat as a valid placeholder - but as I keep saying individual dioceses shouldn't be categorised at that level - they belong in either England & Wales, or Scotland. had I seen the speedy request, I would have placed {{hangon}} myself. It looks to me as if the only reason that GB is used on the Catholic Hierarchy website is because that is the level the Nuncio (necessarily) operates at, since whilst obviously he has a Church function, a major part of his role is to maintain diplomatic relations between the Holy See as a sovereign state and the United Kingdom (don't quite know how Northern Irealnd is treated in this case). For all the purposes, the country is given as either England, Wales or Scotland, and GB is listed as a region. Possibly the best thing to do would be to list the category at WP:CfD yourself to get wider consensus. I'm sorry for soundign a little hasty earlier, but the double-categorisation of the dioceses really is wrong per Wikipedia's general usage of categorisation. David Underdown (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, looking a bit further, probably the Ukrainian Exarchate, and the Military Ordinariate probably should be at the GB level. David Underdown (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I commented on the talkpage first. The dioceses are in sub-cats. They don't not need to be in the GB cat too. You are just wrong I'm afraid - see WP:SUBCAT. higher level categories may not need to contain any articles themselves. David Underdown (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Pleae understand. I would be perfectly happy for the category to exist, I just believe that the articles should be purely in its subcategories - which was the case until you started messing around. Please read WP:SUBCAT as I have suggested. I do not see that any of the exceptions suggested there apply in this case. Look at other category structures too. Category:Victoria Cross recipients isn't empty, but it should be as the articles listed there should be under one of the national or by conflict subcategories. David Underdown (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that functionally/hierarchically, there is no single Roman Catholic Church in the United Kingdom, or Great Britain. With the exception of the Nuncio who due to his diplomatic status has to be accredited to the Court of St James (i.e. the UK) the Church operates independently in Scotland, England and Wales, and Ireland. Each body has it's own identity, and due to the complex historical interactions between the current and former nations and states a certain amoutn of shared history, but the Reformation affected each very differently. There are an awful lot of political sensitivities to be aware of too, the history in Ireland is particularly tricky, and many Catholics in Northern Ireland identify more closely with (the State of) Ireland, tahn with Northern Ireland, and if you tried to in any way put Dioceses of Ireland under Roman Catholic Church in the United Kingdom, the problems you've seen so far would be extremely small beer. Anything that talks about Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain, needs to point out that such a concept doesn't really mean anything, the relevant organisation is all at the lower level. The category is valid, becuase it is something that a user who deosn't know that much about the situation might look for - but Wikipedia is here to educate, and can do that by pointing such a user to the right place, which the present arrangment of subcategories would help to do. Anything else is misleading. It's not a clear situation, but I don't think you are British (apologies if I've got this wrong), and this probably isn't the easiest of things for an outsider to get their head around (plenty of Brits make a mess of it too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talkcontribs) 10:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is it special? because it is, or at least different. You're existing model breaks down over Ireland anyway, as that is a supra-national church, so some accomodation needs to be made. Scotland and England & Wales do to have some aspects of statehood, Scottish law is still entirely different from the law that applies in England and Wales - and I don't see that applying an extra-level of categorisation in this particular instance is such a bad thing, and resolves some of the problems with you model. The hierarchies were restored at different times in England and Wales as opposed to Scotalnd, so to that extent the Vatican clearly see them as separate entities, trying to force thigs at the GB level simply mis-represents the actual situation. If anything they've actually become more separate recenlty, the first Scottish (bases) Cardinal since the Reformation, was only appointed in the last 20 years, before that ther was only one cardnial at a time in Great Britain. Scouting around some of the equivalent cats for other European states, it looks to me like Italy neesd work, again you've got things at the national level, and also in sub-cats for Sicily, Piedmont adn the Aosta Valley, which again per actegorisation guidlines is just wrong. David Underdown (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me slightly, I've always seen them as parent child, the Catholic Church in GB exists only in the form of the Catholic Church in England & Wales, and the Catholic church in Great Britain. in so far as conistency across Europer is desirable, yes, teh GB cat should exist, but it must also recognise that the exception fo the Military ordinariate, and the Ukrainian Exarchy, nothing happens at that level (and i did add bot of those earlier this morning...). David Underdown (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at this http://catholicchurch.org.uk/index.php/ccb/catholic_church/the_church_in_england_and_wales there is no mention of Great Britain anywhere. I'm sorry, the correct place for the dioces, with the exceptions mentioned is in the relevant subcats. David Underdown (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Also http://catholicchurch.org.uk/index.php/ccb/catholic_church/catholic_bishops_conference_of_england_and_wales/working_nationally The Bishops in England and Wales see the national level as... England and Wales, not Great Britain. David Underdown (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You? I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see that fundamentally we are in opposition. I'm just arguing for one additional level of categorisation under GB to better reflect the day-to-day organisation of the Church there. I've just asked user:Philip Trueman for some input, he's an English Catholic, so can possibly explain the situation better than I can (it so happen I know him outside Wikipedia too). I think I'll ask user:Lima as well as he's always semed very knowledgeable on Catholic matters. David Underdown (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you've taken tah so personally, it can of course be undone at the click of a mouse (as you have done). It is not deleted, but like the categories, it seems to me that the lower level articels better reflect the true reality of the situation. Like a true Anglican, I'm trying for a via media between you and Deacon, and trying to expand the situation to depersonalise everything a bit. I will make no further changes until we've had some wider discussion. Please re-consider. David Underdown (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I really don't want to see anything deleted, and will argue against any attempt to do so. I have not deleted lists of bishops from Diocesan articles, which you seem to be suggesting that I have. I just want to see things organised in a way that reflects the actual state of affairs. I've asked two other users who should be able to provide additional perspectives to comment, please at least wait until they've had chance to do so. I'm sorry that I've got cross with you, and acted hastily in some areas. Of course now the site's gonedown jsut as I was trying to post this. David Underdown (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
umm, you placed deletion notices, but haven't actually listed them on the relevant discussion pages, so they're rather in limbo. As I've said I've no desire to see these deleted, but also now unwilling to revert you. David Underdown (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

I see you've been asked before to use edit summaries. Can I ask you again to do that?

I'd also like to mention that I don't find it particularly helpful to prefix "Roman Catholic" everywhere to diocese names, unless this resolves ambiguities. I wonder if you realise that your move to Archdiocese of Split-Makarska created eight double redirects, which it is your responsibility to fix up. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Poland[edit]

Yes, that was a bit fast, wasn't it? I was on new page patrol. It looks much better now! Keep working on it! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:Dioceses in Great Britain[edit]

In response to your two posts ... I'm not sure you've got a decent grasp on the situation in "Great Britain"

1) I pointed out to you before that the Church of Scotland does not have dioceses or bishops, and hasn't since 1689. This is pretty much the most famous thing about both the Scottish church and the international Presbyterianism that sprang from the Scottish church. I separated the overlapping articles out for you, but really shouldn't have had to. The only problem in existence comes from editors who don't possess the knowledge to understand the unique history and terminological situation of the Scottish church, but who nonetheless edit. The thirteen (14 after the diocese of Edinburgh was created in 1633) were indeed catholic, but became non-Catholic after the Scottish Reformation of 1560; these dioceses stayed in existence until 1689, so have a continuous history independent of allegiance and doctrine.
2) The Roman Catholic Church does recognize the borders of Scotland; besides the fact that the diocesan borders run along the Anglo-Scottish border, numerous RC agencies are organised officially on the "National" divisions 1) Scotland and 2) England and Wales. Great Britain in contrast is substantially meaningless. Great Britain is just an island, not even a state. Several RC Scottish dioceses include territory in Great Britain and outside it (e.g. Argyll and the Isles and Aberdeen). Moreover, as you could easily spot for yourself, there are separate official websites for England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. The two zones of course don't share a similar religious situation or history, so separation of them is totally in keeping with history; and btw, the Treaty of Union was supposed to and substantially did ensure that Scotland is treated as an independent country regarding religion. I'm curious, where do you get the idea that Great Britain is an important concept in the modern Catholic Church? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not that I didn't read those, but that you didn't read beyond them. Great Britain is neither a state nor a "nation" within the Catholic church. In the British Isles, there are 3, those are England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. You either go for one or both of these, you don't make up arbitrary divisions based on some tertiary website. The pages you created and are trying to maintain are misleading. And you're in fairyville about me messing up the cats, I sorted them with all the proper sub-cats. I've know idea what you're talking about here. BTW, check out WP:Vandalism, as you're comprehension of that policy has been causing you problems. And BTW, Northern Ireland does have dioceses, e.g. most of the dioceses in the Province of Armagh. But the Catholic church is organized around England and Wales, Scotland and the whole island of Ireland, not the UK and Rep. of Ireland, neither of which are recognized. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Template fix[edit]

You're welcome! DH85868993 (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV report[edit]

Hello there! I removed your recent AIV report because WP:AIV is meant for blatant vandalism. The incident with the other editor about templates, however, is more of a content dispute, and should be solved by communication between editors to reach consensus. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 07:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and see what seems appropriate. Personally, I'd give the editor one more chance and warn him again. I'll do the same, just to involve a fresh unbiased mind in the dispute. Oh, and for incidents like this where a user is refusing to cooperate, WP:ANI is often the best step, though that isn't necessary yet in this case. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 07:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you should be too concerned about this; he seems like a good editor, and should be willing to discuss further. In the future, may I suggest that you avoid reverting his changes without discussing it with him first and getting his opinion? Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. From here, it looks like he's letting his point of view determine his actions; regardless if he thinks Great Britain is a meaningless addition, if it is legally defined as one the category should stay. However, his suggestion of renaming to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom sounds like a good idea (to me, but I'm not very knowledgeable about religious matters), so mind if I suggest you guys discuss that possibility? Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 14:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman catholic diocese of Sofia and Plovdiv[edit]

It is not an apostolic vicariate-it is a diocese -an immediately subject to the Holy See and the bishop stays in Plovdiv. I live in Bulgaria and this information is actual.Drjmarkov (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Undo[edit]

Hi Benkenobi18. Please don't use "undo" on good-faith edits without changing the default edit summary. Thanks! ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 11:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • We appear to be at cross-purposes. This edit by you put the AfD notice I removed back into the article. But you used the default edit summary, which is really for vandalism and so forth. Please use informative summaries in future the avoid this. In this edit you say Removing AFD All the categories have a list of their components. It's standard across all of them - but you were the one who put the AfD back by undoing me without comment. I removed the AfD notice in the first place. I suspect you thought you were undoing vandalism by me, when in fact you were doing completely the opposite. Please use "undo" with care. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

I'm glad you decided to come back, you leaving would have been the worst possible outcome. I'm afraid I'm likely to be a little pressed for time over the next couple of weeks, but I'll try to chip in as I can. David Underdown (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ultra! 07:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Archdiocese of Chihuahua[edit]

Where did you re-direct the material related to the archdiocese? Under what heading, please? Thank you.--Lyricmac (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lisbon etc[edit]

Hmm, yes I see you've been splitting a lot of articles...but why? They aren't separate entities. I don't understand why so many people throughout the years, not just you, have insisted on separate articles for a diocese and archdiocese in the same place, and a separate article on top of that for the actual office of the bishop. Why not have one article about all of these things? (Yes yes, Wikipedia is not paper, there is infinite space; it's just unnecessarily complicated.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't look into it closely enough to see that it wasn't vandalism (and I saw that you'd just been reverted by AdamBishop). I actually edit conflicted with you while trying to revert myself. Ignore me... --Rory096 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why all that information can't be in the same place, but whatever. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

World War II[edit]

Hi, I've undone your changes to the introduction to this article as there's currently a long-running discussion of this, including a request for mediation, going on the article's talk page. Could you please discuss your wording there? Regards, Nick Dowling (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Golfer flags[edit]

The general consensus that has emerged is that under tournament pages that list winners - the flag/country next to a player's name (if any) is the one under which he/she played at that time. For example the Masters Tournament - 1961 - Gary Player - listed with  South Africa.

Now in Golfers with most PGA Tour wins players are list with their current/last country of citizenship. The particular flags you've changed:

I'm changing them back except for Bobby Locke. Tewapack (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dioceses again[edit]

Ben, please stop manually moving articles, like you did to Freising and whichever ones I've fixed in the past. If you can't move one automatically because something needs to be deleted, please post it on WP:RM, or ask me or another admin directly. Thanks. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here, do not copy & paste to move the pages around. That destroys page history. Ask an admin to do it. For all pages that you already moved, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thanks, Renata (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I did that for you. But don't you ever try anything like this again, ok? Renata (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Not 5, more like 33. And I am not even sure I caught all of them. I understand the need to clean up, but there is no need to do it in such a haste. That only produces even bigger need for more serious clean up. But I hope you learned from this experience. Renata (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Benkenobi18! I want to let you know that I appreciate your considerable efforts in reversing Malleus's moves; it was a very challenging undertaking. I would not describe your efforts as part of a move war, as many other editors, including myself, objected to Malleus's unilateral moves. What a few editors were objecting to were the cut and paste moves, which can create more trouble than you might expect. Everything seems to have been resolved, however, so no harm done. Cheers! Olessi (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. :) I actually thought I was pretty late, since it took me three whole days to actually find a time and update. :-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Haereticorum (talk · contribs)[edit]

His last edit was June 11th. I left my warning on June 14. KnightLago (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)|

Romanian dioceses[edit]

Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic or Orthodox? (There are quite a few of the latter to be done.) I assume you mean Roman Catholic, and by all means, I could start the five that are left (Oradea already exists). Biruitorul Talk 00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, all done as far as creating them. They have long histories and could be expanded many times, but now they at least exist. Biruitorul Talk 04:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

D of Metz[edit]

This should not have been moved without discussion, especially as it has been very recently edited. The main interest for most English readers is going to be the independent state, not the modern diocese. The old name was better and Bishopric of Metz is the commonest name in English for the stater. The article is a stub & certainly not worth splitting - I will propose that. Furthermore, renaming any of the dioceses seems unnecessary and undesirable to me - has this been discussed? What other kinds of diocese are there in France? None that I am aware of. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME[edit]

I urge you to apply yourself to the WP:NAME conventions in regards to diocese in England and Wales. Once again I undid where you put unofficial names of diocese. DO NOT RE ADD THEM. Numerous users keep undoing you and explaining to you why, but it just does not seem to be getting though despite numerous attempts to get it across. Also as England is currently going through a particular period of turmoil in regards to Christianity due to the Church of England on the verge of splitting it would be great if you could resist from acting up, doing all this. Thanks. Again, read the naming conventions policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, these are not the official diocese names at all, you're doing this to be annoying intentionally. Why do you think so many people revert you? Stop, read the websites names and stop seeking to be difficult on purpose. You know damn well that these are not the official names, especially as the designation "Roman" Catholic is derogatory to many Catholics in Britain. Wikipedia is not a game to win and lose so don't treat it like so, the Diocese do not refer to themselves with the title you give them, neither does anybody else, so you do not "win". - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You and User:Yorkshirian are both being disruptive in not engaging in proper discussion about the name of the above article. If you and he do not discuss the matter appropriately on the article's talk page, I will not hesitate to take action against the editor who is continuing to be disruptive. Furthermore, the latest page move that Yorkshirian carried out resulted in a broken/inappropriate redirection being formed. For this reason I am reverting it all back to Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, and will take action if either of you continue to carry out further page moves without discussion which involves more than just you two on the article's talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop doing so many moves without an agreement on the matter. You cannot do that. Auson (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Auson just created a sockpuppet account and used it to vandalise your userpage. I have, reverted, indefblocked the sock and blocked Auson for 31 hours. I have no idea what the above dispute is about but vandalism like this isn't acceptable.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my message to Theresa Knott on her talk page about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar for my anti-vandalism work. I appreciate it. If you have any more problems similar to what happened here, let me know, and I'll try to sort it out for you.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Dioceses in Vietnam[edit]

Hi, there are only a few article titles in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Vietnam that have diacritics; it's really not worth it to move those with a bot. It's faster doing it by hand.

Most of these should be easy to move: most redirects should have no edit history, so you should be able to move the articles to the titles withour diacritics. If that is impossible, please let me know where the discussion was to move them, and I will move them for you.

By the way, Eubot never moved these articles. They always had diacritics in their name; Eubot just created some redirects. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Lists in the Indonesian project[edit]

Hi - large lists of red links are discouraged at the Indonesia project as they stay that way forever - there is a possible issue with some lists where the red link parts are put on to the talk page until such time as the articles are created - the reason for this is that numerous ip number eds have in the past added adhoc items to lists and never follow up with articles. So if you see some change on your started list - try me for comment - ok SatuSuro 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow impressed - you must be the first editor to add a list to the indonesian project and who claims they will actually fill the red links - impressive - you will need a very big barnstar when you finish that! if you need any help with regional cats and cross refs give a hoy - cheers SatuSuro 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If I had a barnstar to hand you would get it - very impressive if even 1/10th of the project could follow suit we would end up with a project that would be about 1% notable and covered by WP:RS - thanks for your efforts - cheers SatuSuro 07:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Korea[edit]

Hi, is this list supposed to/going to include North Korea, or does it apply to South Korea only? If it's just South Korea, it might be best to move it to List of Roman Catholic dioceses in South Korea. Regards. PC78 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I was looking at the Seoul heading and missed Pyongyang. I get it now. PC78 (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Move of List of Roman Catholic Dioceses in India[edit]

I've moved List of Roman Catholic Dioceses in India to List of Roman Catholic dioceses in India, and I've moved the fork you'd previously created at the lowercase title to your user space at User:Benkenobi18/List of Roman Catholic dioceses in India. If there's any useful content on the userfied page, please merge it to the actual article; afterwards you can tag the userfied page with {{db-author}} so that it can be deleted. Thank you, and have a nice day. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic or Roman Catholic?[edit]

There's an issue with distinguishing between the Catholic communion (the Universal Church) labeled Roman Catholic and the particular Church (also called Rite) of the same name. I'm not entirely sure that you're keeping to the agreed compromise distinctions. Would you mind if for countries that have hierarchies of other rites that there's a link to the equivalent list for those other parts of the Church? TMLutas (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Deacon[edit]

Ben, I've discussed this with you already as far as I care to, and got nothing but confrontation and tendentiousness. However, absurd as it is for you to cry foul over behaviour that you yourself are enacting, you are right at least that this needs to be sorted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

I have no desire to get involved in this. I was monitoring #cvn-wp-en and saw you revert him, so I checked it out. I just noticed the thread on WP:AN about this, so hopefully that resolve the issue. J.delanoygabsadds 03:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
All right, I'll look into it, but don't expect something too soon. I have to get to bed in a few minutes and I'm working weird hours tomorrow, so I don't think I'll be able to do anything really good until around 21:00 UTC tomorrow. Sorry. J.delanoygabsadds 03:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure why you want me to yell at Deacon. If anything, I should be yelling at you. Besides you and Deacon, three people have edited the page in question. All of them said it would be better as a disambig page. And I am inclined to agree. Is there any good reason to have the exact same information on two different pages? J.delanoygabsadds 02:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance with Roman Catholic diocese articles[edit]

Northern Ireland is on the island of Ireland, which means that this and this are simply wrong, no debate necessary. The same is true of adding Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Armagh, Roman Catholic Diocese of Clogher, et cetera, to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain. If in doubt, Image:British Isles Euler diagram.svg should help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If I am supposed to read Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain as Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom, this addresses the second point, but it does not make the first two edits any more logical. Please do not even think about renaming the Irish categories, templates, &c, to "Republic of Ireland". Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice[edit]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects required[edit]

Can I put in a plea for the creation of redirects, when you create a page such as Roman Catholic Diocese of Créteil? The long form of page title (I would prefer diocese of Créteil on creation) is almost never going to be linked to elsewhere on the site. I've just added the required redirects for that page, showing up five significant places where there was a redlink waiting. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Extinct/titular dioceses[edit]

Hi Ben, do you any precedent for the names of extinct (or, I suppose, titular) dioceses? There are some crusader diocese articles I created like Archbishop of Nazareth, Bishop of Acre, etc that don't fit the pattern you're setting. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dated cleanup tags[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 16:07 4 December 2008 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Roman Catholic Diocese of San Isidro[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Roman Catholic Diocese of San Isidro, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Diocese of San Isidro. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ike9898 (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Ok, my bad...it gets hard to tell in the differences...sorry about that! Ks0stm (TC) 03:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of links[edit]

The reason I removed the links from the opening is because they are a violation of WP:RELATED. I did not remove the links from correctly placed See also sections or in sections regarding career statistics, the issue was that the links were being placed above the articles themselves which is not how the articles are to be formatted. –– Lid(Talk) 04:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Roman Catholic diocese of Cork and Ross[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Benkenobi18. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's[edit]

Hello Benkenobi, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [5] Thanks! NancyHeise talk 01:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

list of dioc's[edit]

Thank you for your kind words. I just made a couple more changes. If you need any help with proofreading, etc., please let me know. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Diocese of Aberdeen[edit]

The Church of England doesn't operate in Scotland. Probably because we're not part of England...--MacRusgail (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please undo[edit]

Please undo all your edits in which you removed pages from Category:Formerly papal dioceses established in the 11th century and any other such edits made without the needed CfD. Carlaude:Talk 04:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: COS diocese of Aberdeen[edit]

The message you left on my talk page doesn't make sense. The Diocese of Aberdeen article covers the pre-Reformation, Church of Scotland, Scottish Episcopal Church and restored Roman Catholic Church dioceses. There isn't a separate COS diocese article of the exact same name. Clearly you don't know the difference between the protestant denominations. The only similar named article is the united Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney, which is a Scottish Episcopal Church diocese. The COS and SEC are separate denominations. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message[edit]

Hi there - thanks for the message as it made me look at the article to see what's been happening since I last visited. My first reaction is that the first sentence is now totally misleading - the UK has not been "subdivided into three episcopal conferences" in the way suggested...three separate episcopal conferences preceded the formation of the UK and it made sense therefore to restore these. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church[edit]

Hello, I just want you to be aware that those details will eventually be included as we modify the article down the road. What I'm proposing now is only a preliminary step—just to get the ball rolling. My version is not final, authoritative, or absolute in any way. It's just meant as a baseline. It's going to change in the near future after it hopefully gets adopted and I hope to see you in the talk page as part of that process. Please let me know if you have other concerns. Thank you.UberCryxic (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Bear in mind that the article would have lost its GA status regardless of my revisions. It's generally unstable, and that's true with or without my edits. GA articles cannot be the subject of so much edit warring and controversy.UberCryxic (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Does GA status mean anything? I don't participate in it because I don't think it does.
But, that aside, it is a purely formal measure, which takes no account of errors or omissions; if it did, the existing text of the article would not qualify. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
But, above all, I urge you to come and comment on what should be in the article; the principal case for this revision is that it offers a start on revising the article thoroughly without having to take out somebody's pet phrase in the process. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the diff can be most misleading, because it often indicates omission because its comparator has read a change of context as an omission. For example, both versions have exactly the same text (and footnote) on Augustine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church[edit]

You commented on the recent sweeping changes. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 13:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church - Silence can be construed as assent[edit]

Sarek and I have asserted that silence can be construed as assent and that therefore there is a defacto consensus for moving forward from UberCryxic's version, flaws and all. I assume your participation in editing Uber's version to be an implicit assent to using his version as the basis for future editing. Please make your position explicit here.

Please note that this is not meant to be an RFC on the IAR process that UberCryxic used to terminate the straw poll and plant his version over the previous one. I have my doubts about that. What I'm looking for is to determine whether there is a substantial sentiment against using Uber's version as the basis for future edits. (Well, in truth, Uber's version has long been superceded due to edits that have been made by multiple editors so we're not so much concerned with Uber's version as the current version of the article.)

--Richard S (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Diocese of Chichester[edit]

Hi

You created a page titled Catholic Diocese of Chicester. You spelt Chichester wrong, there's two 'h's in it so I have created an article called Catholic Diocese of Chichester. I copied over the content from the Catholic Diocese of Chicester page and inserted a redirect in that instead. Hope this all makes sense! regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of senators in the 1st Parliament of Canada[edit]

A tag has been placed on List of senators in the 1st Parliament of Canada, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Speedy delete contest button.png which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved List of senators in the 1st Parliament of Canada to your user space[edit]

Hi, I moved List of senators in the 1st Parliament of Canada to User:Benkenobi18/List of senators in the 1st Parliament of Canada, because it was not what it purported to be: it looks like you copy-and-pasted List of senators in the 39th Parliament of Canada to serve as a model and started editing it to use 1867 data instead of modern data, but never really finished it. As a draft article, it belongs in user space rather than the main article space. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


Only the redirect link was speedied, after the page itself was moved to user space. The page was quite incomplete and you had not worked on it since September; it was also full of leftover text from the List of senators in the 39th Parliament of Canada you copy-pasted it from. It might have been better to work on a draft article in your user space, but in any case perhaps someone can expand it now. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of senators in the 1st Parliament of Canada, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Aikins, John Bourinot and George Allan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Bob Giltinan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roche and John Marks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Catholic dioceses in Germany[edit]

Hi Benkenobi,
I agree to open a new list, however, the categorisation and the naming of the list is problematic. The list is now categorised under dioceses in the Holy Roman Empire (dissolved in 1806), but it only deals with the diocesan organisation after 1821 until 1994. The list is now further categorised under defunct dioceses, but most dioceses are not defunct, only the Apostolic vicariates, prefectures and the Territorial prelatures are defunct.
So how to handle it? I suggest to rename the list: "List of dioceses in Germany until 1994"
Further I suggest to also categorise the list in "Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Germany", because 1994 is contemporary German history. This was the reason, why the list was an addition to the list showing the present organisation and why it only included post-Holy Roman Empire.
How to solve the problems? What do you think?
Best wishes
Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but loving or not, that is not the question.
The present categorisations and the name are misleading. I suggest to rename the entry: "List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Germany between 1821 and 1994", dowing also away with the capital "F" in former in the current name.
Is that ok?
Best wishes
Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Germany between 1821 and 1993 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Metropolia
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mechelen-Brussels (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to St. Rumbold

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

IC 1517 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pisces
NGC 5886 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Reflector
NGC 7459 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pisces

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria. KarlB (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


Germans[edit]

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland[edit]

I've amended the article per your suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Astronomy articles[edit]

Benke, thaks for your hard work at creating a number of astronomy-related pages. One quick word of advice -- you should try to properly format the reference section and use in-line citations, if possible. If you're unfamililar with how to do this, feel free to leave a message on my page and I can try to help you out. Keep up the great work, thanks!JoelWhy (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'll go through a couple of them when I have a chance. You could then look at how they're formatted for future reference. But, before I do that, you you may be able to do this completely on your own (using a very simple method that I only recently learned about!) There's a citation template within Wikipedia that really makes basic referencing a breeze. All you have to do is, when you're editing a page, there should be a tool bar right above the editing box. It has standard style option, such as the ability to bold text or use italics (just like you see in programs like Microsoft Word.) The second line of the toolbar contains a pull-down option that says "Templates". Click on that, and you can pick to "cite web," "cite news," etc. Select the appropriate link and then simply fill in the form with the information you have (you invariably will leave some of the form blank.) See if that works for you :)JoelWhy (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Career statistics football(association)[edit]

Nominated for deletion - please see here. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You could have discussed both the article rename and category creation as well. GiantSnowman 19:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Benkenobi18. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 26.
Message added 20:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 20:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Benkenobi18. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 26#Categories by era.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- I think you meant "rename" rather than "upmerge". Feel free to delete my line "eh? to what?" if you replace your !vote. – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Mu Canis Majoris for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mu Canis Majoris is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mu Canis Majoris until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 06:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Stars[edit]

Please go over all your star articles and check them for clerical errors. I am distressed by the Mu CMa issue, and y Centauri is similarly populated by clerical errors and what appears to be incorrect formulations. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So what's stopping you from doing it yourself? Keyboard broken? Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
In other words, other editors should clean up your articles, instead of asking you to help out with your own articles? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
They aren't my articles. Just as much yours as mine. If you see an error - fix it. If you can't be bothered to fix it yourself, then it's obviously not 'distressing'. Well, distressing enough to complain, but not enough to do something about it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that if you find your errors at Mu CMa embarrassing, you should be able to go through article which you yourself have created to fix them. I took quite a bit of time fixing the errors from your uCMa article. Don't you think you should put some time in to fix your own errors? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
If it takes me researching articles and working to put them up on the wikipedia to get people to care about articles that have sat untouched for 4 years, mission accomplished. There are plenty of articles in even worse shape then these ones. So where's your concern for them? Some of them are even unsourced, and I have to go around providing sources when I come across those articles. Once I'm done filling holes, I can work on those articles and improve them. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

RA and DEC templates[edit]

Hello Benkenobi18,

When you present R.A. and Dec. coordinates for a star, please could you use the {{RA}} and {{DEC}} templates? Those will establish the proper nomenclature. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 22[edit]

Ive left you a response at the discussion page. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pointless partial fork of List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe, WP:SYNTH violation, using the non-existent term "Balkanic"

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Roman Catholic dioceses in the Balkans[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about the other one; I've now nominated both for deletion. Not every category needs to have its own list, there is no requirement or need for a 1:1 mapping between categories and lists. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So create a category for them. In fact, I think it's already there - Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Nordic Europe. Also, RC recognizes "Nordic Europe" as an official unit? You need a reference for that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jennifer Horn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican and Nashua (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 07:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to rewrite, but I think it's still too close to the source material. Perhaps you can consult other editors for help. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jennifer Horn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Is there any good reason why you are deleting Category:Films about Catholic priests from films which clearly are about Catholic priests? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

John Chrysostom, Roman Catholic Saint?[edit]

Why did you remove "Category:Roman Catholic saints" from the article on John Chrysostom? John Chrysostom is the patron saint of orators in the R.C. Church and is regarded as a Father of the Church. If you can't justify the deletion, I'll undo it. Thanks, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

John Cassian[edit]

I see you have reverted to calling John Cassian French. I have already remarked that "It is doubtful that he should be classified as French: he spent only the last 20 years of his 75-year life in what is now France and where the Franks had not yet arrived." I think your classification needs to be justified on Talk before being repeated. Esoglou (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Benkenobi18. You have new messages at BrownHairedGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saints Sergius and Bacchus[edit]

I reverted your unexplained removal of material from the Saints Sergius and Bacchus. The material was certainly relevant, and shouldn't be removed without discussion. Please take your concerns to the talk page, where we will be happy to continue the conversation. Edit warring is unproductive and may result in you being blocked from editing. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 15:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Benkenobi18. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category: Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland[edit]

Replied on my talk page. Take it to WP:CFD after this. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Roman Catholic Diocese of Villa de la Concepción del Río Cuarto[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Roman Catholic Diocese of Villa de la Concepción del Río Cuarto has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yunshui  06:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Benkenobi18. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui  21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


CFD backlog[edit]

Excellent work. It is appreciated. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying : ) - jc37 05:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

CfD talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Benkenobi18. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_28#Constituencies_in_the_United_Kingdom.
You can remove this notice at any time.

.

The RFC/U against me[edit]

The RFC/U against me has been posted. You had asked to be notified when it happened, so I am notifying you of this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things about your comments at the RfCU:
  1. You can't "not endorse" a summary. Being mum on an RfCU indicates a partial or full non-endorsement. If you have a dissenting view, you either hash it out on the talk page, or you start a subheading as to your own personal view
  2. There's no "boomerang" in RfC/U. You can't turn this RfCU into one about me. An RfC/U is about one user; if you want to RfC/U me, that's not for this RfCU
  3. Your comments are currently not endorsing JPL. I don't think that's what you meant. I think you meant to not endorse my. But, as I said, you can't "not endorse" an RfCU
  4. The reason it went down now is because the second person signed on last night. Had they signed on a week earlier, or a week later, it would have happened then. There's no sunset date on a RfCU; people will have plenty of time to comment after Christmas is past

I haven't touched your comments (though I left a note noting that there's no "not endorse" in RfCU), but as I've stated why they're improper, I leave it up to you as to how to fix them pbp 02:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see some fine wikilawyering going on here. Absolutely WP: Boomerang applies to these things, espcially when they are unwarranted. "Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny." Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, a bunch of users tried to get JPL to stop him from doing what he has been doing, and he ignored them, so wikilawyering it is (although that's a misuse of the term). Unwarranted? Sorry, perfectly warranted. I got a stack of diffs a mile long of people trying to get JPL to stop OWNing category-space; something had to be done. As for the civility argument, being civil when you edit-war and ignore users' concerns doesn't excuse you from those problems. And it seems quite hypocritical for somebody who's responded to the CfD in such an uncivil and inappropriate manner (remember, RfC guidelines say no oppose votes, only outside views) to cite civility as an argument. pbp 21:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Jennifer Horn for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennifer Horn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Horn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer Horn[edit]

Remember not to add unsource information, like the one saiyng that she was expulsed. If you don't find a source, then the information shouldn't be added. Her husband complained again about this and I removed the information from the article. — ΛΧΣ21 02:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That information was sourced - had you checked the sources I listed, you would have seen that this was the case. The problem isn't that it was unsourced, the problem is that the source was wrong. This is why I asked Bill to confirm that all the information in the article was correct. Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see now. Apologies and sorry for the late response. — ΛΧΣ21 06:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Athlete category discussion[edit]

Hi. You recently commented on the discussion about athlete categorisation but I believe my nomination was not fully understood. Could you please revisit your comments based upon my explanation? Thanks. SFB 18:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material w/o explanation[edit]

Can you explain your thoughts on this edit at Jennifer Horn? The material was sourced by multiple reliable sources and presented in a neutral manner. William Horn had earlier deleted the material, as he has done on any information that cast his wife in any form of a negative light. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)eli

I removed it because it's not NPOV. Have the irregularities been proven to be true? Until they are proven to be true, then they aren't notable and shouldn't be appearing in a biography. I saw that whole addition - as soon as I saw the source saying that the allegation is 'a witch hunt', that right there is your key that this isn't NPOV. If you feel the need to insert 'balancing' statements to stay under NPOV - then the best thing to do is remove both POV statements. NPOV isn't about adding POV 1, followed by POV 2 and then balancing, all the statements should survive NPOV. You will note, that Bill Horn accused me of being a political enemy, so I'm not sure why you're concerned about my edits here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are mistaken, both on NPOV and BLP grounds. The standard is on BLP subjects that the material be sourced to reliable sources that are verifiable and independent of the subject. If there is a policy that states that it must be a proven fact to be published in Wikipedia, please point it out, because it is not in the NPOV nor the BLP policies. Otherwise, I'll restore the deleted material. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
BLP is quite clear on this.

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

This fails the BLP criterion to be kept, ergo it should be removed. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in what you just quoted mentioned anything about having to be "proven to be true". As to the actual policy, which you quoted above, the material was noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, with multiple reliable third-party sources. Unless you are claiming that New Hampshire Public Radio and the Concord Monitor are 1) tabloid, and 2) not reliable, it is documented with multiple reliable third party sources. If you really want to pile on the refs, you can add the Concord Patch and WMUR 9 as two other media sources covering the same thing. There are more, but you get the idea.

The material is noteworthy and relevant also. A public figure, running for office, that has a tax lien is relevant. It was noteworthy in that it drew responses from a U.S. Senator, her opponents, etc.

Since obviously it meets the criteria, I have restored the material to the article, and will add the additional cites to remove any doubt. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Irish bishops[edit]

A discussion is underway at Category talk:Irish bishops that may be of interest to you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic dioceses of Great Britain[edit]

Not totally sure of the terms of the offer. Please outline the scheme / structure and I'll see if I can support. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused as well. Can you clarify your proposal? Your recent edits are also confusing, here [6] you remove 2 dioceses from the Template:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland with the dubious assertion that "Wikipedia category is based on the political borders", then in the next edit, you revert yourself. Please also note that Roman Catholicism in Ireland is organised as a single Episcopal Conference encompassing both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, having been unaffected by the partition of Ireland in 1920–22. The main article is Roman Catholicism in Ireland, categories following the main article. Snappy (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sharing your concerns[edit]

No, I don't. I've looked at the editor interaction analyser, and I can't really see what the problem might be. Certainly there is nothing worthy of a topic ban. I fully support this edit, for example. StAnselm (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring, and now that you've realised I don't entirely agree with you, you've become rather belligerent. You casked me to get involved in the issue, and I am. Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland is clearly supposed to be a subcategory of Category:Dioceses in Ireland - I really don't see how you could disagree with that. StAnselm (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:StephanieAnnGrayCCBR.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:StephanieAnnGrayCCBR.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. LGA talkedits 06:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you need to provided it to WP:ORTS and provide a free image, and not a replaceable fair use one. LGA talkedits 06:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
WP only images are not acceptable see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing. LGA talkedits 07:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
She is living, and anyone can walk up to her and take a free image therfore any non-free image of her fails WP:NFCC#1 see March 23, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution. LGA talkedits 07:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
If she (her company) release this CC-BY-SA and provide WP:ORTS with proof then that will be fine. LGA talkedits 07:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No need, once it clears WP:ORTS they will remove the deletion and if it does get deleted before all the checks are done it will be restored once they are happy with the permissions. Better safe than sorry. LGA talkedits 08:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephanie Gray, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abbotsford and Elizabeth Cavendish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Gray[edit]

Your edits appear to be reducing the quality and policy compliance of the article. You have removed content directly pertinent to the subject of the article written by an expert published in an RS, multiple times. There is no policy basis for the removal. You have restored content that is inconsistent with WP:V and WP:BLP, content that I removed. You may want to consider changing your approach. If you are unable to do that for some reason, I will ask for assistance at BLP noticeboard. If the topic of the article is something you feel strongly about to the extent that it could compromise your editing, please just walk away from the article. There are millions of articles Sean.hoyland - talk 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Gray and WP:COI[edit]

Can you please have a read of WP:COI and disclose any relationship you may have between the subject or any organisation she works for or represents. LGA talkedits 08:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I disclose here that I have never been a representative of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical reform. I am not a paid editor, I have never been paid for any of my edits on the encyclopedia. As you can readily see by my edits and disclosed already, I am a prolife Catholic editor. We have numerous shared interests in our faith and politics. Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Saint Michael[edit]

I don't know why we have two pages but if this is so, then almost all the images on Michael (archangel) must be removed because they refer to the Saint and not to the archangel (they were all created with a "saint context" in mind). I don't agree to the distinction and, because of it, I don't agree with your rationale to remove the category. José Luiz talk 01:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the best option is to discuss the distinction and its consequences (including the overcategorization) and bring in more people to weigh in on this and not simply choose arbitrarily which one to remove. Those who chose to split the article must have a chance to discuss this. José Luiz talk 01:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:Roman Catholic Church. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Stephanie Gray shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You have now reverted reliably sourced information three times in a 24-hour span. You're at the limit of the three-revert rule and I suggest you immediately discuss your issues on the talk page. [7] [8] [9] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Benkenobi18 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephanie Gray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Cavendish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Distant galaxies[edit]

Category:Distant galaxies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)