User talk:Manannan67/Archive 1

IPs editing Popes

Mannanan51, the IPs editing Popes may go further back than we realize.

Please check out:

• 49.147.191.157
• 49.147.183.110
• 119.93.41.213 --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

There are at least two more apart from the two I listed above. All seem to located in the Phillipines, all making a series of entries at the end of last month. See "Mass changes to pope articles by new user" on Catholicism Talk page. I don't think they're getting this from Miranda. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Judging from the edits of Job Labasan, I believe this editor is the IP. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Brychan, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You changed the text sourced to Koch so that it no longer reflected the source. Please don't do this again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Manannan67. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doug Weller talk 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Your addition to New York Foundling has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. /wiae /tlk 15:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

de Capillas

I've undone your merge pending further discussion. I think the merge should go the other way, since that article has a lot more history. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Beacon firehouse

Well, the building I took the picture of is the one at the address listed on the Register.

But it might be helpful if we can pull up the nomination form and see ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Catholic Encyclopedia, please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't make it up, I copied it from somewhere. See: "Category:Contributors to the Catholic Encyclopedia"; but I believe I saw a different page with more names listed, which is why I deleted the section in the article that I started on contributors. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Theodorus and Theophanes

Please start a proper proposal discussion, & I will comment. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Cave of Saint Blaise you included material copied from Veles (god). That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Typo in your notes?

Would you find the text from which you are duplicating your added cites such as

The Catholic Encyclopedia and Its Makers, Encylopedia Press, Incorporated, 1917

and fix the misspelled word 'Encylopedia'? I've cleaned up several of these now, e.g. this, and would like to think there'll not be more.

• Félix-Marie Abel
• Charles De Smedt
• Thomas J. Campbell (university president)
• Frederick George Holweck
• Georges Goyau
• Oswald Staniforth
• John Hungerford Pollen (Jesuit)

though I've not yet done

• W. H. Grattan Flood
• John Chapman (priest) (eh, fixed it)
• William Francis Barry

as found with this search: ~"Encylopedia" "Catholic Encyclopedia"

Not the only one misspelling 'Encyclopedia', but I'm finding one editor using copy-n-paste can duplicate the same error many times. I'll need to use a tool to fix the 84 times "Uncloudy Days: The Gospel Music Encyclopdia" occurs, all done by one editor, now gone for over two years. I wonder how many were fixed in the meantime? Speaking of which e.g. Shenme (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have verified the other 58 articles, and made two corrections. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

Log in problem; wouldn't recognize password; no email to reset; instructions said create new account and then use move tag. No move button. Redirected talk page to new account; can't redirect old user page.

Please help me with...moving User:Mannanan51 to User:Manannan67

Manannan67 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Here you are. Huon (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents

Would you like to have a look at my changes to Massacre of the Innocents? I've tried to make it readable, balanced, and not too long. PiCo (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Some observations:

• I could not find where the lengthy discussion in the lede summarizes anything in the text; maybe it should be moved down to a prefatory Background section.
• Reference to Thomas Paine doesn't seem to add anything since he wasn't an historian, biblical scholar nor theologian; not sure his opinion is any more valid than that of Galileo, if indeed he had one.
• "Those who deny that the inspiration of the story is theological rather than historical point" - are these necessarily mutually exclusive?
• "(No explanation has been offered for why it should be absent from Luke's gospel, or why Mark and John have no infancy narrative whatsoever)." Don't know that any explanation is required. Different writers at different times with different sources for different audiences; variations between Matthew and Luke are discussed somewhat in the "Nativity of Jesus" article.
• Perhaps some of the images in the gallery could be moved to the appropriate paragraph in the Arts section where applicable. Not sure why the link to Commons was deleted, as it appears that is sometimes recommended in preference to galleries.

Appreciate the time you've put into this, it shows. (I will look for some needed citations tagged in the Arts section.) Mannanan51 (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to take all your comments into account - thanks for the time. The gallery and the commons link: I happen to like galleries, as Christian art is, in my opinion, quite beautiful. About the commons link, I have no idea what happened - I don't think I intenmtionally reloved it - if you want to restore it, feel free. :) PiCo (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit to Louis-François Duplessis de Mornay

See here. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That's the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is my understanding is in the public domain -as was duly noted in the citation. If this is incorrect, please advise. Mannanan51 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I've spent 6 minutes looking and I can't find something explicitly stating the licensing of the websites' contents. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 00:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

n.b.

• "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1924. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S. (see Help:Public domain)". -from Wikisource.
• (See also: Catholic Encyclopedia#Online versions).
• "Knight chose the 1913 15-volume set because the later editions are still under copyright protection. Not only is the 1913 version in the public domain, but it is also thought by many to be the superior version."[1] -from the New Advent website. Mannanan51 (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. That works. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Accounts

Hello Manannan67, I see you have use de two accounts. I just wanted to know if you read over https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ALTACCN&redirect=no . To be honest, Wikipedia is somewhat boring except for the occasional stubborn Wikipedian. I just wanted to stop by and say Hi.Manabimasu (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, please note discussion directly above. Sign-in got screwed up. I solicited assistance. No longer use the old account, and I don't think I can access it anymore. It redirects here. This is just a continuation of the previous account I can't get into. An administrator handled it. I gathered that was all that was needed. Manannan67 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Theodore Edgar McCarrick

Hi! I think I see what you were getting at, so I've adjusted the wording to match. To me, the initial wording contradicted the source because the Wikipedia article didn't actually mention that McCarrick offered to discuss anything further. Adding there's no indication whether such conversations ever took place without mentioning that offer reads like it's saying there's no evidence that the quotations from McCarrick about Weigel took place - obviously that's not true, because they are quotations from the source/McCarrick's letters. I've added a mention about the offer to discuss further to make it clear that there's no evidence any further discussions took place. Hope that makes sense! Marianna251TALK 18:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Kirn, or Kern?

Noticed in Pandeism you linked to Otto Kern, but source quoted clearly says “Kirn” — and it’s now in the article two different ways. How to reconcile this? Any way to know for sure “Kirn” means “Kern”? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

see Pandeism Talk. Manannan67 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Since we’d discussed, copied Otto Kirn from the German. Added what we had here. Please review. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks very good. Kirn also wrote an earlier review on something by Bertholet; I'll add it tomorrow, if I can find it. Manannan67 (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Display name 99 (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Hiya. I'm not sure your recent merge proposal is complete. My understanding of the guideline is that a discussion thread should be started on the relevant talk page. Ideally as the first step. Such that the merge tag then simply draws attention to that discussion thread. Please do consider setting out your merge rationale on the relevant talk page (rather than solely in an edit summ). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Whistle

Hey, thanks! That was on my long-list of things I never quite got around to doing Nzd (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move - relisted

Would you care to give your opinion over at Talk:Latin Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad#Requested move 14 December 2019? Elizium23 (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Pochayiv Lavra

I have restored the morefootnotes template you removed from the article on the Pochayiv Lavra. If we deleted every paragraph without a citation, there would not be much article left. Other people using the encyclopedia should be able check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia's content is meant to be determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Toddy1 (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to either delete the unsourced material or add sources. Manannan67 (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Manannan67, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Manannan67! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Franz Mayer & Co.

Some of the content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.mayer-of-munich.com/werkstaette/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Or ping me! I won't see your reply if you don't ping me.— Diannaa (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Strange edits on Supremi apostolatus officio

Hello. I do not know why you decided to turn the article about this one encyclical into an article about encyclicals of Leo XIII about the rosary, taking from other independent articles in other languages. Was it your intention and why have you not moved the article? Why have you not created independent articles for e.g. Quod auctoritate? I have tried to fix the mess you left, but be careful next time, as you had created a WP:Coatrack article. Veverve (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
And why have you done exactly the same thing at Octobri mense?!? Veverve (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
And you did the same with Augustissimae Virginis Mariae. Veverve (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Veverve: I have no idea what you're talking about, and a review of your recent edits indicates that neither do you. You have bolloxed things up so much than I cannot determine what I am being accused of. In your first few edits on Supremi apostlatus you can't seem to make up your mind. The information in re Magna dei matris in Octobri menses was added because it followed and was directly related to its predecessor encyclical and did not, at that time, have its own article in English wiki. You then created one. Good for you. The large section you deleted from Augustissimae Virginis Mariae does not appear to be something I added. You seem very proud of yourself, but I really can't see why. Manannan67 (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I indeed thought for a few moments before deciding to create 5 new WP articles, as well as during the process of sorting things out, hence why it is quite chaotic. I believe it is understandable in view of the size of the problem.

You decided to put summaries with infoboxes from other encyclicals into other encyclicals for no apparent reasons (most of those were in Supremi apostolatus officio, but others were on Octobri menses and Augustissimae Virginis Mariae; and I disagree, you added the section I removed on the latter). This practice is not how an article should be structured.

My point is that you must not to create articles within articles, as it is WP:COAT. In cases where subjects in the article are unrelated or almost unrelated to the main subject of the article (subject identified by the title of said article), you must create a new article or move the content to another more appropriate article. If a corresponding article already exists in another language (as was the case with all the encyclicals you packed into already existing articles), I would recommend creating a new article on the English WP corresponding to this article in another language. Veverve (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I am not as fond as you of useless, unnecessary stubs. Are you trying to increase your "articles created" count? Anything added increased context w/o users having to jump to other pages. I am not aware of any barnstar for speed. Perhaps you should slow down a bit a think before you edit. Cheers. Manannan67 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

We should not have articles on two subjects, see WP:SCOPE, WP:DISRUPT, WP:TOPIC, and WP:ROC. Veverve (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There aren't. If you can't see that, I'm afraid I can be of no assistance. -Manannan67 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

How is the subject of this article Supremi apostolatus officio (the name it had before I moved it)? The subject is barely mentioned and most of the article is about other encyclicals which are not Supremi apostolatus officio. I am simply trying to tell you it is bad practice to WP:COAT. Veverve (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I gather you are woefully confused ---about a lot of things. All I can make out is that you've moved a lot of stuff around -which sooner or later someone will no doubt revert. It is not considered good practice to pontificate on someone else's Talk page. Get yourself a blog. Manannan67 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:LEAST. Would a user be surpriser by clicking on the page with the title of an encyclical and finding an article about this encyclical and 4 more? I believe the user would. Veverve (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Not if the information is directly related and to be found nowhere else. WP:LEAST is not applicable. You seem to be under the unfortunate misapprehension that I have any interest in your views. This is not the case. Please feel free to troll elsewhere. Manannan67 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It is an absolute basis of the way in which we are organised here, that an article should be about the subject and not anything else. If the individual encyclicals are notable, than each article should be about a specific article. If some of them are not, then SUBJECT MATTER encyclicals of Pope Fred XXXiX could be a valid article title. But this bizarre hybrid format is simply not acceptable. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"SUBJECT MATTER encyclicals of Pope Fred XXXiX"? By all means feel free to create that. Any content regarding related encyclicals by the same pope on the same topic provided context. I'm sorry you can't see that. Please note that in July 2019 Superiore anno was tagged by another user for notability. Based on that, I merged it with its immediate predecessor, Supremi apostolatus officio, because it merely reiterates what Leo said the year before, and relates closer to that than some blanket listing of miscellaneous encyclicals. This month, after moving it to Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII on the Rosary, Veverve then decided to return it to to own article -which has already been tagged by another editor for needing third party sources. (In all of these various moves, I think some of the history has been lost.) Veverve's recent edits, in his/her own words, have been "quite chaotic." All of Leo's rosary encyclicals could just as well go in one article, rather than numerous useless stubs, but it's not really something in which I am all that interested. I haven't edited any encyclical articles in a couple of months and am little surprised by the diatribe. As far as "that an article should be about the subject and not anything else"... I would respectfully direct your attention to any of a number of listings under Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge. Manannan67 (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Your additions to Criticism of the Catholic Church

Thought I should let you know that I added your material to Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church. The Paganized Christianity subsection is going there. I don't know exactly what the Criticism of the Catholic Church page will look like when the split is completed, but you are welcome to start now if you like. As for the transclusion tags on the Christianity and Paganism page, I re-added them. When you removed them, it took out the Anglo-Saxon subsection on Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please explain what the "The Anglo-Saxon conversion" has to do with "Alleged corruption of the Catholic Church"? Mannanan51 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It is an example of pagan influence. It is not corruption from everyone's perspective, but such crypto-paganism is regarded as such by Restorationist and Protestant apologists such as the ones you used earlier. It other words, it is a topic of such allegations.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Just where is the pagan influence? ---Please note that the Protestant apologists (those were not my sources, they were already cited) each wrote well over 100 years ago. Newman (author of the Young Lady's Guide) penned his tome during the midst of the nativist movement. Mannanan51 (talk)

I won't be able to keep an eye on things today (2019 Venezuela coup attempt); please ping me if input is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Warning for edit warring

Your recent editing history at Immaculate Conception shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Achar Sva (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Warning for edit warring

Your recent editing history at Immaculate Conception shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Achar Sva (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Manannan67. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems there haven't been any very recent violations, and you have been attributing between pages in recent edits, so I will not block you. That said, this is your final warning regarding copyright violations- further violations will result in an indefinite block. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 21:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:CATHOLIC#Lists of parishes, schools, religious on diocesan article pages

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:CATHOLIC#Lists of parishes, schools, religious on diocesan article pages. Elizium23 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite

Hello, you have added a short reference to "Bagg pp 442, 621" to Francis Kernan. Please provide a full cite as it is now entirely unclear what this is supposed to reference. I would suggest you add a script (see instructions at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight these errors so that they can be avoided going forward. Thanks, Renata (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't intended to provide a citation at all, since it's not exactly controversial information. Manannan67 (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, behave politely

Please, behave more politely or I will be forced to report You. Kind regards, StjepanHR (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Says the pot to the kettle. Manannan67 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_fiction&type=revision&diff=1035983286&oldid=1035982540 It was not me who eliminated the sentence in question. StjepanHR (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Massacre of the Innocents shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Achar Sva (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kolping Society (November 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TTP1233 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kolping Society and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kolping Society, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jyoti Roy (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Manannan67! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jyoti Roy (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge made without consensus

I am of the opinion this redirect was unjustified; this had been discussed prior to the move and had the approval of four editors and the input of one other. (this is a copy of the message listed on the other page)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What specifically is the problem? You, yourself, placed the banner on the page indicating that it needed "to be cleaned up or summarized". I am doing both. ...and I quote: " I don't know exactly what the Criticism of the Catholic Church page will look like when the split is completed, but you are welcome to start now if you like." So I did. Three separate editors have indicated that the split you initiated was at the very lest "problematic". Other observations were "dreadful", "misleading" and "laughable". Given that the Catholic church is a rather large, ancient institution there will no doubt be a good deal with which one could take issue. Much of the excessive text was disorganized and immaterial. This is not the place for lengthy, incoherent dissertations. All that is needed is a brief description and a link to the appropriate Main article. In fact, IMHO that is the best approach in order to be as realistically comprehensive as possible -and it does not require discussing some elderly bishop who may have passed gas someplace. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The cleanup banner was for the main page, not this one. I just had a thought: If you support me moving the corruptions page to community draft per the comment made by Hyperbolick (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC) (and later restated on his talk page), I will withdraw my objection, both here and on the talk page. (The page would need to come out of draft via the formal process this way.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It would seem a bit more appropriate if you would direct your comments to the Main page, as (1) it keeps discussion in one place, and (2) there may be other users would have some views on the matter. Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

will do--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia on Wikisource

Hi, thanks for your recent edits (e.g. Armand-Benjamin Caillau and Boisil) adding a title to the "Catholic" template. It would be better to add "wstitle=" instead of "title=" to the template. This then links to the Wikisource article. I edited the Boisol article to also include the volume and author (which can be found via the Wikisource article) like this: "{Catholic Encyclopedia|wstitle=St. Boisil |volume=2 |first=Herbert |last=Thurston}". The www.newadvent.org pages has advertising and contains the same information as Wikisource, so it's best to use the latter.

The aim is to reduce the number of articles in these two categories:

• Category:Articles incorporating a citation from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia without Wikisource reference
• Category:Articles incorporating text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia with no article parameter

If you're keen, you can add in-line references to show which text came from the Catholic Encyclopedia e.g. see my edits to Bertha of Artois. Use https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia to show matches between Wikipedia and Catholic Encyclopedia articles. Thanks and regards. DivermanAU (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Third Order of Saint Francis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Third Order of Saint Francis, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Order of Saint Francis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

CatholicSaints.Info

Hi Manannan67, I just wanted to let you know that CatholicSaints.Info is a non-expert WP:SPS. It has basically no use to us. As he himself says "it’s still a hobby" and he is an "Amateur Hagiographer" [2]. If you see it around please remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not remotely interested in CatholicSaints.Info apart from it's occasionally being a convenient portal to access original sources such as Butler or Ramsgate, and I will continue to do so. When a source refers to a prior source, it's generally considered preferable to cite the original from whence the material first derived. Manannan67 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

We can't use it as a portal, we can only use WP:RS like that. Theres nothing which guarantees that some rando on the internet isn't going to change something in a hosted work or accurately represent it. Thats the whole reason we have a WP:RS policy in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Wait, by "continue to do so" do you mean that outside of that revert you have used CatholicSaints.Info? If so you're going to need to remember where so we can go remove it together. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a problem with reading comprehension? I clearly stated that I do not use CatholicInfo; I go to his sources. That is more than acceptable. Manannan67 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You are using catholicsaints.info as a source. If the link is to catholicsaints.info thats your source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, no. That is incorrect. If I cite McClintock and Strong's Online version, it's still PD because it displays the 1922 text. If I cite CE, it may be from newadvent or it may be from wikisource. It's still CE. Manannan67 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You are not citing McClintock and Strong's Online version... You're citing catholicsaints.info. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The Catch-22 (logic) is that without the original source you can't verify that what catholicsaints.info has posted is accurate and if you have the original source then there is no need to cite catholicsaints.info. There just isn't a valid time beyond WP:ABOUTSELF to cite sources like catholicsaints.info. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)