November 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Goodone121. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Second Vatican Council, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conventions + external links[edit]

Conventions of documents which come from the Roman Catholic Church tend to follow roughly the same model, e.g., at Traditionis custodes. Your modifications, such as those at Dignitatis humanae or Inter mirifica diverge from those models which is not acceptable.

@Veverve: What conventions? Please provide evidence that there is Wikipedia policy on this matter. Otherwise, it's just a personal preference of yours.

How does Dignitatis humanae "diverge" from Traditionis custodes? I added considerable information about the background to the document and about its content. You find the same elements in Traditionis custodes: background and content of the document.

How does Inter mirifica "diverge" from Traditionis custodes? My only contribution was to rewrite the lede somewhat. The rest of the article is not by me. MDJH (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy, simply a general custom which you find for most WP article concerning Catholic documents when it comes to the lede (the title of the document, followed by its translation in English between parenthesis in one way or another, then its date and promulgator and other essential information).

You did add some reliably sourced information, I reverted because your edits were more bad than good. Veverve (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, you ought to stop putting external links into the summary and body of the articles like you do. Veverve (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve:In both articles you mention, I added a link in the lede to the English translation of the document. As a person begins to read the article, they may want to have a copy of the document so as to follow along with the summary found in the article. Placing the link in the lede seems to me the perfect place to put it.

If you are suggesting there is a Wikipedia policy that external links should never be placed in the lede or body of an article, then please point it out to me. MDJH (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#External_links Veverve (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:External links. Veverve (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, adding your own summaries as to what the document containes takes place and is useless on top of being probably WP:OR. Veverve (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Why is adding a summary of the content of the document “useless”? When someone looks up a page on Wikipedia about a historic document, it is to learn about its content.

Why is adding a summary of the content of the document OR? The article on Traditiones custodes, which you present as a model to be followed, does exactly the same thing: it goes through the document summarizing the content of each of its articles. MDJH (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the pseudo-summaries, they are useless as they do not explain anything apart from the structure of the document which is useless to most readers.

The summary of TC is taken from secondary sources which are sometimes slightly completed by the TC text. Long summaries made by users may be subject to the users' preferences, and so are to be avoided as much as possible. Veverve (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudet mater Ecclesia[edit]

@Veverve: See my explanation on the talk page for Gaudet mater Ecclesia

Article talk space[edit]

Greetings; you cannot simply delete whole threads in article talk space because they're resolved or you're done. Other people commented there too, and you're not in control of the conversation. If you wish to archive them because they're stale or old, that's fine; that is usually an automatic or on-demand process. Elizium23 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted 5 items from the talk page: #2, 5, 8, 9, 11.

You say: "You cannot delete whole threads in article talk space because they're resolved ... Other people commented there too". You obviously have not been paying attention: no one else commented on any of the 5 items in question. The "whole threads" you refer to consist of the original poster's comment and nothing else.

The first 4 items were requests for a correction to the article (the English wasn't very clear; some information was missing, etc.). Once these corrections were made, there was no purpose in leaving the request on the talk page: if someone objected to the correction, they could address the correction directly rather than discussing the request on the talk page. Item 11 was an announcement by me that I would create a new section in the article. Once the new section was created, there was no purpose in leaving the announcement on the talk page: if someone objected to the new section, they could address the new section directly rather than discussing the announcement on the talk page.

Please show me, not in general terms but specifically by discussing any of those 5 items, that there was some purpose in keeping them. MDJH (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]