Jump to content

Talk:Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More than one

[edit]

More than one denomination is said to be the "second largest" in the Philippines.

It is not clear how the 5,000,000 was arrived at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.105.4 (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church population and churches in America

[edit]

The Apostolic Catholic Church has more than five million members worldwide, especially in the Philippines, and in areas with large Filipino communities. However, this statistics is just an estimate and yes, we do claim that we are the second largest church in the Philippines. The problem is we are not alone, the Jesus is Lord Church, Philippine Independent Church and Iglesia ni Cristo claims the position as well. As for the complaint that The Apostolic Catholic Church has a House church considered a cathedral in San Jose, California, it is definitely true and we will not post it to our website if it isn't true. The Apostolic Catholic Church is a full pledged member of The National Council of Churches in the Philippines and along with other churches, it has enough notability and strong standing that's why it was accepted as a member. House churches within the Apostolic Catholic Church can be considered a Cathedral if our Patriarch puts or appoints a Bishop there. It is clear that the Apostolic Catholic Church is an autocephalous, schismstic and protestant church that's why it has the right to establish its own theologies and agendas as well as standard in the hierarchy of our church buildings. To further verify this informations, you may contact the National Council of Churches in The Philippines or log on to their website at [1] or the Apostolic Catholic Church clergies or at our own website at [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshikazu2009 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Toshikazu2009 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very poorly written article

[edit]

The article starts off at the beginning with line after line of "point of view" statements about proper dress and conduct, which is not universally agreed upon. --Eddylyons (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. This article has not improved. It needs a complete rewrite with references, or a deletion. I propose that it be nominated for deletion again, as it is not a source of any actual information, let alone accurate or verifiable information (due to the dearth of references), and is written like an apologetic advertisement with not a single sentence that isn't POV-pushing: no actual knowledge is lost by deleting something in such a state. JohnChrysostom (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC

Extreme Trimming

[edit]

If there are no objections, pursuant to the recent AfD (many !voters spoke to the effect of, "Better to leave a stub than to delete"), I am going to cut this article back to the lead and infobox alone, and look through anything else in the article that's possibly salvageable. If someone wants to work on it, move it to your userspace, as the article, as written, should not be on public Wikipedia in this state. Nothing else in the article is even close to properly cited, and the lead is poorly cited itself. Such will be done in 3 days, pending objections. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some sort of revert battle going on here. The article was chopped to about 3,000 bytes, built up carefully to 4,000 bytes, reverted to its huge and uncited size, reverted to 4,000 bytes, and then just today, reverted to 14,000+ bytes. The 14,000+ byte version is full of poor writing with lots of unverified assertions. I'm not getting in the middle of this one, but it should probably go back to the January 28, 2013 version. Jonesey95 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, so I went ahead and restored that version. —Torchiest talkedits 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Apostolic Catholic Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Apostolic Catholic Church and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#Apostolic Catholic Church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines) § St. John Florentine Teruel P.P. is not written neutrally

[edit]

This section about the founder of the ACC is not written neutrally. For example, "John Teruel was an Achiever in the field of Public Service" and "By valid order and right of Apostolic succession" are not written in an impartial tone. Paraney (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paraney:, the user @Ploreky:, who seems to have a WP:COI, attempts to turn this article into a promotional tool. Veverve (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything that is verified is allowed to be put in this page. Adding additional verified subjects and data doesn't mean it's attemption to turn an article into a promotional tool.

This is a wikipedia article, hence, an encyclopedia. Everything that is recorded, that is proven to be true, must be added to the article. Ploreky (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing, FICTREFs, OR

[edit]

The user @Ploreky:, who seems to have a WP:COI, attempts to turn this article into a promotional tool. Ploreky has added back information which were nowhere to be found in the refs, and information in the infobox nowhere to be found in the body of the article.

I have already attempted to explain the user how this side of WP works, to no avail.

@Elizium23, Pbritti, and Jdcompguy: could one of you come and land a hand in any way? Veverve (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: While I am not very available this month, there are clearly some egregious issues. The POV pushing will have to stop. In order to give my personal life full attention and avoid a potential recruiting violation, I will not make major alterations here until later this month, but consider this a vote in support of Veverve's edits thus far. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, noted Veverve. I'll stop reverting edits, but, you should atleast allow me to change the population members or the introduction.

A long introduction is not only amusing, but it also makes readers understand the article more. Thank you for showing where I'm wrong. I'll change it and show refs. Just tell me if im wrong again. I'm sorry to disturb you.Ploreky (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ACC is a global prevalent church. Hdy say that it's a fiction. I've already have been to ACC diocese of Singapore, Hongkong, and Japan during business trips. I've saw it in my very eyes. If you can't accept verification by references, then atleast accept verification of a witness. I won't fight for the place otherwise, if i havent gone to them. Ploreky (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ploreky:
You cannot add unsourced information, and you cannot add information which are not found in the inline reference you gave. I have reverted you a for a third time, hopefully, it will be the last. I have already tried to explain this to you on my talk page. Two other users (Pbritti and @Rafaelosornio:) have agreed your use of sources as unacceptable.
If you can't accept verification by references, then atleast accept verification of a witness: I cannot as per WP:PUBLISHED, WP:NOTSOURCE, and especially WP:NOTNEWS ("articles are not: 1. Original reporting.").
If you plan on adding or changing anything, please take it to the talk page first, for you clearly have shown you either do not understand how this side of Wikipedia works or are unwilling to do so.
As a sidenote: using the hyperonyms "group" or "organisation" are for stylistic and clarity purposes ("church" can also refer to the building, and MOS:INSTITUTIONS implies to use the capital 'C' only in proper names).
Veverve (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti@Veverve@Ad Orientem@Rafaelosornio
Gentlemen, I appreciate all of your efforts to change this article, but, in every edit you make, you're all just making it misleading. Instead of Just taking out what you want, you also add other non-existent stuff, like, what do you mean "Contemporary situation"?, etc. etc. etc. You even shorten the article so much. It has already been months that this page has stayed stable. Yet, here you are destroying the article. You're revisionizing everything that is not even in the source. You are exaggerating everything, disregarding the sources and ref's just because a sentence in the article is not found in the sentence. It's been a catastrophe about what happen to the article. Just compare about my last whole revision to now. I only accept Sr. @Veverve's Edits because in the past we made revisioned this article, but, you don't need to change anything.
You want to delete advertisements? I agree, I'll allow you, But, it's not just deleting you're all making, you're also revising other significant datas in introducing the church.
You're also deleting important datas in the article.
This is wikipedia, a free internet "Encyclopedia". In collects every details about a subject and writes it in one article. This is what wikipedia is all about. I've read wikipedia's rules on referencing, I know that secondary sources are more reliable than primary sources, but, they are still sources. Everything that is collected about the Church, because this is an encyclopedia, must be added to it. I've added Sources and References, I let others remove some advertisements in the article, but, you shouldn't destroy it.
I've spent multiple hours on editing and finding references for this article, even neglecting some of my house and personal duties, just to have you destroy it. I';ve collected the facts to add to this encyclopedia.
I've copied what I've did to the ACC page in these articles: Members Church of God International, Catholic Church, Philippine Independent Church, Iglesia ni Cristo. I've did what these articles have, yet, why is this page having more problems than these pages? I've seen that you're just being Prejudistic to this Article.
Good day, I hope you understand where I am coming from. I want to make this Article better, and I need all of your help. I don't need revisionizing, adding miscellaneous details, like "Foundation by Teruel", "Old Catholic Bishop", etc. and Destroying this Article. I need your help, Because, I am the one who understand this Church, I am a witness to this church, all of you have no idea or even an experience of this church. I know you're all good wikipedia editors who have tons of editing experience, but, The one who writes the article is the one who should "Know" about the Article. And of all of us that would be me. In all the Facts and Pages that I add in these article, I always find references to Justify it. Don't say that there is a sentence without a reference, because, I've spent every second to make sure all has Reference. And I know that. I've spent hours finding Sources and References for the Details I Add.
Thank you for reading. If you don't mind, I'll be returning Edits again. Ploreky (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky:
  • How are the edits made by those users misleading? You must argue as to why such and such information removed is indeed present in the reference you gave.
  • You have possibly commited multiple copyright violations, this is why entire paragraphs were removed by Ad Orientem
  • Removing content from an article is as important if not more important to the article's quality than adding it. This is even more true for unsourced statement, or information not found in the inline references given
  • I have tried to make this article easier to understand, hence the headings I have added or changed. I have tried to keep some data, and the paragraph which starts by "Today" was to me to be put in a "Contemporary situation" section.
  • I've spent multiple hours on editing and finding references for this article, even neglecting some of my house and personal duties, just to have you destroy it. I';ve collected the facts to add to this encyclopedia: I acknowledge your sacrifice, but it does not mean you WP:OWN the page.
  • I've copied what I've did to the ACC page in these articles: no, you have not edited any of those articles, apart from this one edit.
  • Because, I am the one who understand this Church, I am a witness to this church, all of you have no idea or even an experience of this church: it sounds like a WP:COI to me.
- Veverve (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @Veverve, thank you for telling me where i am wrong, I'll try to revise the page with the rules. If there's anything wrong, please just tell me. Ploreky (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: None of your recent edits to this article were good for the most part. You might want to go throught the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program before doing any other edit on Wikipedia. Veverve (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This group has an implicit interest in editing this WP article

[edit]

This official website states: "You can also read ACC’s citation at Wipedia.org on this link." Thus, it is possible this group will try to use this article as a promotional tool for themselves.
@Ad Orientem: pinging you since you have already dealt with a very similar situation. You might want to put this artice on your watchlist. Veverve (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (August 2022)

[edit]

It appears this article may have been edited by persons affiliated with its subject. Ad Orientem (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright & Article Neutrlity

[edit]

Editors of this page are gently reminded to take care about direct quotes from sources, even those run by the subject. Limited quotes with appropriate attribution (see WP:CITE) are acceptable. But we are not allowed to fill in entire sections of the article with direct lifts from our sources. I have just deleted several sections of the article that largely or entirely consisted of direct quotes from sources affiliated or closely aligned with the subject of the article. This is not only a serious copyright violation but also raises WP:NPOV concerns as well. See also WP:COPY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining bad Revisions

[edit]

@AndreasMar@Veverve. Hello brothers! I would like to tell you why your revisions are senseless.

  1. Western Christian. -- It is misleading to the Common Public to add "Western Christian". although it also means catholicism, it is not, again, is NOT a specific identification for a church. For, it means 2 types of christianity. which cannot be used for classifying a religion.
  2. Juan Almario EM Calapiano. -- He isn't supposed to be inside the history Section. History sections should only be composed of Past to Present situations. A basic and simple history of the church. this is the reason the Patriarchate page exists.
  3. Consecration of John Florentine. -- As i said, the History section must only be a summary of the church's history. It should not be added a whole content of 1 part of history which even does not relate or relates little to the church history. Teruel's Consecration is another part of the story. As I said, it should not be part of the History Section since it is an "Explanation" of "How" Teruel was Consecrated. And his "whole" consecration story will just be miscellaneous to the summary and introduction to the church's history.
  4. Deletion of the Patriarchate section. -- As I said Earlier, The Patriarchate Section is the section for the explanation of Teruel's Consecration, Juan Almario Calampiano, Summary of the Founding Bishop's life, and other more contents and information that is about the Church's Patriarchate. Deleting this section will render #2 and #3 to be lost information with nowhere right to be put at. Example, now that there aren't a patriarchate section, where would you put the Consecration? the Patriarchy of Almario?, etc. Nowhere right? then, you will just add it in tiny spaces across the article. For me, these are lost information. because, they are needed to be organized into 1 section because it is all under one subject. Deleting this Article is deleting 1 major part of the Church's History.
  5. Patriarch Bishop, Bishop, etc. -- Why are you always insisting Patriarch Bishop, Bishop etc.? John Floreintine a a bishop, then consecrated as a Pontiff. Just ask me more refs if you want. There's no problem, don't be shy to ask if 1 ref isn't enough.
  6. Extreme Trimming -- Please don't make the Article shorter than it is already. With the article now, deleting only a bit of it would be deleting a major information.


I wish that this is clear. From now on, may this section be our Talk Space @Veverve. Ploreky (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve Let's work together to make this Article better!.
I am also planning to add old deleted sections from this articles like: Beliefs, Saints, Sacraments, etc. Ploreky (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: You are really looking more and more like a WP:Civil POV pusher to me. Especially with your latest edits which I had to remove.
  1. Ok, removed.
  2. Juan Almario EM Calapiano is the current leader, hence should be presentin the History section.
  3. Teruel is the founder, and his consecration is directly related to the organisation. Therefore, it is normal for it to be mentioned in the History section.
  4. The "Patriarch" section does not have its place here. It is not a page about Teruel, nor a WP:CONTENTFORK for putting the non-notable Teruel extensively on Wikipedia. The History section is perfectly clear without the "Patriarch" section.
  5. Those rank nuances are important.
  6. Length does make an article good or bad. See also WP:ONUS.
Veverve (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ohhhhh, okay okay Mr. Veverve. I'll try to change it again, I'll also take note of your views. Please just continue telling me where I am wrong. Thank you. Ploreky (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr. @Veverve, can you help me make a new Article Page? I am trying to create a page for John Florentine, can you help me? Ploreky (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr@Veverve, this is the summary of my latest revision.
  1. Added the name of the Organization. This is one of the main important parts of the Church's History, since, in the first place, the organization is the roots of the Church.
  2. Removed "Patriarch Bishop". There is no such thing as a Patriarch Bishop. You might as well call the pope as "Pope Bishop".
  3. Added Third Largest Christian Denomination, based on an estimate of PSA.
  4. Added Beliefs and Tradition. It is a vital part of a Church's Encyclopedia, I have more to add to this section once I get a hold to more refs.
  5. Added major details to Ecumenical Relations
Ploreky (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: your lack of WP skill and lack of grasp on English grammar is getting annoying. I am very close to open an WP:ANI for your case. Veverve (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello mr@Veverve I've saw in your wikipedia user page that you've already retired, if so, I want you to please heavily guide and help me in this article and the john florentine one. let us exchange ideas, because, you're the only one I can rely to.
I'm sorry for my lack of skill, but, what do you mean I lack on English Grammar???? I've lived my life using English as a language, yet, I lack on English Grammar??? Ploreky (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve
I really heavily Appreciate all of you patience with me, and please, keep bearing with me more. I have not opened wikipedia for days because of personal reasons, life's getting busy these days, that's why, i really need help when I have time, thank you and please keep on bearing with me, I'll also get a hang on wikipedia soon. Ploreky (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky:
  • you're the only one I can rely to: this is false, there are dozens of people who will be willing to help; I have already pointed you to the WP:ADOPTION program. I am not willing to train new users from scratch. I am willing to lend a hand from time to time, give some advice and feedback, that's about it.
  • Yes, your English grammar is bad: you capitalise random words, use weird expressions, and write incorrect sentences ("Having a high status of spiritual life [...] When she is still alive, St. Maria Virginia is a living saint for all the ACC members.").
Veverve (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
okay okay Mr@Veverve I'll try to correct that, thank you for telling me where i am wrong.
Btw, can't I use Religion wiki as a Source??? It is stated here
that Third-party sources are reliable and wikipedia is even recommending it. Then why don't you want it? Ploreky (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated in ({{[Third-party|date}}) Ploreky (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use it, as per WP:SPS, as I have already explained. Veverve (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr@Veverve, Abs-cbn isn't a dead news channel, I don't know where do you live but, Abs cbn is a reliable news channel. It became the philippines no.1 news channel for 15 years. Ploreky (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve@FormalDude
Hello again! I've revised it again, if there's anything wrong, please tell me so that I can improve it. Ploreky (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am really tired of reverting you. Veverve (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. This is obviously WP:POV pushing at this rate. This article needs to be partially locked. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting on keeping a FICTREFed information

[edit]

@Ploreky: you claim that the consensus is to keep an information unsupported the by ref given (WP:FICTREF). Ploreky, you introduced a WP:FICTREF to hide your OR. What are your arguments other than "I oppose"? Veverve (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claim??? No Mr. Veverve, I don't claim . These are the sources I used as reference for those contents: https://acc.org.ph/nsipb/ https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/07/31/news/apostolic-church-patriarch-and-founding-bishop/1809211.
Mr@Veverve these are all verifiable and reliable sources. I don't also get what you meant as fictitious reference. Whithin my experience in wikipedia, never have I added a non-existent source. I mean, It's just foolish to do so, that's why I don't do those. PlorekyHave a problem? 23:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Facebook ref you added does not contain any of the info, and some parts of the info you added are unsourced. Veverve (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.... I'm sorry. About the nccp and cbcp week of prayer, I know that facebook isn't reliable. Maybe it's just because of my Bias. I'm sorry.PlorekyHave a problem? 23:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Churches section debate

[edit]

Hello Mr.Veverve, please state the issues here PlorekyHave a problem? 12:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is WP:V and WP:NOTGALLERY, as I have already explained. Veverve (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Veverve, you do know that you can only undo a revision for 3 times right?????
As for the WP:V and WP:NOTGALLERY, my main issue is this IFI. This article is the model I used for the new section I've contributed. Please answer swiftly. It's because I'm in the middle of working, Thanks. PlorekyHave a problem? 12:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. @Veverve if you do not reply at (UTC)14:20, I shall revert my edit again. PlorekyHave a problem? 12:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: I did not violate 3RR.
As for the content, here is my take. First, an article having problems does not mean you have the rights to repeat this problem onto other articles. Second, the IFI page has been corrected by me to comply with WP:V and WP:NOTGALLERY. Veverve (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, Mr. Veverve? I don't actually know whther I should be angry at you or what. But, sometimes, just sometimes, my respect to you just skyrockets. I don't even know why. PlorekyHave a problem? 16:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my reply. On the WP:NOTGALLERY you gave, you forgot to see this sentence: "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text"

Which means, Photos are allowed, as long as there is an accompanying text for them. PlorekyHave a problem? 16:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for putting images of random (WP:OR) churches, see WP:GALLERY: "Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". Veverve (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And for the WP:V, I can give you, seriously. I'm the one who uploaded those photos. Do you want me to give the sources to you????

I'll ask for your permission to do so, and I'll show you the sources. Just fyi, apostolic catholic church is a big church you know, currently the church has 12 archdioceses, and each of those archdioceses have their own cathedrals. And there are 32 dioceses, and each of the parishes of those 32 dioceses (not including the churches and chapels under those dioceses) are also notable, since, as far as my experience goes, all are notable.

Hey Mr. Veverve, I may talk like this, but please don't think of me as a wikipedian who only became a wikipedia to only promote an article. I'm not like that. I may be a member of this denomination, but I will never use it as an advantage. I will still continue to contribute to wikipedia, whether it will be this article, or other articles. In fact, if you don't believe me, you can look at it on my contribs. I just want you to know to stop looking at me like how you looked at me when we first exchanged words. I'm an extended user now, I already know basic rules, you can stop treating me like a newbie, and I also have Ms. Missionedit adopting me. PlorekyHave a problem? 16:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And for the WP:V, I can give you, seriously. I'm the one who uploaded those photos. Do you want me to give the sources to you????: it is a question of WP:NOTABILITY and supporting claims (such as proving that each of the parishes of those 32 dioceses (not including the churches and chapels under those dioceses) are also notable, and other info you added), not a copyright question. This is basic article writing on WP. Veverve (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Mr. Veverve, sorry, it's my mistake. I'll also delete this whole section since it dirties my image as a wikipedian. Thank you again!!!!
PlorekyHave a problem? 10:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apostolic_Catholic_Church_(Philippines)&oldid=1204909588"