User talk:Pmadrid

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

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I find useful


Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 15:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but a great many links were broken by moving Catholicism. You can count them here. In a while I'm going to move that article back and place a disambiguation block on top. See United States for an example. Please also review our common name namnig convention. --mav 08:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. How are the links fixed? They still go to a disambiguation page instead of an article on Catholicism. I can understand the issue of separating the general concept and the specific church, but that is not served by turning Catholicism into a disambiguation page. --mav 08:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Turning the target of thousands of pages into in a non-article is not a good solution at all. Somebody needs to write a general article on the topic of Catholicism and the stuff that is specific to the Catholic Church Communion should go to Catholic Church Communion. In the meantime I'm going to move things back the way they were by first moving Catholicism to Catholicism (disambiguation) (which will be linked from the top of the article Catholicism). I suggest you start work on creating a general Catholicism article at talk:Catholicism/temp. When it is in decent shape it would become the new Catholicism article. --mav 09:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No trouble at all. :) --mav

Please add to the list of religious topics[edit]

Hello. When you create a new article on a religious topics, could you add it to the list of religious topics? I just observed that Catholic Communion is not listed there; I'll add it. Michael Hardy 18:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy[edit]

Hello. Sometimes you may want to consider writing [[clerical celibacy|celibacy]], so that the reader sees the word celibacy but the link is to clerical celibacy rather than to celibacy. I changed this in minor orders. Michael Hardy 00:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy[edit]

Hello. Sometimes you may want to consider writing [[clerical celibacy|celibacy]], so that the reader sees the word celibacy but the link is to clerical celibacy rather than to celibacy. I changed this in minor orders. Michael Hardy 00:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Simple vow[edit]

In Simple vow you deleted the sentence about current usage ofg solemn vows [1]. If you know this sentence to be incorrect, because there are also other solemn vow in use, wouldn't it be better to name these uses too, instead of deleting? --Pjacobi 08:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Well, since all the vows of religion (poverty, chastity, obedience) are solemn in religious orders as opposed to religious congregations, I guess I could enumerate them. I just thought it would be redundant. I'll put it in for clarity's sake Pmadrid 09:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested[edit]

You might be interested in this current vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Roman Catholics -Doohickey

Husar and UGCC[edit]

I am very satisfied with your final phrasing at UGCC. We'll do something with Husar (feel free to do it on your own, as I wrote at talk). Thanks for your efforts. --Irpen 23:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Easter[edit]

I did the initial revert as a kind of knee-jerk reaction on seeing Christmas mentioned in the intro again, so I apologize if the comment was snarky. It was only after the fact that I noticed you had also NPOVed the wording, which was quite the correct thing to do, so I repaired that. Yes, the Resurrection ought to be presented as a belief and not an undisputed fact.

I did the edit there the other day mostly because I thought I could get it in without a revert war at this remove from the discussion. Since the article is primarily about Easter's religious significance it seemed to me the intro ought to reflect that. The discussion of secular observances doesn't begin until more than halfway down the article, and it takes up only a small fraction of the text. They're obviously of secondary importance to the observant (who put the religious meaning first) and the non-observant (who put Christmas in first place) alike. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Coat of arms[edit]

Ta for updating it - Oscar. --OscarTheCattalk 08:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move for RCC[edit]

Pmadrid, your rational comment on Talk:Roman Catholic Church is a breath of fresh air. I responded right below your comment, with a syllogism of my own that I respectfully ask you to consider. Thanks. --Hyphen5 18:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Canon law[edit]

It sounds like your experience of Canon Law is that you've read a book.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of cases heard in any diocesan or metropolitan tribunal are annulment cases. In fact, that's the only kind of case that ever actually comes to most tribunals.

They fall into two types: documentary cases and contentious cases. Documentary cases are those based on a lack of dispensation from canonical form: basically, a Catholic went and got married in front of a civil judge or Protestant minister or what have you, without checking with a priest. All that is needed is the baptismal certificate showing no notations for matrimony, the civil marriage license showing the officiant, sworn statements from the party that he or she has never left the Church and never attempted another marriage, and then a check of the records of any diocese in which the party lived or where the marriage took place. Statements from family and friends may be needed as support. These are usually reviewed by a single judge.

The contentious cases are those based on something else -- psychological immaturity, etc. These require much more extensive work-ups, lots of witnesses, etc. They are reviewed by panels.

Now, don't quote the definitions of contentious etc. -- I know them well. I'm saying that in the practical order, of the couple of thousand cases a metropolitan tribunal might hear in a year, all but a couple (at most) fall into one of these two categories. HarvardOxon 14:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See, we're in agreement that annulments are the most frequent case brought before the tribunals. My point in the article is that a tribunal is competent to hear many more issues under canon law than annulments (penal cases, ordinary contentious, etc.). By most I meant that a single judge can decide most kinds of cases that could arise under canon law, not the most of the ones that are presented in a given year. See my comments on your talk page. Pmadrid 04:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church Hierarchy / Metropolitans[edit]

Howdy, I just noticed your edit of Catholic Church hierarchy and I wonder if a clarification might be neccessary. While it is true that normally the tribunal of the metropolitan (arch)diocese is the first court of appeal, I don't think its proper to say that the metropolitan (arch)bishop is the first court of appeal (which is what it now states).Dcheney 04:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Perhaps my edit was an oversimplification. The metropolitan can decide any case which is presented to his tribunal, even appeals from suffragan tribunals, without using his judges (cc. 1419 & 1438). He rarely does this, though, usually leaving it to the judicial vicar and judges. It should be noted that when these judges act, they act with ordinary vicarious judicial power, which means despite the fact that they act with their own power, they use that power in the name of the metropolitan (cc. 131 & 1420). Technically the edit could stand as it is, but it is confusing because it doesn't explain the usual norm. To avoid confusion it should be changed to metropolitan's tribunal as you suggest. Pmadrid 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I had been wondering after posting my earlier comment whether it was just a delegated authority.--Dcheney 04:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Prerogatives of the Princeps Senatus[edit]

Hi, you wrote on the Princeps Senatus page the following:

"the office gained the prerogatives of the presiding magistrates and additional powers, namely: Summoning and adjourning the Senate Deciding its agenda Deciding where the session should take place Imposing order and other rules of the session Meeting, in the name of the senate, with embassies of foreign countries Writing, in the name of the senate, letters and dispatches"

I was recently talking about this with a friend who claims that there were no such prerogatives associated with the position. If you have sources for this, it would really help me out. Thanks.

Ordinaries[edit]

Wrong, no, incorrect.

VGs and EVs are "ordinaries" only with regard to exercise of their power, not with regard to source. Their jurisdiction is vicarious, which is why they are vicars, eh? That is, the source of their authority is delegated, hence they are delegates, which is why the VG loses jurisdiction with the death of the bishop (Cn. 481). They are, in fact, properly "quasi-ordinaries" in that they exercise functions by the law itself (475, 479), and so are ordinaries in the exercise of their office, but their jurisdiction is derivative (479, in that the bishop may restrict or limit their jurisdiction). "This is vicarial jurisdiction, delegated as to its source, but ordinary as to its exercise, and which would be more accurately termed quasi-ordinary. In this sense vicars-general and diocesan officials are ordinaries." (Boudhinon; cf Sagmuller). In short, as you have it written, VGs are equivalents of diocesan bishops, which is emphatically not the case.HarvardOxon 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are saying, and I realize my error. We are both right in some way, but you are more right than I am. I was wrong in saying that VGs and EVs exercise their own power. They do indeed exercise the executive power of their bishop. My mistake. I will adjust the article accordingly.
I was trying to avoid saying that VGs and EVs are delegates of the bishop, and I came up with the wrong terminology instead. We should still use a different word than delegate because they are not mere delegates of the bishop. A delegate exercises power by virtue of a mandate. An ordinary exercises power by virtue of an office, which is a more stable exercise of power.
The power that the vicars exercise is not their own power; it is the power of the bishop. However, as ordinaries they have the right by virtue of law to exercise the bishop's power, subject to the limits that the bishop has placed on it (a la c. 479) and the limits of law. In essence, their ordinary power is a power of agency. The Catholic Encyclopedia also defines vicar as agent and not a mere delegate. I think defining vicar as "agent of the bishop" is a way to avoid using the term delegate which could be confused with "delegated power", a completely different concept than what these offices entail.
By the way, a few offices with vicarious ordinary power do not fall vacant sede vacante. The judicial vicar, for instance, retains his power. If his were mere delegated power, his mandate should also expire sede vacante. Instead we have a special law in the case of vicars general and episcopal (c. 481) in which they lose their office (not just their jurisdiction), emphasizing again the fact that these guys really are ordinaries and that there has to be a special depriving them of office in order to extinguish their powers sede vacante.
Thanks for bringing this up though. This should make the articles even more accurate. Pmadrid 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Emblem of the Papacy[edit]

Enough examples have red rope on red that perhaps it's just custom, though I can't recall seeing blue. This could probably use some research. Note the wiki images have the keys switched between the Vatican and Holy See coats of arms. Re this edit - I think the switched keys distinguishes the coat of arms of the Holy See from that of the Vatican City. This could also be researched. Gimmetrow 04:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that this does need some serious research. Pmadrid 05:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the Holy See[edit]

Hi Pmadrid.

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#"Holy_See"_coatofarms which is currently trying to produce a new image of the coat of arms of the Holy See? I lack knowledge about the finer differences between this and related insignia, and any help would be great. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 22:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Notre Dame coat of arms[edit]

I was looking at this image today, and I noticed this from the image's description: "The copyright on those works was not renewed and has subsequently expired, but the image's use as a trademark is still protected." If its use as a trademark is still protected (which I imagine it is, given that it's part of the coat of arms of a university), doesn't that mean that it's not really a public domain image? Esrever 04:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I guess the answer to your question depends on whether the term public domain encompasses all sorts of ideas/works or just ideas/works that can be protected by copyright. In the former case, the coat would not be in the public domain, since there would be a restriction on a particular use of the coat (i.e. using the same or a confusingly similar coat of arms to identify a good or service). However, if it were the latter, then it would be in the public domain since anyone could legally make a copy of that image or derive a work from that image and, so long as they did not use the image to identify a good or service, would not be infringing anything. A different but related question would be whether an encyclopedia needs to worry about potential trademark rights over an image that would be used in the body of the text and not on the cover where it might confuse consumers, i.e. the image is effectively in the public domain for Wiki purposes.Pmadrid 04:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
See, I think this is the problem here. Things that are public domain are completely free (free libre, not free gratis). For something to be in the public domain there can be no restrictions on its use. However, you note above that "if it were the latter, then it would be in the public domain . . . so long as they did not use the image to identify a good or service" (emphasis mine, of course). By my reading, that means it's not in the public domain, period. So both parts of your test above mean this particular image is not a public domain image, since Notre Dame can legally claim restrictions on its usage.
Too, I guess the question comes down to whether it's merely a trademarked image or a copyrighted logo. I look at it like the Nike swoosh rather than the Coke logo. I can't put the Nike swoosh on just anything because it's a copyright of Nike, Inc. Likewise, I don't think you can put this Notre Dame logo on just anything, either. Does this all make sense? I'm not even sure I entirely understand it.
So with all this in mind, I'm going to change its licensing from {{PD-US}} to {{Non-free logo}}. Feel free to dispute that on the image's talk page (I noticed that you replied to the query I posted there, too). Cheers! Esrever 04:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Catholicism[edit]

Hello, I'm Thw1309. I'm the other guy, working on Template:Catholicism. Although I think, that the work we did on the template made some good improvements, perhaps we should work together. I have changed the headline of group 3 (Tradition and churches) to what I think is a good compromise, but there are some problems left about the churches of the Byzantine rite and about the Roman church and it's rites.

As far as I know, the official rite of the Roman church is the Latin rite, while the other rites are only allowed beside this rite. I don't know about the Anglican use or the legal position of these former Episcopals. Are they a special part of the Roman church with permission to use a special rite (an additional official rite or an allowed exception like the other rites) or are they a particular church of their own?

In behalf of the churches of the Byzantine rite, I think that the additions like Greek is a fundamental part of their names.

How do you think about this?--Thw1309 10:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the rites of the western church to show that there are several more or less independent rites, but there is one rite, which represents "mainstream", without saying, that this rite is better or more important. All of them are rites, approved by the Holy See and therefore, should be on this list. To show this, I came back to the style, you used in the origin, and just put the Roman rite on top, to show, that this is mainstream. Perhaps you find a better solution--Thw1309 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure[edit]

I just wanted to let you know about the formation of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure. We hope to cover all the major motions and parliamentary procedure terms. You are welcome to join. Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Catholic diocese[edit]

Template:Infobox Catholic diocese has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. All the instances where it was used (all 3) now point to the more widely used {{Infobox Roman Catholic diocese}}. Bazj (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

question?[edit]

I saw that you are interested in topics related to the Roman Catholic church, and am wondering if you are the P. Madrid? Just curious. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not Patrick Madrid.Pmadrid (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RCC or CC[edit]

You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move --PBS (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Holysee-arms.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Holysee-arms.png. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Holysee-arms.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Holysee-arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

Are you Patrick Madrid? We have never met, I'm a catholic priest in the diocese of Rome, originally from Manchester NH. Some friends of mine are on the catholic cruise with you right now... I met up with them yesterday to take them visiting around Rome, and today they left for Capri; on Saturday they'll be taking the cruise I understand. I told them to say hi to you for me! :) Lwangaman (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Notre dame coat of arms.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Notre dame coat of arms.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)