User talk:Jdcompguy

Hello Jdcompguy, and

! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started!

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Template messages
• Sandbox

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

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.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elizium23! Merry Christmas to you too! Jdcompguy (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
• Syro-Malabar Catholic Archeparchy of Kottayam
• Melkite Greek Catholic Archeparchy of Tyre

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]

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]

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).

, 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.

--Vicedomino (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add anything; I simply reverted your controversial deletion of content. Jdcompguy (talk) 03:41, 26 May 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]

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 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liturgical calendar of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Epiphany and Corpus Christi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are currently engaged in an edit war based on the reverts you have made on Season of Annunciation. You are supposed to collaborate with other users, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, instead of undoing edits by other users once it is known that there is a disagreement.Antojpr (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 don't understand a part of your comment: what is the right category in your opinion? Thank you. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 04:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Est. 2021: Thanks for asking. Try "Approved public veneration," assuming there's a good citation showing that public veneration was approved by an ecclesial authority. Jdcompguy (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cathedral of the Divine Shepherdess

added a link pointing to Divine Shepherdess

Siparia

added a link pointing to Divine Shepherdess

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted your move, for various reasons. If you feel strongly about a different name, please begin a

]

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]

I'm not even talking Roman, but Lutheran. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 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]

(edit conflict) [2], [3], [4], [5] - I'd not call that a nickname. - Out now, real life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 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]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cathedral of the Divine Shepherdess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divine Shepherdess.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think you're doing usurping Template:Cite CrC for citing Criminal Code (Canada) with the totally unrelated Template: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]

OK, you caught my attention because of your error-checking which I believe I fixed with this edit. Otherwise, I would not have noticed. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:55, 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]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in General Roman Calendar. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I am following the Manual of Style. Please return the discussion to the appropriate talk page. Thank you. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite CCC/URL lookup/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Template:Ambiguous short name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jdcompguy

Thank you for creating Institutional and societal calendars of the Roman Rite.

, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jdcompguy. You've created

]

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]

Are you only substituting the template? If the template is only supposed to be used with substitution, then it should be marked with template {{Always substitute}} in documentation. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continuing church. Other regulars from the WProject Christianity have already given their opinion, and I invite you to do the same. Veverve (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jdcompguy

Thank you for creating Personal jurisdiction calendars of the Roman Rite.

, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message