User talk:Jzsj/Archive 4

Sacred Scripture (Catholic Church)

Hi Padre - I am stopping by because I noted that you were recently active on the To-Do List over at WikiProject Catholicism. I wrote on the "needed articles" section that I am working on a draft of Sacred Scripture (Catholic Church). But the more I think about and search for source, the more I wonder if this article is really necessary. We already have Catholic Bible, Biblical Canon, and Roman Catholic theology of Scripture. What are your thoughts on the need (or lack thereof) for this specific article? I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for the help! -Pax Verbum 04:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I like your ideas in the draft and agree that it touches on much the same matter as the title I pulled off the Catholicism portal. You might find a way to insert pretty much what you have in the draft into the article I began. (I don't like the "Roman" but have gone through that before on my History of [Roman] Catholicism in Belize article, and lost.) I like your emphasis on oral tradition which is very current. Anything you @Pax85: can do, in Christ.Jzsj (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

{{help me}} Are postage stamps subject to copyright or may they be freely entered into Wiki Commons? Jzsj (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It varies per country. See this. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The country is Madagascar which is not on this list. Can I use the rules for France, though it was independent when the stamp was produced?Jzsj (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that it is subject to copyright and not under public domain. Not sure about the specifics, however. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt replies! Any reason I can't post it in commons and let the authorities there determine the outcome?Jzsj (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons takes copyright violations very, very seriously, so you should not just upload. Instead, you should ask at the c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I couldn't find anything online that said if Madagascar had any specific copyright rules for stamps. It's possible that it is life of author plus 70 years, or government copyright, or automatically public domain. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Colégio ≠ College

Hi, the english term College refers to higher education institutions (Universidade, Faculdade in portuguese), not to fundamental and middle schools. The articles Loyola College, Belo Horizonte and Jesuit College, Juiz de Fora are incorrectly titled. The tone of the writing on those articles is borderline advertisement. Direct copy/translation of text from the schools' website is copyright violation and is unacceptable for wikipedia. The first sentence of any encyclopedic article should always directly affirm what the subject of the article is, such as the first sentence in UCLA:

The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is a public research university in the Westwood district of Los Angeles, California, United States.

. Fbergo (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, there is an advertising tone in spots in these articles and the intros could be clarified, but I still have questions. I don't find your concern about copyright infringement on the Wiki page on translation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation#License_requirements). Can you refer me to where Wikipedia mentions your concern in its official articles, that the translation may not fall back on the foreign original for its justification? Also, while I can change the article's advertising tone from the original, I've been relying mostly on translating what's there in the foreign wiki. It is clearly labeled a translation. As to the term "college", I find nothing wrong with calling schools by what they are known as in their home country, and the Wiki article on college seems to me to allow for this.@Fbergo:Jzsj (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I compared the article text of Loyola College with the school's website and several sentences looked like a direct translation, such as "Loyola College was the fulfillment of a dream". I noticed that you already cleaned up the article. Translation of copyrighted material is itself copyright violation according to WP:FAQ/Copyright, but my major concern was that you were possibily transcribing from the school website yourself. About the usage of College: as long as the article states what kind of school it is, its usage is viable. The way the article was written before, it was not clear what kind of school it was, and the term college would mislead native english speakers into assuming it was a university. Your recent edits made the article much better and more clear. I apologize for sounding too harsh on my previous comment, and thanks for your contributions and clarifications. Fbergo (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd intended to get back to these articles after creating them yesterday, and your comments sped up the process.@Fbergo:Jzsj (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Problem with the visual editor

Hi, Jzsj! When you look at the tabs at the top of the screen, do you see both "Edit" and "Edit source" or just one "Edit" tab? If you are seeing two, then clicking "Edit" will take you to the Visual Editor. If you are seeing only one (and I think this is probably the case), then it means you need to look at your Preferences (top right of screen).

Preferences > Editing

then look at "Editing mode:" and see what you have set there. I find it is safest to select "Show me both editor tabs" as Ihave had problems with some of the other options which have prevented me from using the Visual Editor). Try setting it as I have suggested and see if you can get back to the Visual Editor. I hope this helps. Kerry (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jzsj. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.Deb (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the COI guidelines and try to write very objective articles about the works of the 15,000-member Society of Jesus of which I am a member and about the Catholic church, of which also I am a member. I see nothing in the guidelines that would preclude my writing encyclopedic articles about works of these organizations. Please point out where my writing has not been objective and I will exercise more care in that regard. My whole intention is to increase coverage of Wikipedia in an area where few others seem to care. Jzsj (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi. In several places you've used a Wikipedia article as a "reference", creating a "cite journal" template. Wikipedia articles are not like journal articles; they cannot be used as a reference. To link to a Wikipedia article, just link to it.Deb (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; I'll stop doing this and use rather their references for my citations. I had in general not referenced wiki articles but I know I allowed myself just a few exceptions. (My intention was to get the editors in these cases to be sure and check the links, but I realize this is discountenanced.)@Deb:Jzsj (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. If you mean what I think you mean, couldn't the same have been achieved by just linking? Deb (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been criticized by a couple editors for using links for something beyond their main topic, and at times editors have ignored links that would back up the claims in articles.@Deb:Jzsj (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, what you did was way worse than that (albeit not a hanging offence). Best thing is to find the reference in the linked article and replicate it (obviously checking first that it is still current).Deb (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Free use rationale on File:ImmacSpainLogo.png

Reverend Father! You forgot to fully fill out the free use rationale on the above image. I filled some of it out, but you might want to make sure everything is correct/see if there is more information you could add. Have a happy New Year/Solemnity of Mary tomorrow! TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. I have completely redone the logo. Blessings of the Season! @TonyBallioni: Jzsj (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:XavierCampostello.png

Thanks for uploading File:XavierCampostello.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible project you might be interested in

Good evening again, Father. I know you tend to focus on articles relating to the Society of Jesus, but I'm unsure whether or not you would be interested in working on some biographies that I keep coming over when looking through new pages. A specific editor is creating biographies on Irish clerics, normally first priests in an area, missionaries who become bishops, etc. All of them I have encountered are normally noteworthy topics, but are short, poorly written in terms of Wikipedia standards, and could use some additional research for sources beyond diocesan press releases and obituaries. I just came across another one of the articles you wrote, and thought I might reach out to see if you would have any interest trying to improve them? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I do all my work on internet, almost no library visiting, but if it's possible to improve these some without leaving my computer then you might mention a few to me.@TonyBallioni: Thanks for your work!Jzsj (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, and here I assumed that Jesuits just lived in a library with bunks and a side chapel. Silly me. If you go to Pontifical_Irish_College#Rectors_of_the_College you'll see some good examples. Most of those articles are obits from what I can tell. I have a few random missionary bishops and priests as well, but the articles on the rectors will give you an idea. If you don't have the resources, don't worry, just thought I'd ping you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's a concidence. I too wondered if you might be interested in a little project (we talked before about your problem with the visual editor). In my case, I am writing about heritage-listed buildings in Queensland, Australia. Some of these are Catholic churches, convents, schools etc. Often the article about the heritage-listed structures talk about the bishop who initiated them or laid the foundation stone or had some other involvement, which results in redlinked bishops. I have tried to write some articles about bishops, but not being a Catholic I am not familiar with the interesting way the church talks about things (e.g. I see that the bishops are listed under the heading of "Ordinaries", whereas I would have called them bishops, and while I do now know what SJ stands for, there are a lot of other mysterious abbreviations that mean nothing to me). So, if you had the time to look at the lists of bishops in these articles and could get them at least started, that would be great:

• Roman Catholic Diocese of Cairns
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockhampton
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Toowoomba
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Townsville

One resource we have in Australia is a very large collection of digitised newspapers from pre-1955 (copyright on Australian newspapers expires at 1955) available at Trove, so any bishop that was appointed or died or did anything interesting in that pre-1955 time period will come up in a quite a number of newspaper articles. We have a few newspapers that have been digitised after 1955 with the permission of the copyright holders so big events involving bishops may still turn up. Note that every single newspaper article on Trove has an automatically-generated Wikipedia citation (click on the little "i" symbol on the left hand tool bar and scroll down and copy the Wikipedia citation). You can then add it to a Wikipedia article using (Visual Editor) Cite > Manual > basic form and then paste it in and it is "magically" converted to a beautifully formatted citation. But of course I understand if you are busy with other things. However, I think the lives of our early bishops here in Australia must be somewhat similar to the pioneering bishops in USA/Canada where they arrived in some shanty town with few facilities and faced great challenges. It would be great to have their story told. If I can be of help, let me know. Kerry (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this important area of getting Catholic bishops into Wiki. I'm sure it would be uplifting for me to see all the good work these pioneers were doing, but at 80 I'm not likely to survive my present project which no one else seems to be doing: Wikifying our c. 500 Jesuit secondary and tertiary schools, and equal number of social centers many of which may be notable. I'm approaching 300 articles and once I reach 600 I hope to have time to improve on those first 600. I do follow worthy diversions at times in individual cases that I am attracted to, not in large groups. I'd be happy to give more specific help or answer your questions, but as to taking on this large additional task, please hold excused. My email address is jzupez@jesuits.org if you prefer to use that channel. @Kerry Raymond: In Christ, Jzsj (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I am working on 1700 heritage articles (and nearly finished) so I know the focus that needs to be maintained to undertake a large task. Best wishes with it! Kerry (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. 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. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I spent over four hours responding to the tags and you reverted my removal of them within a minute of when I removed them. Please take time to look over the many improvements and if you still think that this is appropriately tagged, please help me out again with indications of what you object to. Also, note that nine critical references are from independent sources. Thanks! Jzsj (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, none of your edits alter the fact that the bulk of the text was added by someone named BrendaMorrisCristoReyNetwork which shows a clear conflict of interest. That tag is necessary per policy.

You actually added more WP:PRIMARY sources here and unreliable sourcing like here (PRweb is not a reliable source).

None of your edit addressed the reason for those tags and this is the third time I have had to point that out to you. Please actually read the policies I have quoted to you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Village Reconstruction Organization

Hello Jzsj,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Village Reconstruction Organization for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Village Reconstruction Organization has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Village Reconstruction Organization. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done my best to respond to your suggestion. I also note that there are hardly any featured Wiki articles on development agencies. Is this because such articles are not desired in Wikipedia or because where the poor and illiterate are the topic it is difficult to meet the Wiki ideal of substantiating articles largely from books and newspapers? @SwisterTwister: Jzsj (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rockhurst High School, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Stop doing this. You have been warned before, and now you have done it twice more on this article, the first time with an edit summary falsely implying that the tag was incorrectly calling it promotion, and the second time because you could not find a source. I have completely removed the section. It has been unsourced for three years and the material does not belong in the article in the first place. Meters (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please help me with this. Where have I been warned before? (I can only find the recent time when I mistakenly broke a template while trying to respond to the criteria on the talk page of an article. I have since figured out how to do this.) I try to comply with all the rules but at times they seem to offer leeway, and in this case it seemed to me that the template served no purpose, just messed up the article, since such material could hardly be verified by an external source. I had removed much of the explanation of the letters/pins to make it more concise before removing the template. I agree with your removing the section, though it does not clearly come under the "uniform" criterion in the Wiki article on inappropriate material. Please note that your response to my blurb on the talk page came after my last edit and I had not ignored it. @Meters: Jzsj (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You were prevously warned about removing maintenance templates here. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for clarifying this issue. On that occasion I thought it was merely a disagreement between myself and an unregistered user, whose authority I could not verify. In this case I did give a reason on the article's talk page and Meters did not wait for my response to his input on the article's talk page to write the above caution. Are you saying then that grievous warnings can come from unregistered users, or when I've followed the directions and justified my action on the talk page. I would have agreed with his action, as I do above, if he had responded to my justification on the talk page before writing the above. Am I on risky ground if I follow this procedure? Thanks for clarifying this since I do hope to respond to templates tagged to articles but I need to know precisely what's demanded and how speedily blocking is done on wiki editors who are doing their best to follow directions. @Bishonen: Jzsj (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Unregistered? Justeditingtoday, who warned you in February, registered in November 2016 and has made over 5,000 edits since then. Please don't make assumptions just because you see a redlink in the signature, if that was your reason. Some people don't have userpages. Looking at their contributions is helpful, or this tool. That said, the authority of a warning doesn't come from the user's status as new or old, but from their knowing what they're talking about, and especially from the policies and guidelines and Wikipedia practices they're able to tell you about. I hope you clicked on those policies and read them. A few knowledgeable and experienced editors even edit as IPs — i.e., they're actually unregistered, or have abandoned their original account — and warnings from them should be taken seriously, too. But you're not in any danger of being blocked as long as you do your best and put your listening ears on. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for the explanation and encouragement! @Bishonen: Jzsj (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to Bishonen's comments other than to point out that your article talk page comment was not a justification for removing the unsourced section tag again. As I said, "Removing the unsourced tag because you cannot find a source is not appropriate", and tightening up the text has no bearing on the fact that unsourced claims had been challenged. By the way, discussing a challenged edit on the talk page means raising the issue and then waiting for the discussion and consensus, not simply giving a reason (in this case a clearly faulty one) and then restoring your version of the edit. See WP:BRD. I didn't template you the first time you removed the tag, but the second time was too much. Good faith but mistaken edits that result in warnings are no big deal if you learn from them and don't repeat the behaviour. You are free to remove the warnings from your talk page if you like. Meters (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't wait longer for your response on my talk page. I had recently experienced a speedy deletion where I saw no danger in giving me one day to improve the article. I've seldom undone things and if I decide to try again I'll show more patience and give at least a day for a response to my explanation. @Meters: Jzsj (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)