User talk:Benkenobi18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Greetings...

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)

[edit] Roman Catholic Dioceses

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. :)

[edit] Re: Roman Catholic Dioceses

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)

[edit] Re Catholic dioceses

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)

[edit] Category pages on Provinces

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.

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

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)


[edit] Okay...

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)

[edit] Please be more careful

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)

[edit] Moving pages

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

[edit] Blanking

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)

[edit] List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Ireland

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)

[edit] Homophobia category

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)

[edit] Block looming ahead

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)

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)

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)

[edit] My rant

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)

[edit] Category:Homophobia

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)

[edit] Roman Catholic dioceses in England and Wales

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)

[edit] Federer

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)

[edit] Re: Records of Roger Federer

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)

[edit] Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vilnius

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)

[edit] Page moves

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)

[edit] Dioceses in the Catholic Encyclopedia

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)

[edit] January 2008

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)

[edit] Margaret Court

"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)

[edit] Vandalism report

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)

[edit] Categorisation

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 (talk • contribs) 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] Edit summaries

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)

[edit] List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Poland

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)

[edit] RE:Dioceses in Great Britain

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)

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

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) 00:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Template fix

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

[edit] WP:AIV report

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)

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

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)

[edit] Roman catholic diocese of Sofia and Plovdiv

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)

[edit] Undo

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)

[edit] Welcome back

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)

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)

[edit] Archdiocese of Chihuahua

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)

[edit] Lisbon etc

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)