User talk:Władysław Komorek/Archives 2011

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Władysław Komorek/Archives 2011, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, and come to the Project talk page, where you can join in our discussions about Catholic-related articles. It is also a good place to come if you have any questions. Feel free to discuss anything on the project, but please remember to sign all your comments, and help us to make all of the many Catholicism-related articles much better. Again, welcome, and happy editing!

Ecclesiastical provinces

I noticed that you have removed categories from dioceses showing that they are part of an eccesiatical province. This is true. Please restore all those changes! Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can understand over-categorization. It has gone the other way too, lately. This is, it is not a requirement that a member of a category cannot be a member of a higher category. But it is neater, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic parishes in ....

Hello, Władysław Komorek. You have new messages at Eagle4000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProject Poland activity check

We are doing another activity check on members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland. I've noticed that you have not been active in the Poland-related articles in the past few months (we define it as doing 10 or more Poland-related edits per month in the last three months period), and as such I took the liberty to adjust your position in our Participants list from active to semi-active. Please note that this is just a method of keeping track of how many editors are currently active on Poland-related topics. Feel free to move yourself back if you disagree with this, and/or comment on WT:POLAND. In case you are not aware of that, our project has many active discussions on its talk page, we also list Poland-related article news (hee), Poland-related new articles for review (hee), Poland-related articles in need of cleanup (here), a listing of most popula Poland-related articles (here), a portal (here), and other tools. If the activity incrases, we would like to implement other tools, such as project A-class reviews and a newsletter. We are looking forward to seeing you around more often! Take care, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD?

I'm not following the reason for the CSD on St. Adalbert Parish, Providence. What am I missing?--SPhilbrick T 14:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to other requests, such as St. Michael the Archangel Parish, Bridgeport--SPhilbrick T 14:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I temporarily removed the requests, if I can understand the rationale, I'll carry out the deletion.--SPhilbrick T 14:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed it as a deliberate redirect, so that if someone was looking for St. Adalbert's Parish (Providence, Rhode Island), and starting typing in the search screen, and entered "St. Adalbert's Parish, Prov..." they would see the right one. I still think that is a valid use for a redirect, but I'll delete --SPhilbrick T 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)both.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Władysław Komorek. You have new messages at James Russiello's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LadyofShalott 16:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sort order

It was my understanding that the consensus here was that the sort order was to be St. Mary Church (theCity, Connecticut). That is what I am doing now. Am I WRONG in my understanding?Lukascb (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD of bridgeport diocese church/parish articles

You may be interested in this AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)) in case you haven't noticed it yet. While the majority seem to be non-notable, a significant number appear to be notable in their own right. As you seem more familiar with churches than I am, your opinion at the AFD about sortig out what should and should not be deleted is appreciated. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 17:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you please explain the whole "this is a church not a parish" edits you've been making? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added image of St. Stanislaus, Bristol to your article

Also I am to be in touch with people at the church who know the name of the architect. My belief is that knowing this will help the present condition of this article.

I also have pictures of Sacred Heart and Holy Cross in New Britain. I will be adding them to the commons and will then include them in your articles, which I believe to exist.

Beyond that I have enough information on the architect of Sacred Heart to create a new article on him. This will provide a meaningful liks to your article.Lukascb (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pls dont move articles under AFD

Please don't move articles in the big Connecticut AFD, while they are under AFD. You moved St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish, Middletown to that name, adding Middletown. I happen to disagree whether that is the correct name to use, assuming the article is kept, because it looks like it could be in Middletown, Pennsylvania or in another state, or that "Middletown" might not be a town. The correct name in the end might be "St. Mary of Czestochowa Church (Middletown, Connecticut)" using church rather than parish and using (City, State). Please participate in naming subsection of the AFD discussion. And please agree not to make moves of items under AFD. It is confusing and there is not agreement about what names to use, obviously. Your move was a contested move; it is not uncontested. --do ncr am 11:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This information may be of some help to you

I have been in contact with the pastor of St. Stanislaus Church in Bristol CT. He has consulted the original plans of the church and informs me that the original architect for the church built in the 1956 time frame was James J. O'Shaughnessy who worked from offices in Boston at 80 Boylston Street. That building is referred to locally as the Little Building.

I have heard of O'Shaunessy. He was not, as best I know, one of the major architects of Boston area churches. But he did design St. Joseph Church, Salem MA for a French congregation in 1948. This church is rather unlike the Bristol building. Its style seems to be referred to as International Style. St. Joseph is in the news a lot these days because there are forces in Salem who are attempting to demolish the building while others believe that it has great aesthetic significance.

Certainly O'Shaunessy's work seems very competent and my belief is that there might be quite a bit more by him in greater Boston, if not elsewhere. There are some additional places I can look at locally where I may be able to get more details on him.

I'm passing this information to you here because I have no way to cite the information that I've found on this church. It seems like it would be a worthy fact to be included in your wiki page and I leave it to you as to what you may want to do with it, if anything.

By the way I have mentioned your wikipedia entry to the pastor and he is interested in finding a way for his congregation to add their own contributions to your effort.Lukascb (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do not remove AFD notice

Do not unilaterally remove an article's AFD notice, as you did with St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish, Middletown. There is an ongoing AFD, which you are aware of and participating in.

If you repeat such disruptive actions i will seek to have you blocked from editing in Wikipedia, by escalating blocks until you are entirely banned. --do ncr am 10:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed AFD notices in [this edit for St. Joseph Parish, Rockville] and at St. Stanislaus Parish article, which i have restored. Your removing AFD tag prevents readers from knowing that the article is likely to be deleted. It does not stop the AFD process. There is explicit notice that the AFD notice should not be removed until the issue is resolved. --do ncr am 11:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider Wikipedia:Civility. I have concerns about process, but I want to see any discussions about process remain calm and deliberative. Requests to edit or not edit in a particular way are usually inappropriate. Removal of AfD notices is decided by a particular process. Please point to the process when discussing particular edits. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - WlaKom's first language is Polish, and he may seem more terse than he intends. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that AfD page, you said that the AfD did not follow proper procedure. In fact, however, en.wikipedia procedure allows for a "bundled" discussion of possible deletion of multiple articles. See WP:BUNDLE for a description of the procedure. I encouraged Doncram to treat these articles as a group because of his assertion that the problems with the first article also existed in numerous other articles. Ideally, the discussion of this group can lead to a generic determination of criteria for deciding which churches/parishes should be documented in individual articles.

You have also said that the Polish wikipedia considers all Roman Catholic churches/parishes to be eligible for individual articles. I don't know how that works, but I do know that English Wikipedia does not have that same guideline or policy. Instead, in EN each article topic must be judged according to the general notability criteria and, in the case of churches/parishes, the specific notability criteria for organizations. As an American, I will comment that in view of the religious diversity of the United States and the very large number of individual churches here, it would be totally impractical to maintain an article about every church of any denomination. (For example, the city where I live has only about 27,000 people, but there are approximately 50 individual churches. Most of these are not notable by our criteria, so they will never have articles.) --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) - One list needed

Please note my request, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)#One list needed and comment or volunteer to make a list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National parishes

The category is for national parishes, not national churches as I stated. Category:National churches stands alone and unrelated, and I have not added any of its contents to Category:National parishes. I am assembling an article on the 19th century debate over Americanization, which piqued my interest in the subject; I noticed there was no category for ethnic parishes, even though WP has dozens of articles about them. so I created it. To my knowledge, the concept of the national parish is a feature of western Catholicism, but if necessary we can always have the category renamed.- choster (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut) for deletion

The article St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

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 template from the top of the article. do ncr am 06:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Rosary

I'm well aware of the distinction; however, we typically cover churches and parishes together in the same article, so this is a likely redirect. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We" is the English Wikipedia aside from you. Look at the way that church buildings and parishes are categorised everywhere that you've not edited. Are you going to propose an article on the parish that meets at St. Patrick's Cathedral as well as an article on the cathedral itself? Don't cite your own edits as consensus when everybody else follows a different path. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, look at Mount St. Peter Church — aside from being GA-quality, this is a typical church article. You'll notice that it covers both the parish and the building within which Mass is celebrated. Separate articles are not needed, and nor are separate categories. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already provided you with a sample link. Aside from your own creations, English Wikipedia articles do not cover parishes and church buildings in separate articles. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a question for you...

at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Casimir Roman Catholic Parish (Yonkers, New York). LadyofShalott 18:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor. WikiProject Poland Newsletter: Issue 1 (April 2011)

WikiProject Poland Newsletter • April 2011
For our freedom and yours

Welcome to our first issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper).

Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised.

In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop:

we have an active assessment department. As of now, our project has tagged almost 80,000 pages as Poland-related, out of which 1,500 still need a quality assessment, and 20,000, importance assessment.
we have also begun B-class quality reviews on our talk page, and if our activity increases, hopefully we will be able to institute our own A-class quality reviews. As of now, we have about 500 C-class articles in need of a B-class review. If you'd like to help with them, instructions for doing B-class reviews are to be found in point 10 of our assessment FAQ.
once an article is assessed it will appear in our article alerts and news feed, which provides information on which Poland-related articles are considered for deletion, move, or are undergoing a Good or Featured review. Watchlisting that feed, in addition to watchlisting our project's main page, is a good way to make sure you stay up to date on most Poland-related discussions.
you can also see detailed deletion discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland (which is another good place to watchlist!)
also, those articles will be included in our cleanup listing, which allows us to see which top-importance articles are in need for attention, and so on
newly created Poland-related articles are listed here. They need to be reviewed, often cleaned-up, and its creators may need to be welcomed and invited to our project
we are maintaining a Portal:Poland
automated Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages lists the most popular Poland-related pages from the previous month(s)

This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools!

With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself?

You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a [member link] at WikiProject Poland. • _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:WlaKom/archives 30-11-2009

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WlaKom (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:WlaKom/Template

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WlaKom (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of St. Louis Parish, Portland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Louis Parish, Portland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Louis Parish, Portland until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

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 template from the top of the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]