Hello Jdcompguy, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started!
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
There is nothing unusual about following up an RM with another one to a completely different title. My new RM does not seek a reversion of the previous RM but in fact accepts the consensus view that "Roman Catholic" should be on the front of the page name for "consistency". If an uninvolved admin wants to SNOW close it, fine. But a participant in the previous RM who thinks this is a rehash and is not an admin should not. Srnec (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is disingenuous of you to claim that you accept consistency when you want to tack a redundant "for the Latins" onto the end of it. That's anything but consistent, and that is you claiming that "Roman Catholic" means something other than what we've decreed it to mean through consensus across thousands of other diocesan articles. Elizium23 (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends on what you mean by consistency. We have no power to "decree" the meaning of anything. And I deny that Roman Catholic Diocese of Limoges tells us that it is a Latin diocese. I think that you have misread or misunderstood these article titles. They are the way they are because of other non-Catholic dioceses and because some people want them to all look the same. We could drop the "Roman Catholic" part from half of them with no loss. In my view, "of the Latins" is not redundant at all. The current title is an error and the !votes in the previous RM that mention moving thousands of articles have clearly misunderstood the issue. This RM sidesteps that. Srnec (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given these examples, it is crystal clear what "Roman Catholic" means in the context of a diocesan article name. I don't understand how someone could deny that reality. It's tiresome. Elizium23 (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: The disregard for RM consensus was so flagrant that I believed a speedy non-admin closure was called for. Several other editors agreed. I was not involved in the RM that I closed. You claim that I should not have closed the second RM because I was involved in the first RM, yet you simultaneously claim that this is a separate and distinct RM. Please make up your mind. At the very least, please move this discussion back to talk page of the article in question. Thank you. Jdcompguy (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Province, metropolitan, etc.
I am not so happy about the widespread use of these parameters. At least only one should be used in {{infobox diocese}}, for Latin Church jurisdictions they are known as provinces and are coterminous with the metropolitan so there is no need to use the latter field. In {{Infobox Christian leader}} the situation is worse, often the Diocese and Archdiocese are filled out simultaneously when it is simply confusing to name the province this way. I just delete anything that is not in direct jurisdiction over the prelate. What do you think? Elizium23 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is my understanding as well. If it's an archdiocese, it shouldn't have a province/metropolitan field. I have been blanking these as I see them. As for regular dioceses (i.e. non-archdioceses), thank you for the point about province/metropolitan being duplicates: I will start standardizing to "province." Jdcompguy (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jdcompguy, I don't know. Should an archdiocese be named in its own province? It is, technically, a part of the whole. Or is it simply clear from nomenclature that the name of a standard Latin Church Archdiocese is that of the province as well? Hmm. Elizium23 (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23: When I say I've been blanking province/metropolitan fields, what I mean is that I've been blanking fields that add no information whatsoever due to the content of the field being no more than the name of the see city present in the article title. What I would like to see in the province field, however, is a link that points to the appropriate section of e.g. List of Catholic dioceses in the United States. Thoughts? Jdcompguy (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that would be very useful. The section names are stable to facilitate linking. I think we should also bring our findings to WT:CATHOLIC for wider awareness, and to solidify any standards we set. Elizium23 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I would delete the "metro_archbishop" field for a suffgragan diocese. The province is already noted in its own field, there's no real chain-of-command jurisdiction there, and it never gets updated when there are retirements and new appointments. Elizium23 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23: OK. My current editing project is very narrow in scope, so I'm not going to worry about the province/metropolitan/metro_archbishop fields for now, but maybe I'll deal with those later. Jdcompguy (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
National Flags
I reverted your putting back of the national flag of the Republic of Italy on a diocesan page (Ancona). In 1984, the Holy See and Italy revised the Concordat of 1929, and Italy is now a secular state. A diocese has no official connection with the Republic of Italy now, except that it is an incorporated entity in civil law and must follow Italian civil law. If any flag, the diocesan web sites should display the flag of the Holy See, to which they are hierarchically attached (and to which Ancona belonged politically when there were Papal States). WP:ICON, moreover, states that in general flags should not be used in Infoboxes, since they give undue weight to one element. I appreciate your sentimental Italian patriotism, but displaying the flag of the Republic of Italy seriously distorts the history of the diocese.
Since there already was a posting on the article's TALK page, you should at least have initiated a discussion as to whether the change was necessary, and presenting your refutation of the posting's remarks.
You read way too much into an insignificant edit. Emphasizing that an Italian diocese is located in the country of Italy is a statement of geographic fact, nothing more. Jdcompguy (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You inserted over a 1kB of unsourced material into the biography of a living minor.[1] That is a clear breach of Wikipedia:Biography of living persons. You also removed the material I had inserted about his international sporting life. The material I added actually makes the article more likely to be kept. DrKay (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "insert" anything other than what you deleted. You voted to delete an article for "non-notability" and then tried to bolster your argument by stripping the article of everything appertaining to the person's primary notability. I reverted your edit and then went and found additional sources for the article. Jdcompguy (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you must be looking at someone else's edit. I searched for sources and adjusted the article to conform with those sources. I didn't actually remove anything notable about him at all. In fact, I added to the notability by adding a fact, adding public information and adding a source. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Antojpr. As explained on the page you linked to, an "edit war" is when "editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." While it is true that multiple editors have contested your changes in recent days because they don't meet Wikipedia's quality standards, I have only reverted a single edit of yours on that page a single time in the past couple weeks; you, on the other hand, have reverted others' edits multiple times. Instead of calling the kettle black, I suggest you try initiating constructive dialogue on the article's talk page. Jdcompguy (talk)
Sorry, I reverted your move, for various reasons. If you feel strongly about a different name, please begin a WP:RM on the article talk, to find consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of writing an article much broader in scope than the original. The new article incorporated the material from the old article and rendered it superfluous. Without that context, I agree that the move wouldn't have made sense. You caught the move before I had finished the rewrite. Jdcompguy (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe it should have been discussed. When I saw it, the image made no sense, and the opening sentence made no sense. I don't believe that the present name is the (or a) common name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I certainly understand why you would have reversed the move, given that I moved it before I had rewritten the article. As to the question of whether it's a common name, I have replied to this on the relevant talk page. Jdcompguy (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I saw now that you did a similar thing to Jubilate Sunday. Please clean that up, as i did with the other. All bolded names of redirects belong in the lead, not somewhere below. To call Jubilate a nickname hurts (me at least). I have work enough myself. Which forum would be responsible for the whole thing which you seem to undertake on your own? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriately called a "nickname" because it was never an official name. (Even centuries-old Roman Missals don't call it that.) I will put the bolded terms in the lede when I have time to do so. Thanks. Jdcompguy (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lutheran liturgy is descended from the Roman tradition. Do English-language Lutheran liturgical books call it Cantate Sunday? Jdcompguy (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New day: looking for something else, I found this, announcing church music for 2021, and naming Sundays (in brackets) Estomihi, Reminiszere, Laetare, Judika, Jubilate, Rogate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I've said before, I don't doubt the likelihood that "Cantate Sunday" is the dominant name in the context of German liturgical music, but that's not the primary context of the article in question. Jdcompguy (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think you're doing usurping Template:Cite CrC for citing Criminal Code (Canada) with the totally unrelatedTemplate:Cite CCC for Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)?
Was there any discussion where you got a consensus to do this? Couldn't you find a name that hadn't been previously used? wbm1058 (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite CrC is used on only 3 pages, and unlike "CCC," Cr.C. is an acronym which is actually used for Criminal Code (Canada) in legal literature. Thanks for fixing the incorrect Error transclusion. I had incorrectly assumed that it wouldn't trigger an error status when the message parameter is blank. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Yes; it's a template I'm using to overhaul several articles. It's a significant project so it's taking a while. I published the template in advance so that I can preview the results as I work on it. I will write documentation for the template once the project is complete, if not sooner. Jdcompguy (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
