User talk:Dataproducts

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

Welcome!

Hello, Dataproducts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for contributing the nice photos. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


License tagging for Image:Msgrfrankweber.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Msgrfrankweber.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Catholic" in Wikipedia[edit]

The use of "Catholic" to refer only to the churches in union with the see of Rome is POV and deprecated in Wikipedia. Roman Catholic is one reasonable alternative, and there are other ways of addressing it, but what is not reasonable is to use "Catholic Church" to refer only to those in union with Rome. Moreover, it is certainly not correct to change the usage of Roman Catholic when it does in fact refer to the Latin church. Tb (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I must insist that you discuss the changes you have been making to Good Friday. Tb (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, making the same changes every day is not acceptible as a replacement for discussing them. You must discuss them, or cease editing the page. Tb (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your desire therefore is to say that the only churches entitled to the label "Catholic" are those in union with the Bishop of Rome. (And you have also made changes indicating that the Pope of Alexandria shouldn't get to be called Pope either.) You are entitled to your point of view, but the fact remains that it is your opinion and a controversial one at that. It is for exactly this reason that the page Catholicism contains a lengthy discussion of the question, and the page Roman Catholicism has that name. If there is a name for your church which does not express this POV-centric position, there is nothing wrong with using it, but you can't just run roughshod over existing consensus in your desire to make Wikipedia conform to your own point of view. Tb (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Let it be clear: I object to your changes on Good Friday and to the other pages where you have made them, and I ask that you discuss it on the talk pages and seek consensus before you make the changes again. This is a Wikipedia requirement. Tb (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More of your POV-pushing: you consistently want to list Eastern Catholic before Eastern Orthodox, and keep rearranging that order, despite the huge numerical predominance of the Eastern Orthodox. In articles on Byzantine liturgical traditions, you consistently change "Greek-Catholic" into "Eastern Catholic", despite the existence of non-Byzantine Eastern Catholic churches. And about all these, you are well aware that your changes are controversial, and you have refused to discuss them, preferring instead to simply make the same changes, over and over again, day after day, without even edit summaries or explanations. This is not a cooperative procedure. Making the edit the first time is fine; once you learn that it is controversial, your correct procedure is to discuss it, and it is wrong to simply continue to make the same edit over and over again. Tb (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of changes[edit]

It is not permitted simply to make the same change over and over again without discussion. If there is a disagreement about which form the page should take, it must be discussed, on the talk page; you cannot simply continue to make the same change. Discussion is required, and only if consensus is reached, is the change to be made. Tb (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on June 1 2008 to Kathleen Sebelius[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to revert the article to your preferred form accomplishes nothing if you do not participate on the article's Talk page. Edit warring without communication (or even with communication) can get you blocked, especially when you are insisting on unproductively adding information which is already included in the article. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic[edit]

Hi, Dataproducts. I noticed in a recent edit to Eastern Orthodox Church you removed the word "Roman" from "Roman Catholic Church". This can cause some confusion, because the Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Catholic Church. If one is writing within a Roman Catholic mileu, or contrasting that church with Protestantism, there is no problem with saying "Catholic" or "Catholic Church" when refering to the Roman Catholic Church, but in a wider audience--which is what Wikipedia is--it is better to stick to the more descriptive term. Anglicans also consider themselves to be part of the Catholic Church, though many Roman Catholics would disagree. In the same manner, the expression "Orthodox Church" may be misleading to some, so it is better to say "Eastern Orthodox Church", even though Orthodox Christians themselves would feel it is somewhat inaccurate. So everybody compromises a little bit, and no one need be offended. Thanks. Sincerely, MishaPan (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ecv1.51.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ecv1.51.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ecv1.55.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ecv1.55.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Last warning[edit]

It seems like you have been being disruptive for months now. In fact, I am almost convinced you are only here to trying to push your personal POV, ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is NPOV and accepts multiple common usages. Just so you know, it is considered disruptive editing to add or remove the word "Roman" in association with the "Catholic Church". Please see here. You also have been inexplicably changing the order of phrases, for what seems like the sole purpose of giving your preferred institution prevalence by placing it first. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Because of this, nearly all of your recent edits have been, at the very least, not helpful, or even disruptive. I'd like to encourage you to be productive, so please feel free to find other ways to contribute, but I also want to know that you may be blocked if you are only here to push your POV and be disruptive. If you have questions about any of this, or want more information about other things you could do on wikipedia to help our, feel free to contact me or use {{helpme}}. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 23:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

File:StAnneIntOrig2.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:StAnneIntOrig2.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mahony[edit]

I saw you added some material with a comment that you'd restore it again if deleted. However for a source you listed a forum. Forums aren't acceptable sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. Perhaps someone has made a similar comment in the L.A. Times or the OC Register. I'm going to remove it again, but you're welcome to restore it if you find an adequate source. Also, for purposes of neutrality, we try to avoid using the word "claimed". It implies skepticism about the truth of the assertion. "Said" or "states" are more neutral alternatives. See WP:WTA.   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Clamoper photos[edit]

Hi, ist it possible to move your ECV shots to commons? BR Polentario (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Iconicstanne.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Iconicstanne.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk 03:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:LaPlacitaChurchFromSpringStreet1.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:LaPlacitaChurchFromSpringStreet1.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Dataproducts) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to refer to an organization, rather than an individual. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Editor has been contributing constructively for over four years. If there were a COI, it would have revealed itself by now. --Danger (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

The California Star.

For your many contributions to Articles on Southern California.   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC) ]

Possibly unfree File:Eclampusvitus2.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eclampusvitus2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saint Anne Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Administrator (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) 12:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Browning Citori, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 05:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Cerro San Luis Obispo, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN talk to me 06:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Still trying to add your unsourced opinion to this article, huh? --NeilN talk to me 02:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon Your addition to John Rigby & Company 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 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. NeilN talk to me 12:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Latin is not a synonym for Roman[edit]

Latin rite and Roman rite are two different things with two different articles. Rwflammang (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're confused. Latin Rite and Roman Rite are exactly the same thing -- they're the rite of the Western Half of the Catholic Church. You're confusing a LITURGICAL RITE (Ambrosian/Milanese) with the rite of a specific church.