User talk:Jzsj/Archive 6

Fair use rationales

Hello again, and thank you for the work you are doing.

I just fixed a few of your image fair use rationales. If you could look at File:StephenMinistries.png, and perhaps use that as a template going forward it would help, in that there wouldn't be a need to fix redundant section headers, format errors etc. I also reuploaded the image for Padre Arrupe School, and fixed the image at File:SAFAAndalusia.png where your upload was distorted. Thanks again, and please keep up the good work. -- Begoon 13:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think I've picked up on the changes you've given. I'll try using what you have at Stephen Ministries and hope that's it. Jzsj (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Social Research and Action Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Social Research and Action Center 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/Social Research and Action Center 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nb. I withdrew the AfD nomination and closed the discussion as speedy keep. Thanks for the provision of sources qualifying notability, and also for improving the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jzsj. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#User_contributions_page_not_functioning.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Draft:Jesuit Institute South Africa concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jesuit Institute South Africa, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Amoris Laetitia

Father, thank you so much for checking the B scale criteria for Amoris Laetitia. I noticed that the only missing criteria seems to be Referencing and Citation. Did you see any particular issues with the referencing and citation, or is it simply something you haven't been able to check yet? Thank you again.PluniaZ (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've brought many of the Catholic Portal articles to the final check, and in all but a very few I've left the referencing part for later: it's the most difficult. I'm struggling with tight restrictions in the schools portal now, so I don't expect to have time for much else for some time. Jzsj (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI: inferences are original research

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that ... directly support the material being presented." 32.218.42.4 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I went to this link hoping that it said something about inferences, but the word never occurs there. "Directly support" is not the same as saying outright, and certainly open to interpretation. My conclusion is hardly original research or an analysis of various sources. The conclusion is understood and implicit in what is actually said. I appreciate your willingness to cite sources, but your inference from this link seems to me less likely than my inference from patent evidence. @32.218.42.4: Jzsj (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please review WP:CANVASSING and post who you canvassed at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Billhpike (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Immediately done. Thanks for educating me on this! No one was added to the discussion, so in this case I see no harm done. I was simply using neutral language to alert people to the discussion, which is what I thought the Religion and philosophy and Economy, trade, and companies listings were doing. Jzsj (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple RFC !votes

I've struck your duplicate !votes at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Request for comment on categorizing Cristo Rey schools. Please don't add separate Oppose and Support !votes for different points. Meters (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note

Hi Father, hope you are doing well. Another user asked me to talk to you as an administrator who has interacted positively with you in the past about the discussion involving categorization of pages at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. To be perfectly blunt, no one on Wikipedia wants to sanction a priest, but we also expect you to try to work within our normal processes of determining consensus. We know you are trying to do well here, and your documentation of the work of the Society of Jesus is very good. At the same time, we do typically expect that these types of discussion would take place at a higher level and not just at the level of an individual school article: it helps with consistency across articles, which I think you will admit, is important from a library science perspective (which is what categorization here really is).

As someone who can see your side, but also the side of those who disagree with you, I think it would be best for you to withdraw the RfC on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, and ask John from Idegon what the best steps would be in the next part of the dispute resolution process. He is a trusted and well respected user, and could likely give you better advice on schools than I could (my content focus is not early modern Catholic history, so how we deal with Jesuit schools is a bit outside my bailiwick.) As always, if you ever need anything, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving this discussion but if you check the whole page Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School then you'll see why I don't trust John's advice right now.

I do appreciate your help. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools scares me: their insistence that all school articles must become featured articles ignores the fact that schools don't have the media coverage that Georgetown University has, and so they'd be removing a lot of reasonably sourced material and restoring to bare-bones the work of many editors who believed that the sanctioned guidelines for referencing were sufficient. Why remove mention of the particular service program and retreat program at a school. Why confuse pre- and post- nominals with honorifics when most school articles include Fr. or Sr. before the name and SJ or other identifying letters after?

I don't want to be treated specially as a priest (they say that "SJ" stand for "soft job"). I'd like to have a civil discussion of how the 60 Minutes broadcast and material in the book might remain in each school's article to give a true idea of what the school is about: I can have NPOV and still say that these are not ordinary high schools, but this needs showing through more than mere reference to the Network page. I was grateful to Billhpike for suggesting that 60 minutes might have a place in the school articles but the others dropped it there. I suggest that they not be allowed to impose their featured article guidelines to past articles and that, if they can't get the Wikipedia policy changed, then there should be notice that all those creating school articles must check the more stringent guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Sad: there are notable programs in schools that the media have no reason to cover, and the less literate the clientele of the school (take India) the less likely the press finds it profitable to cover its activities. Thanks again. You're the only hope I've been given in this whole, long discussion. I'm available to do all I can to come to a reasonable solution to what I see as a real turning point for Wikipedia here. @TonyBallioni: Jzsj (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with our guidelines on school articles here and the schools WikiProject. John typically does good work, but it is understandable why you might not trust someone who you are in a disagreement with. My comment re: you being a priest was somewhat intentional: I know most members of the Society don't like being treated any different because of it, and from his note on my talk page, to me, it seems like John was trying to avoid escalating a conflict likely because he understood that as a Jesuit father, you do have strong feelings here (which is not to say at all that you can't be neutral. I think you can, and from the articles I have seen, I feel that you generally are.)

I don't really want to wade too much into the content dispute: as I said, the 16th-18th centuries are more my thing. In terms of advice, if you are having a disagreement, you can see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some suggestions. I'd suggest having discussions that could reasonably impact multiple articles on pages that receive more attention, and not just one article talk page. I hope this has been somewhat helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is not just this article but the application of John's rigid ideas to all school articles. We tried to move the discussion to other fora with these results, including now an attempted ban: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening; Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Proposal 4; and most notably where someone closed the discussion when editors began to support my proposal, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Pre-nominals and post-nominals. Jzsj (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please read WP:TALK. It is not appropriate to go back to an old post (long after it has been responded to by other editors) and modify it, change the timestamp, or add new material to it. The talk page is a history of what has been discussed and by changing the content of hte thread you distort the history and make it appear that other editors have commented on (or failed to comment on) material that was not there when they responded. I have undone your changes to Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School [1]. Your original post was made 9 days ago. Please re-add your material in a separate thread. Meters (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of this policy. Shall do. Jzsj (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. You've made meaningful contributions to areas that have traditionally not received a lot of attention, like Latin American religious topics. I our rules can be complicated and I appreciate your efforts to learn our community policies. Billhpike (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful suggestion about starting with 60 minutes to clarify the purpose of these schools on each article page. I hope to get your support when I fashion a paragraph summarizing what is said in such general, but reliable, sources on the model. I appreciate all the instructive feedback that you offered, and hope to carry on constructive dialogue in the future. You mention learning community policies. I would add that unless the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools allows the "common sense" use of ordinary information that is on school websites, that schools in poor areas of Latin America and India will have their articles returned to stubs! In the United States, if for all school articles the strictest interpretation is given to criteria for referencing, then athletics will usually predominate in what's left in the articles. @Billhpike: Jzsj (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had good luck finding information about schools from newspaper archives. If you are an active Wikipedia contributor, you can get a free account to WP:Newspapers.com.

Perhaps you should consider participating in the WP:Adopt-a-user program? A mentor may be able to help you understand our community norms and avoid unintentional conflicts with other editors. Billhpike (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. For the over 400 articles I've created and 23,000 edits, I've always checked several pages of Google hits, until they become unrelated to the organization I'm working on. I note that the WP:Newspapers.com is "particularly suited for Wikipedia content about the 18th, 19th and the first ​3⁄4 of the 20th century in the United States and global topics affecting the United States". But at your suggestion I'll try enrolling; I do spend mucho time trying to find sources! About the conflicts: I would settle for a brief reference to the criterion that justifies a revert. The rest is usually unhelpful. Jzsj (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Joseph’s College of Law for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Joseph’s College of Law 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. Joseph’s College of Law 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Knights of Columbus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Knights of Columbus. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. In order for bots to automatically compile data about AfD requests, voters generally record their votes with "Keep", "Delete, "Merge", or "Redirect". Other, or non-voting views usually begin with "Comment". A number of tools which parse AfDs may only recognize these bolded words. Happy editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coachella Valley Church

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Coachella Valley Church. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Please understand I've gone out of my way to avoid having to do this, but the next time you change the above article without a clear consensus to do so on the talk page, I will be forced to take you to a notice board. John from Idegon (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the ongoing discussion there had attracted only 2 identifiable editors until now, both largely tied to your perspective. I'm grateful to those who have just added their independent perspective to this discussion. Jzsj (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Cullen328 and Marchjuly commented a couple weeks ago. One entirely new editor commented (in opposition) in the RfC several days ago. Outside that, you've been dealing with myself, Meters, Billhpike and 32.218 (who has shown up on a couple unique IP addresses, but is the same editor). That's it. It's time you realize that the reason you're being opposed on everything you propose is because you are wrong. You have had no support for anything you've wanted to do from anyone. You're wasting considerable amount of other editors time with your BLUDGEONing the process, not listening to anyone. At some point you've got to reach the obvious conclusion. The logical inference from the discussions on the talk page there is not that more input is needed; the logical inference is your position is untenable. Please drop the STICK. John from Idegon (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd feel more confident of your impartiality if you didn't make statements like "You have had no support for anything you've wanted to do from anyone." I'd like to pursue the support I received on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal. As with the categorizing topic, such discussions aren't easily moved once they have progressed as far as this one has. Jzsj (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not hat that discussion, another editor did. Correctly, as it exceeds the scope of an article talk page. You're asking to supercede a community wide consensus, essentially an appeal to WP:IAR. To a person, excepting you, everyone participating in that particular discussion pointed you to the fact that you are asking to modify a community consensus. One editor, Bill, pointed to a possible compromise, prefacing his remark this a comment that indicated that you are trying to modify a community wide consensus. You've made no arguments backed by sources for an IAR exception on this article. Going forward, there is a clear consensus that the discussion is off topic at the article talk page. If you wish to start a new discussion at the appropriate policy talk page, feel free. It would be totally fine and within CANVAS to notify all the participants at the article talk. Please understand that the titles and the post nominals are separate topics. Bill may support a change to post nominals, I likely would support a change to title in limited usage. The exceptions have always seemed quite arbitrary to me. John from Idegon (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to take offence at Jzsj's veiled insinuations such as only 2 identifiable editors until now, both largely tied to your [John from Idegon] perspective. John did not canvass me. He didn't ask me to support any particular positions on the issues concerning this school. He didn't ask me to comment on the issues. He didn't inform me of the discussion. I'm a member of the schools project and I edit many school articles. I often agree with John's positions on school-related issues, but not always.

Several editors told Jzsj that Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School was not the appropriate venue to raise some of his concerns and suggested a more appropriate venue to get more editors involved. When he insisted I explicitly told him that he should then publish notice of the RFC on the affected schools' pages to get more input. He did not do so, and responded with the snide comment I've been dealing entirely with three identifiable editors on this issue, and it is clear that they agree with one another. I trust that an administrator will decide on the merits of the case. We've bent over backwards to be fair and considerate with Jzsj. We've given him every opportunity to properly open the discussion up to more input,and even instructed him on how to do so. He chose to keep the discussion where it is, we've had fairly good participation in the discussions, and the fact that consensus is largely against him is not the result of any collusion or any other improper action. My WP:AGF is getting very thin, and I may consider any further insinuations a personal attack. Meters (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not into the rubrics for posting notices, and when I tried I was told I was canvassing. Also, I don't find much activity on Cristo Rey pages, and if I pinged some editors there I suppose I'd be charged with violating neutrality. I'm grateful for the measured support you've recently given my side of an issue at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Jzsj (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages, again

Once again, read WP:TALK. If you don't understand it, then ask. It's not appropriate to change posts after others have replied to them. It's not a good idea to add new posts in the middle of an exisiting thread (at least if you expect people to notice your addition). And don't ever insert unsigned comments in the middle of a thread. That makes it appear as if the comment was made by the following poster. Meters (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for referring me to this policy. I acknowledged (at the bottom) my linking what had not been linked, but I agree that it could lead to confusion about some of the intervening comments. Jzsj (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I want you to read and follow the talk page guideline, not just acknowledge that I've pointed you to it. This is the second time I've pointed you to to the guideline and yet you continue to violate it. Have you read the guideline? If so why do you continue to violate it? Five hours after your above aknowledgement you started a thread on the same talk page without signing [2]. Meters (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the oversight. I don't find anything in the Talk Page guidelines about furnishing your signature late if you overlooked this at the time, but I did add it to the furnished one there and also added "YesAutosign" to my talkpage. I found nothing pro or con about furnishing the signature after the discussion had progressed. If you've found where this is covered please let me know and if it shouldn't be added as I did I'll remove it. Jzsj (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I had already signed it for you so there was no need for you to do anything else. If you ever need to add a retroactive signature use {{subst:unsigned|}} or {{subst:unsigned2|}} with the username and the correct timestamp for the original edit (as I did). Just adding a new signature with ~~~~ adds the current timestamp and distorts the history of the talk page. It's not a big deal if you immediately notice and simply re-sign seconds later, but doing so hours or days later after people have responded is not acceptable. The timestamps show when the comment was made,and the signature shows who made. This type of timestamp, and your other talk page habits, make it impossible for anyone to follow who said what when. Adding material to a previously signed and timestamped post is deceptive and confusing since it appears that you made the comment with the original post. Other editors respond to what is in the thread when they respond and it is not appropriate to add, remove or change material except in exceptional circumstances, and only then if you make it clear what you have done. Adding unsigned material in the middle of someone else's post is even worse because it appears to be attributed to a different editor. Meters (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have no "habits" in this area since I've not encountered anything quite like this before. Jzsj (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christianity in Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christianity in Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Cristo Rey OKC

On 31 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cristo Rey OKC, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Cristo Rey OKC high school opens in fall 2018, students will be able to work for Boeing, Love's Travel Stops, and more than 30 other employers as part of work-study? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cristo Rey OKC. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cristo Rey OKC), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Satanic Temple

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Satanic Temple. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment on edits, not editors

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your rude comments about other editors, such as you have made at WT:WPSCHOOLS and elsewhere over the past several weeks, are unwelcome at Wikipedia and fly afoul of WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from denigrating other editors and confine your comments to edits, not editors. 32.218.41.250 (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Your intervention here is very deceptive. The whole issue on the WT:WPSCHOOLS page is whether "the chief collaborator in the Schools Project" (the only way I identify him) is going beyond the project's and Wikipedia's expressed policy. The evidence I refer to is the page Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. You'll find there my respectful disagreement with his gross reversions of my contributions. Though he uses "crap" in reference to my defending the use of post-nominals in an infobox (like "SJ" for the Jesuits), I invite anyone to peruse my statements there and on the WT:WPSCHOOLS page and judge who it was who kept his cool. Jzsj (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Your further comments about persons, and not edits, just proves the point of this warning. 32.218.41.250 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this warning. I've already commented on Jzsj's repeated use of veiled insinuations. Calling an IP's warning deceptive simply because the user is using an IP, and referring to another editor as "the chief collaborator" is more of the same. Meters (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I was mistaken in using the word "coordinator", he is listed rather first among the "collaborators". I respect that he has over 1,200 edits a month and is very active in improving schools articles. But I've worked on hundreds of school articles and have never encountered his interpretation of policies before, so in my mind it is his convictions about editing that are at issue. I don't see clear defense of his reverts either in the Schools Project policies or in the references he gives. I suppose it would be proper to challenge him on his talk page, but I don't think he'd want the long discussion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School to occur there, and neither do I think it's appropriate for my talk page, which is why I took it to WT:WPSCHOOLS. Jzsj (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Re John's undo of your talk page edit

Please read WP:TPOC. That's part of WP:TALK, which I have already asked you to read and follow three times. I don't really care if you feel the need to correct obvious typos in my talk page posts, but there is no need to do so, and it is not good talk page etiquette. I don't care if you make typos in your talk page posts and I wouldn't dream of correcting you if I noticed one. Meters (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll remember this. I was writing a reply and saw the red underline above, it's not like I went in just to correct the typo. I've noticed that few of us are fastidious about talk page text, and that's fine by me. Jzsj (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Jzsj. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Enough. Deliberately calling him a "collaborator" again after the previous message is too much. Take it to WP:SPI if you want to accuse someone of socking, and if your intent is just to be offensive, well, don't. Meters (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This train has reached the end of the line. If you've got a gripe with my editing, take it to a noticeboard. If you don't have a case at a noticeboard, shut your pie hole. Ive had enough of your innuendo. Mention me by name or implication again, and it's I that will be going to a noticeboard with you. You're long enough in the tooth as am I to know what McCarthyism is, and your use of "collaborator" smacks way too much of that. You've been told repeatedly that there is nothing wrong with my editing style. You can consider this warning the equivalent of Template:uw-npa4. And it's not just me you are attacking. You've implied that a very capable and long term IP editor is a sockpuppet because he's in agreement with me about your PR/COI editing. I'm sorry, but when a Jesuit priest is engaging in IDHT editing on a Jesuit school and has repeatedly refused to acknowledge multiple uninvolved editor's telling him so, you have a clear COI. John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School is not a Jesuit school and I know of it and its staff only through internet and published material. I agree that this will likely end up at some noticeboard but, as I mention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Common sense in applying featured school criteria, I am hoping to influence applications of principles by those who are dedicated to Schools Project, applications that I find no justification for at the Schools Project itself, and that I have repeatedly questioned at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. I do not think that the interpretations of Wikipedia principles that I find at the Notre Dame article should be applied to the hundreds of school articles that I have created or edited. The closest this comes to what's discussed at Template:uw-npa4 refers to "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence". I have never shown personal disrespect for you and one can judge for themself whether evidence for my statements is lacking at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Jzsj (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Use of article talk pages vs WikiProject pages

I'm going to borrow and adapt an excellent comment by Mathglot which I saw somewhere else, and which is also particularly apt here:
The discussion about Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School at the WT:WPSCH is off-topic, and should not be there. Please discuss how to improve the article "Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School" at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School . This is what article Talk pages are for. The WikiProject Talk page WT:WPSCH is not the right place to discuss how to improve a particular article. It's perfectly fine to leave a request at the Project talk page with a request for opinions or feedback about a particular article, but the discussion itself should be held at the talk page of the article in question, according to the Talk page guideline.

I have hatted the thread at WT:WPSCH. Now please take your discussion to the individual article talk pages as requested, and if you wish to make suggestions there, please first familiarise yourself with the difference between guidelines and policy. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I said just above, that when those who are intent on bringing all school articles up to what they consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines, going beyond official Wikipedia policy, then this has much broader implications than what happens to Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. But according to your request I will expect to take these issues to arbitration, hoping that this will also influence the application of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Jzsj (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus, not arbitration (wherever or whatever you mean by that), will change our WP:WPSCH/AG which has been around for a very long time; and please, for the third time, do learn the difference between policy and guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to use "policies" as referring to Wikipedia:List of policies reinforced by "generally accepted standards" requiring common sense application, as distinguished from Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines which are described as "advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how the content policies may be interpreted within their area of interest". Please let me know if this is not proper. I don't see any need to change the Schools Project Guidelines, but I would modulate the way that some who are very active in the Schools Project are implementing the guidelines, even beyond what is admissible for featured schools. Jzsj (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. You know perfectly well both the demographic section of the article and your use of connected sources is under discussion on the article talk page. This is getting quite boring. Please try to conform your behavior to community expectations John from Idegon (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be acting as if you own the article and have control over all changes to it. All the material I added is new to the article, and if you have a problem with any source then specify why that source is unacceptable. Your gross reverts without explanation have been more hostile than helpful. Jzsj (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Citations

This is a citation to a web page:

<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.loyolapress.com/products/books/history-or-memoir/more-than-a-dream-school-vision-changing-the-world|title=More Than a Dream|last=|first=|date=|website=www.loyolapress.com|page=375|access-date=February 6, 2018}}</ref>

This is a citation to a book:

<ref>{{Cite book |author=G. R. Kearney |title=More Than a Dream: The Cristo Rey Story |location=Chicago |publisher=Loyola Press |year=2008 |page=375}}</ref>

32.218.36.244 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, 32, you missed one of the most vital pieces of a proper book citation, the ISBN number in its proper field. This provides an automatic link to WorldCat.

<ref>{{Cite book |author=G. R. Kearney |title=More Than a Dream: The Cristo Rey Story |location=Chicago|isbn=978-0-8294-2576-5 |publisher=Loyola Press |year=2008 |page=375}}</ref>

John from Idegon (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I had already made the change to the book format on my own at 11:15, 7 February 2018‎ Jzsj (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,252 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (→‎Historical background: reference to book corrected) (undo) on the [page/], but with the ISBN, not the WorldCat number. What is your purpose in bringing it up again here? Jzsj (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance

I’ve started a thread at WP:AN to ask for admin assistance at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Thanks for your contributions and I hope we can resolve this dispute. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jesuit Institute South Africa (February 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 KJP1 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:Jesuit Institute South Africa 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:Jesuit Institute South Africa, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KJP1 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Social development centers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Social development centers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Social development centres in Chile has been nominated for discussion

Category:Social development centres in Chile, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sister/Nun

Sorry, but you are going way overboard with your sister-campaign. Changing something like the "Presentation Sisters" (the name of an organisation) into Presentation [[Religious Sisters|Sisters]] is completely nonsense and close to vandalism. Please stop with that campaign NOW. The Banner talk 21:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand that many of these articles called sisters "nuns", and that since the Second Vatican Council in the Catholic Church sisters have insisted that they are not called to the contemplative life of nuns, but to the active Christian apostolate. This is not my campaign but helping them with their effort to properly define their life in the mind of the public. In the minority of cases where "sister" was only mentioned in the title of their congregation, I conclude that they would like the clarification, that does no violence to the second or third time that their congregation is mentioned.@The Banner: Jzsj (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand that it is a name? The Banner talk 22:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I know that section headings should not be linked but where does Wikipedia limit how parts of names might be linked, especially given the evident reason for doing it here? @The Banner: Jzsj (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a big deal with me: as I said, I usually added "sister" somewhere else, but I owuldlike to know for the future if anyonefinds morethan I

It's very insensitive to revert all of another's work without justifying what you find wrong with each part of it. So, why do you use the same insensitive method to shoot down my editing? The Banner talk 22:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Because you were replacing my edits without explaining why each part of them was unacceptable. I couldn't undo your revert without undoing what you had already done to replace what you didn't like in my original improvement of the article. I suggest that one should respect what is already in an article and only remove what is unacceptable, giving a reason for each part that is removed. I'm sorry about your lost time on what you created, but now you know how I must feel at all my work that you reverted in one, gross revert! @The Banner: Jzsj (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The Banner: It clearly isn't anywhere close to vandalism: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. See also WP:NOT VANDALISM.

Jzsj: I get your point to some degree (though I will quibble with the Vatican II point as the 1983 CIC was actually the version of the code that got rid of the canonical distinction, if I recall). It is still arguably a significant cultural difference and a difference in how they view themselves. In terms of the Wikilinking, I'd agree with The Banner that it might not make the most sense to add a wikilink to the name of an organization. Maybe add a wikilink later in the lede? TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your distinguishing reply! (The Code had little to do with how sisters saw themselves after the call of Vatican II to bring faith to the modern world. The Code haltingly recognized rather than dictated how the relationship between the traditional orders and all the new congregations of pontifical right regarded themselves.) @TonyBallioni: Jzsj (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Somewhere in WP's guidelines (can't find it right now), it states that links shouldn't be made to a single word in a multi-word term, e.g., Department of Homeland Security. This is one issue that The Banner and I have questioned in Jzsj's many "sisters" edits. 32.218.46.140 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with that point from a style point. TonyBallioni× (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If they don't want links amidst multi-word terms then it should be listed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style, a quite detailed list, but isn't. I'll temporarily stop making these type links, and do as I preferred in other instances, adding the word "sister" at another convenient place in the article. But please let me know if you find this mentioned elsewhere in the guidelines. @TonyBallioni: @32.218.46.140: Jzsj (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not my campaign but helping them with their effort.... If that isn't a clear declaration of making edits with a COI, I don't know what is. This fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose is the root cause of all the problems centering around this editor at this time. TonyBallioni, what say you? John from Idegon (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)|

I'm not particularly up to date with the situation. I've always had positive interactions with Jzsj, and I don't think that simply being a Jesuit is a COI. I see that there is a discussion on WT:CATHOLIC about sisters, but I haven't read it that much. I do agree that many Wikipedia articles make mistakes re: Catholicism based on what is reported in the secular press where academic sourcing or subject-specific press might be more reliable sources (not talking about ideology, but things like canonical distinctions between groups, where there is an objectively correct answer where people could get it wrong if they aren't familiar with an obscure topic.)

My comment here earlier was an attempt to try to deescalate this: I think Jzsj generally does good content work and is trying to help: calling him borderline vandal doesn't do that. At the same time, I agree with the stylistic concerns, but do think that there might be a way to take into account his concerns without adding Wikilinks to parts of names, which I would oppose as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a big thing with me: I usually added "sister" elsewhere to link it. I will stop doing it but would also need to find where it is ruled out: is it just not ideal or to be reverted at every instance? @TonyBallioni: Jzsj (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:SUBMARINE: Do not place a link to a name within another name. Mojoworker (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that a distinction needs to be made here. When part of a name needs linking to explain what the name means, then it is commonly done (as in prenominals and postnominals before and after names). In the examples given at MOS:SUBMARINE the information given at the link is only distantly related to what the place is. @Mojoworker: @TonyBallioni: Jzsj (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit suggests that he is working more than full time on Wikipedia. The Banner talk 23:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion: "by most" I mean more than half, and this is true, since Missouri State Correctional Centers are very restrictive about letting volunteers in: so the time to work on Wikipedia. @The Banner: Jzsj (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

He's a retired priest: he has time on his hands (as many of our other retired editors do). Re: the content dispute, would adding a line such as ...a group of religious sisters... be a valid compromise? TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That might often work, as I've tried to find ways to add the word "sister" without breaking up the line of thought. @TonyBallioni: Jzsj (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There is far more going on than just this content dispute, I think there are six or eight content disputes on Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School alone. And the forum hopping, canvassing, ignoring of policies, ignoring of discussion etc. is not making it any easier. The Banner talk 02:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:How Long, Not Long

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:How Long, Not Long. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Re:Catholic sisters pipe or article?

Dear User:Jzsj, thanks for your message on my talk page. The article actually wasn't deleted, it was redirected in order to have a broader scope. Since there is a difference between a nun and a sister, I would support the creation of Sister (Christian), which would discuss sisters in the Catholic Church, Anglican Communion, Orthodox Church, Lutheran Churches, etc. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is now turning toward renaming the "Nun" article, since even nuns in the West are working more like sisters and preferring to be called such. The discussion is at Talk:Nun#Rename article "Nun and religious sister" ?. Jzsj (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Jzsj, I would support either the creation of Sister (Christian) or the moving the current article nun to Nuns and religious sisters. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps time to archive your talk page

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 303.3 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of this. I'll take care of it myself. Jzsj (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jesuit Institute South Africa has been accepted

Jesuit Institute South Africa, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Alert

Authority? I am an editor who who knows the basic rules. The reasons were given in the text of hat note AND the link included. And you've been told about both things before.

You know, the old schtick of pretending not to understand is well-worn enough around here to get its own shortcut: WP:IDHT. As does the notion that if one argues and argues and argues and uses JUST the right major words one can achieve rhetorical victory: WP:WIKILAWYERING.

Wikipedia is NOT a hierarchical system with top-down imposed rules. Its rules, procedures, ethos, guidelines, practices, restrictions, and bureaucracy evolved into their present shape by group consensus and decision-making, based around the basic goal of creating a universal, neutral, accessible general encyclopedia. If you run afoul of goal with your own agenda, disrupt the work, and continually refuse to conform to the values of the community, the community at some point has every right to -- and will -- decide you're a net negative, and remove you from the project, and all the appeal to regulations and legalistic interpretation won't stop that. See also WP:IAR. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What I've seen is a few editors doing a very poor job of referencing their insistence on controlling this article and wearing out most of the experienced editors who have tried to oppose them. Jzsj (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Strange, that is exactly what you are doing! The Banner talk 00:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Notre Dame

Hi Jzsj, I think opening an RFC would be ill advised for a multitude of reasons. Here's why:

1. I posted a request at WP:ANFRC for an admin to come close the History discussion. For all intents and purposes this is a "poor man's" RFC.
2. The !vote count is 3-3. And Supporters have superior arguments. I predict your proposal will prevail.
3. If you post an RFC at an open discussion before the admin closes it the deletionists at the article will take you to WP:ANI and IMO you will be topic banned forever meaning you won't be able to edit school articles forever "broadly construed" lol.
4. You have to be patient and allow the process run its course. Otherwise you invite disaster. Don't do anything at Notre Dame until that discussion is closed. Why not go edit schools run by a real order, the Dominicans lmao. And stop posting at ANI, BOOMERANG is a bitch.

I am watching this page--I will reply here – Lionel^(talk) 02:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing about how all this develops, and greatly appreciate your advice. It's not that I'm in a hurry but I felt the continuing stalemate was causing both sides distress and going nowhere. I'll just wait and let you handle it. Also, I used to attend regularly the Dominican Liturgy of Hours and Mass in their chapel at Jesuit Hall in St. Louis (the years they lived with us); it included their scholastics and was very participatory. I'll check out some Dominican schools; the Christian Brothers rather than the Dominicans have been our sports rivals in the Midwest. I've worked over the 1000+ Jesuit educational and social works in Wikipedia and this is the first time I've run into anything near this stone wall. Greatly appreciate your direction here! Jzsj (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Polyandry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polyandry. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Using phony edit summaries

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Holy Apostles College and Seminary has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you.
This is not a typo correction. 32.218.38.239 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The typo was that I failed to remove the tag in the previous correction where I'd added a host of citations. Jzsj (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to stop your disingenuous and misleading excuses now. Fixing a misspelled word warrants a "typo" edit summary; removing a maintenance tag does not. 32.218.38.239 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to mislead you; I'll try to be more precise. Jzsj (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Jzsj. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Newspapers.com Account - The Wikipedia Library.
Message added 19:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Racism in the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Racism in the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Faith healing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Faith healing. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You are now subject to a ban

Per the thread at ANI, you are hereby subject to the following restrictions:

Jzsj (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed. They may participate in deletion discussions related to these topics if they created the page(s) in question.

Good luck.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not go around accusing people of canvassing just because they showed up on one of the most heavily-trafficked pages on the site. That's a good way to get blocked instead of topic banned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

For the record, please note that I accused no one of canvassing but asked what prevents the email addresses offered in Wikipedia from being used for canvassing. Jzsj (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: I am in agreement with Jzsj here (this showed up on my watchlist as I follow policy changes). You did answer the question though on why editors can show up so quickly, but failed when it came to canvassing through email. In my view it would be hard to prove as we all want to WP:AGF but it is still in the back of the mind of a possibility in any given case. Please note that I am not advocating for the removal of a community given topic ban here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• I did not participate in the ANI discussion, and I'm sad it came to this conclusion, but I don't see how the community could have handled it differently: it is a very strong consensus that your way of trying to get your thing accomplished on Wikipedia is frowned upon. You must understand, and you probably do, that frequently it's not (just) what one is proposing but the way one goes about it that is qualified as disruptive. If you wish to appeal this topic ban, it is good to keep that in mind. Best, Drmies (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ironic, since I picked up from early in the discussion, on January 14 and 15, that my perspective was not being taken seriously, but rather likened to "alphabet soup" and "crap". And the way that opposition developed, with threats that followed, and gross reverts with little or no explanation, led me to conclude that we who spend all the time creating and referencing articles were at the mercy of tendentious interpretations of the guidelines, with little real compromise. Jzsj (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If that's your takeaway -- with all of its obvious falsehoods -- then I expect any appeal of your topic ban is doomed from the start. Hint: you WERE given COPIOUS explanations, but either didn't listen or self-servingly chose to ignore them. You complain about guidelines but you were told MULTIPLE times where you should go to change them or get clarification: you have made no efforts whatsoever to do so. --Calton | Talk 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not ironic. First, I was trying to be helpful (I can be bad at that, I know), and second, the alphabet soup and all that is not, in fact, your perspective--it's your method. As for "we who spend all the time...": you are welcome to check my credentials in article creation. This is not them vs. you, and you are not being oppressed as an article creator. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you and I appreciate your kind words. I learn from the following section that I am not allowed to point to things that might prove at least my perspective, if not my point, so I accept the fact that whatever people might say I have no right to say anything specific in my own defense. Ok, if that's the way it is. Jzsj (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You already said plenty in your own defense at AN; your time for that has come and gone. 32.218.47.51 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the community would be open to lifting the topic ban in 6 months if:

• Jzsj aknowledges the communities concerns, and
• Jzsj demonstrates a commitment to expanding articles only with content cited to third party sources. (I noticed Jzsj signed up for WP:Newspapers.com. That is a great resource to find third party coverage), and
• Jzsj only discusses MOS changes at WT:MOS or other project wide pages.

I hate to see this editor topic banned and would like to see him contributing again to topics that need better coverage. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but do please be careful

Your topic ban restricts you from mentioning any articles related to schools or education, broadly construed. Please try and avoid discussions like this, which you initiated half an hour after you were informed of your topic ban. One slip from you in leading discussions like this will unfortunately see you being brought back to ANI for a permanent ban. So, without wishing to see you getting washed out, please do be careful. Thanks, Lourdes 18:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Lourdes, I hope you offered that in good faith. To others, and the admins, let's not be too triggerhappy--the purpose of the topic ban is to prevent disruption, not to punish an editor. If Jzsj "slips", let's try and solve it via something other than blocking. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies, I agree with you. I offered it in good faith only – that's why I carefully worded the heading as "Sorry but do please be careful". Even at the ANI discussion, I agreed with Bill and had strongly suggested to Jzsj to give quick assurances about moving away from the topic. While I'm disappointed at Jzsj's responses and apprehensive above his multiple queries post the topic ban (which seem like fishing for trouble),[3][4] I'm quite sure they'll understand and conform to the current delimiters. Thanks, Lourdes 04:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• User:Cyberpower678, please indicate whether the topic ban covers articles written by this editor that are currently up for deletion, as a PROD or at AfD. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  That was the original scope of the ban, but I can relax it a bit to allow participation in deletion discussions, if that helps.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know, User:Cyberpower678. It's kind of harsh to see all your stuff nominated without being able to participate. By the same token, I don't know if they can participate without...well, that which led to this. Jzsj? Drmies (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  Based on my experience so far, I found it easier for the community in general to broaden the scope at first and then add in exceptions as needed. If they can participate in deletion discussions without doing what led to the ban in the first place, I see no reason why I shouldn't relax the TBAN to allow said participation.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Am I not correct in saying that if anyone wanted to avert this long-drawn waste of time they could have from the start pointed out something that is my main take-away from the affair: the main point was that on matters of content no policy or guideline determines the result but simply who can produce the most votes. It would help if this was clearly and unequivocally (and so honestly) stated in Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Jzsj (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You should revert that. It's extremely politically incorrect and dangerous. The First Rule of Wikipedia is don't talk about the fact that the majority rules. – Lionel^(talk) 07:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So sorry to see that you have missed the message around the topic ban. The Banner talk 08:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

More edits to education articles/Topic ban

• @Lourdes and Cyberpower: Jzsj is back at it adding references to an article that, broadly construed, involves education. Well, at least the word education does appear four times in the article, so I assume they are involved in education. Like it says in the lede, "Pursuing the service of faith and promotion of justice, its works include combating poverty, refugee assistance, education, health, ecology, human rights and pastoral work, while fostering dialogue between cultures and religions." Can't get much clearer than that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Cyberpower clarified this as: "My interpretation of the ban, as per the "broadly construed", is that any article remotely related to education or covering education is within the scope of the ban. However, articles not primarily about education, universities, and similar topics, and are at best a few sentences in articles mentioning the topic, should not be including in the ban's scope." This article is not primarily about schools and there are only a few mentions of education. But if this causes problems I'll avoid organizations with this many mentions and simply make the suggestions for additions on their delete page. I undid my two edits here. Jzsj (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, you're clearly in violation of your ban. The article has whole paragraphs about education:

The Irulars are the second largest indigenous tribe in the northern part of the state of Tamil Nadu with 210,000 members. Eighty-one percent of Irulars live below the poverty line and are in debt. Sixty-six percent are illiterate and often see no need in sending their children to school. But the Jesuits see education as the path to independence and human betterment. Evening schools have been set up in 25 villages to enhance the chances of success for schoolchildren.

and...

The new Xavier Jesuit School in Sisophon, Cambodia, is incorporating kindergarten, primary and secondary schools, teacher training, and a kind of folk high school for residents of the surrounding villages, plus tutoring and special courses for school dropouts.

and...

Since the end of the independence struggle in 2002, East Timor needs to see its educational infrastructure rebuilt with schools and well-trained teachers. Jesuiten assisted with the school in Kasait that opened in 2013. Since 2012, a facility for teacher training has been provided, with classrooms, library, and sports grounds

• That looks like a lot of education to me.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that this was a marginal case, and possibly covered by the restriction, but I looked at the whole work of the organization and saw it ranged far beyond the educational, as stated in the lead: "its works include combating poverty, refugee assistance, education, health, ecology, human rights and pastoral work, while fostering dialogue between cultures and religions. The work extends to posting of volunteers and political advocacy, as in its campaign "Tax against poverty" and these." As to your first example, if you'd included the last sentence then your assertion about "whole paragraphs" would clearly not apply to that example. The first two sentences are not about education and the last sentence which you omitted shows a multi-faceted approach to the problem of poverty, the topic of the whole paragraph: "Also self-help groups have been founded for women to keep them out of the clutches of money-lenders." But I undid my edits and will avoid in the future organizations with this much mention of education in their outreach. Jzsj (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest the you stop poking the edges of your topic ban. The group's website states that "the Jesuit mission supports some 600 projects in the areas of poverty alleviation, refugee aid, education, health, ecology, human rights and pastoral work" (emphasis added by me). This would indeed seem to fall under your topic ban of education, broadly construed.. Meters (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Again, I propose to follow the directive which I quoted above, given me by Cyberpower. But I don't understand your reference to Jesuitenmission's webpage: the directive is speaking of Wikipedia "articles". Jzsj (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

And how many times do we have to point you to WP:TALK? Do not change your posts after they have been replied to. It is not appropriate to read my post and insert more material into you previous post.

If you don't understand why Jesuitenmission's mission:is germane, this speaks to WP:CIR again. You are editing and article about a group which is involved in education. Their webpage says so. Our article says so. The majority of the sections of our article mention their schools. Since you think is a marginal case you should not have touched it. Again, stop poking the edges of your topic ban. Meters (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• As to the interference, did you see the "inuse" template at the head of this section when you edited it? I'd placed it there. Jzsj (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• The "in use" template is for article pages. I've never seen it used on a talk page. The template page says "the tag is intended to inform people that someone is currently working on the article, thereby reducing edit conflicts." But-- I imagine that in Jzsj's world, this is normal and allowed. Nobody else does it, but you should be able to. That much is clear. Carry on with the creative distortion of establish communal policy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Falsehoods

I could quote Canon law as to the fact that Bishops assign and reassign priests at will, as do religious superiors, if that is all you want.

Astonishing. You manage to utterly miss the point of my statement AND be entirely wrong in your attempt at deflection.

You made a claim that no one had addressed your whinge about post-nominals: that was false. And your rebuttal to the statement which you claim nobody made is to ignore its content completely in favor of a non sequitor. Neither makes you look good.

It's irrelevant whether your WP:IDHT problem is competence or ethics, but if you don't fix it you're going to have a shortened Wikipedia career. --Calton | Talk 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Calton, come on. I strongly urge you to, you know, just stay away from this editor and their talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• And I strongly urge this editor to stop making statements that are false -- for whatever reason -- that he hasn't been given copious advice about what he's doing wrong and actually start paying attention. Did you have some sort of point, Drmies? --Calton | Talk 02:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think my point was clear. Feel free to look at WP:NPA if you need further instruction. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar 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/Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar (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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Faith and Public Life for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Faith and Public Life 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/Center for Faith and Public Life (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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Regis College Center for Service Learning for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Regis College Center for Service Learning 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/Regis College Center for Service Learning 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 08:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Village Reconstruction Organization for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Village Reconstruction Organization 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/Village Reconstruction Organization 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 08:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jesuit Institute South Africa

The article Jesuit Institute South Africa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pure promotion. All the sources are either the society's own website, or press releases and the like, and the article consists of in-universe text about what the society says about itself. E.g., you don't get to say in Wikipedia's voice that the society "trains individuals and groups in critical analysis" without a secondary source confirming that that's what people are trained in by this religious organization. It may well be a fine organization, but there's no indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I've deprodded the article. It's staff have published in scholary journals ([5]) and I feel the institute could pass WP:ORG. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, BillHPike. I don't feel it does pass WP:ORG, but you may be right it had better be at AfD for community review. I've taken it there, see below. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC).

Nomination of White House Jesuit Retreat Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White House Jesuit Retreat Center 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/White House Jesuit Retreat Center 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 00:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Institute South Africa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Institute South Africa 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/Jesuit Institute South Africa 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, just a bit of advice re: moving forward:

1. Don't talk about schools at all on Wikipedia while you are banned (even in reply to this message). No one wants to block you, but topic ban violations are taken pretty seriously, and they are construed broadly.
2. If you want to still participate in Wikipedia (which I hope you do), I would recommend that you focus on other areas you enjoy and not necessarily organizations. Organizations are difficult to write about, and also tend to lead to difficult AfDs.
3. This is the advice I give to anyone who expresses an interest in writing about religious topics on Wikipedia, especially if they aren't overly familiar with the byzantine structure of some of our policies: focus on stuff that is pre-19th century. The history of the Society of Jesus is definitely worth documenting, and I think there are a lot of areas you might be able to contribute. Working on biographies of Jesuit bishops, saints, and missionaries would be beneficial to the encyclopedia, and relatively easy to do. All bishops are notable, so that might be an area to start. Pietro Campori is an example of a 17th century cardinal who I wrote the biography for. There are also plenty of historical events to write on as well (my work mainly focuses on early modern conclaves).
4. If you do choose to work on more recent things (20th or 21st century), I would advise you to work on living biographies of bishops or other non-controversial figures, or on biographies of deceased individuals (Jesuit missionaries, etc.) These are the easiest to work on. Mariano Gagnon is an example of a biography of a recently deceased Franciscan missionary that I helped to write.

I hope this is helpful, and if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me. Again, most of this is advice I would give to anyone writing about religion on Wikipedia: it is much easier to write about things pre-19th century, and if you are writing on current topics, it is easiest to write non-controversial biographies. If there are other areas you might prefer to work in, I can also give pointers, but these are just my basic "how to write about religious topics on Wikipedia without going crazy" tips. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional advice: accept the policies, guidelines and manual of styles. Accepting them (and adhering to them) makes life far more easy. The Banner talk 03:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Tony, you saw User:cyberpower678's note, above? I don't know if Jzsj is interested in participating in those discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuit Institute South Africa is headed for deletion...), but I'm certainly not opposed to it, and it would give them a good and focused opportunity to prove us wrong, that they can be a positive in that area. I think we should hear from the editor about this, so Jzsj... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, Drmies. Sorry for any confusion: if Cyber has relaxed the ban to allow for participation in AfDs of articles he has created, I think that is fine. I was just giving broad advice for how to deal with it in general. Also, thank you for your ping and comments here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

These few were marginal passes and I don't think it worthwhile to argue over them: whatever the community decides. These activities are more adequately covered on their websites, which most interested parties would regard as reliable sources. Jzsj (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on the mature response from Jzsj, I will relax the ban to allow participation in deletion discussions, with the exception of dePRODing articles under the ban. It's clear Jzsj knows when to back off and stay away.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I like that, Cyberpower678. I too think the user should be able to participate in deletion discussions about articles he created (and articles he significantly expanded, too). Bishonen | talk 00:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks. So what about editing articles that are at AfD? I just blocked him for editing a school related article, and it was brought to my attention that the article is one he created that is now at AfD. I'm uncertain whether to unblock based on that since there is at current no condition allowing him to edit the articles at all.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj has created hundreds of school articles, a half dozen of which are now nominated for deletion; more may be nominated in the future. Allowing Jzsj to edit these articles would seem to be watering down the ban to make it meaningless. If he's got something that vital to say about a nominated article, he can say it in the deletion discussions. 32.218.37.182 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on this back-and-forth ongoing discussion discussion amongst Admins and all the wiki-speak even I'm confused about where the bright-line is. JZSJ is new to all of this. I'm sure he has no idea of what';s going on. Blocking JZSJ was premature. He should be unblocked as a matter of fairness.– Lionel^(talk) 00:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: I'm going over the development centers I worked on. As long as they don't mention education in the main description of their program or purpose, can I assume that these are outside the intended ban, like here? Jzsj (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj is not new to all of this. He has over 25k edits. Cyberpower stated that participation in deletion discussions, but no reasonable editor could interpret this as allowing Jzsj to edit school articles that have been nominated for deletion. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree entirely with 32.218.xx. Jzsj absolutely should not be allowed to edit the articles, and I was rather shocked to see that he had. You did right to block him. There was strong community consensus for the topic ban, and making an exception for editing articles on AfD would go far beyond what was decided. What next, an exception for edit warring on such articles? The user needs to understand the topic ban is serious, and quite strict — not vague, or loose around the edges, or to be encroached on. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

Yes Billhpike JZSJ has over 25k edits and up until today he has never been blocked. Never been to WP:AN3 as far as I can tell. Until he ran headon into the deletionists at Notre Dame he had no experience with the Draconian side of Wikipedia. If the editors at Notre Dame were let loose on the entire pedia the total article byte count would drop 30%. – Lionel^(talk) 00:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I assume they'd never been topic banned either. But they managed that then managed to completely ignore the topic ban and get themselves blocked. None of this is particularly surprising. Whatever you may want to blame deletionists etc, as someone who has largely been watching from the sidelines it was clear to me that Jzsj was trying to change long standing practice on article content and was trying to do it in completely the wrong way. When people kept telling them it was the wrong way, they didn't seem to get this or ignored it so inevitability of the topic ban wasn't surprising. And to be clear, this is coming from someone who had some minimal sympathy with their POV but still felt their handling of this was terrible and was clearly never going achieve anything but get them in trouble. Let's not forget what got them the topic ban had nothing to do with article deletion. Incidentally, I'm fairly sure quite a few editors who are topic banned or blocked for a long time after a lot of editing never make it to AN3 for the simple reason that edit warring is only one form of disruptive editing. As others have said, with such a large edit count you should have learnt there is a difference between deletion discussion and editing an article. If you haven't 'deletionists' or not, there's something seriously wrong with your understanding of wikipedia. If your understanding of wikipedia is really so flawed, you either need to fix that or take great care and seek clarification once you've been restricted. (Although frankly this seems to be a English issue as much as anything. Even without much understanding of wikipedia, it's not hard to see that editing an article, even one up for deletion probably doesn't fall under deletion discussion, if you understand basic English.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of De Britto Higher Secondary School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article De Britto Higher Secondary School 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/De Britto Higher Secondary School 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 22:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for this edit, which is a blatant violation of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For three years and nine months I made edits like that, adding second and third party references to school articles. Please enlighten me on what is wrong with that. I understood from your earlier notice that I could defend articles that were being proposed for deletion, just not dePRODing them. How else can I oppose their deletion? No one else is improving them. @Cyberpower678: Jzsj (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please, pretending to be confused about guidelines is one of the things that got you topic banned in the first place. It wears thin after a while. I don't want to put words in Cyberpower's mouth, so I'll just quote "I will relax the ban to allow participation in deletion discussions." If after three years and nine months you don't know the difference between a deletion discussion and an article, then you don't have the competence to edit Wikipedia. 32.218.37.182 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Those of us who have been exclusively involved in creating articles have little or no knowledge of your tasks as patrollers, or how things work there. Whatever has happened since this began on January 12 is totally new to me. Jzsj (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You spent the better part of the last two months forum shopping. Your protestation that you don't know the difference between discussion pages and articles is more than a bit disingenuous. 32.218.37.182 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

<Ad hominem comment removed per Wikipedia:IPs are human too>

I said you can defend them on the deletion pages. Admins weigh deletion discussion based on merit of argument and whether they are based in policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Lionel I can't say your presence here is any more helpful. Sure it's good for editors to have a friend. However, when an editor is under sanction like Jzsj, just telling them they've been hard done by, shouldn't have been blocked etc when they are topic banned and then clearly and obviously break that topic ban probably doesn't help. They need to understand that the topic ban is a serious thing and yes they will be blocked if they violate it. And even to an impartial observe it's clear that the a topic ban or similar was likely, and that they did clearly violate it. Sure too much WP:Piling on probably isn't helpful. But you can be sympathetic without suggesting they did nothing wrong or it was a minor thing. Since ultimately if the editor continues to think this is a minor thing or they were hard done by since they weren't doing anything wrong, all this is likely to achieve is a long block eventually when they violate their topic ban, or do something else the community (everyone, not just deletionists) finds harmful. Note that all this applies whatever the merits of what the 32 IP said. Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt, don't tell people to drop a barnstar here or go "play" somewhere else. It's foolish as well as offensive, and you're not allowed to be rude to IPs any more than to other users. Your off-topic ad hominem to the IP was collapsed by that IP. Note that per WP:REFACTOR, which you referred to when you reverted the collapse, "good refactoring practices are an important part of maintaining a productive talk page". Refactoring by collapsing was a minimal action against your offensive comment; since you didn't like it, I'm removing the comment altogether. Please do not restore. Your messing about on this page is becoming disruptive. Please stop. There is no doubt about where you stand in regard to Jzsj's editing in all its aspects; you've made it clear several times; there's no need to keep hitting people over the head with it. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

Request

Could you please add the local names to articles about non-school-organisations? Yesterday I nearly AfD'ed an article because the translated name had only 8 Google-hits, making is non-notable. But after some searching, I found a Spanish name that gave far more hits. The encyclopedia would be better off with this addition. So, please? The Banner talk 11:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll do that in the future. Thanks. Jzsj (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice when you can do that too for the older articles. The Banner talk 14:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

And Now For Something Completely Different

Lionelt has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the fishy, gooey goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Please comment on Talk:Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Odisha Citizens' Initiatives, Tumudibandha for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Odisha Citizens' Initiatives, Tumudibandha 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/Odisha Citizens' Initiatives, Tumudibandha 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 12:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Xavier's College, Nevta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Xavier's College, Nevta 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. Xavier's College, Nevta 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Xavier's High School, Mahua for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Xavier's High School, Mahua 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. Xavier's High School, Mahua 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 16:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Xavier's School, Behror for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Xavier's School, Behror 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. Xavier's School, Behror 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 16:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Father (is it proper for me to address you this way?)

I noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odisha Citizens' Initiatives, Tumudibandha and looked into it a bit and saw that you started the article. From the notes above I see you have similar difficulties with other articles. I've only looked at the 1st article, but if the others are similar, I'll suggest that you simply put them into a user subpage and bring them back once better references are available.

I am usually quite a stickler on WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid declarations but I'm not 100% sure they would apply to you. The reason for my interest in this area is to prevent companies from using Wikipedia as an advertising platform and ripping-off our readers. I'm sure you understand that these adverts are not a good thing in general.

Formally, I could see how many editors might see the declaration requirements as applying to you, but in an WP:IAR sense, I'm not so sure that they do. Please let me know what you think. What I might suggest is that you use a COI declaration template on your using page. If you think "Conflict of interest" is in any way misleading or offensive, then you might just add some text above or below the declaration explaining why. Maybe even add a section header "Declaration of calling". I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Smallbones: In general, I don't think Jzsj has a conflict of interest for the Catholic church. Since the church is a vast organization, I feel Jzsj only has a COI for the particular Catholic institutions he has been affiliated with. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer not to be referred to as a priest. I originally had a brief history on my talk page but have removed it from Wikipedia since it seems to be an overall negative for other editors; I had included it simply for openness (I'm a simple person) not to achieve any advantage. As to COI, I am a Jesuit and we run close to a thousand secondary/tertiary schools and social centers worldwide, but I have never worked for any of these in India, and my input at those few in the USA that I have worked at has been minimal: they take care of themselves. You can find where this affair started at here, and as a result I am currently banned from contributing to school articles. You'll find in the course of the long debate others have defended me from the charge of conflict of interest, but if you have any suggestion on how I can put this fallacy to rest, please let me know. Jzsj (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and I can sympathize. Wikipedia often seems to be a huge impersonal institution run in a totally chaotic fashion. I've previously described its governance as being inspired by the anarchists of Byzantium.

So I may have put my foot into something that I shouldn't have here. It seems like you are dealing with it ok. Perhaps - perhaps - you might consider putting up some user boxes such as "This user is a Catholic", "This user is a teacher" to give other editors a hint. I'll withdraw now, but if there is ever anything I can do to help, please let me know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not so much the COI that got mr. Jzsj the topic ban, but the utter failure to respect policies, guidelines and the manual of style combined with disruptive editing by restarting every discussion where the consensus went against his opinion time and time again. The Banner talk 01:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

And I can't defend myself against your charges because I'm topic banned. Does that bring respect to Wikipedia? Jzsj (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice when you start respecting the manual of style, the policies and the guidelines. There is no need to repeat all of the endless discussions where the consensus went against you and that you kept restarting. But unfortunately, you still do not seem to understand that nor do you understand the limits of your topic ban. The Banner talk 01:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thou shall not complain and whine, mr. Jzsj, as this is in fact the second violation of your topic ban. The Banner talk 18:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, your edit history shows your complete work, so there's really no need to "defend" yourself. To paraphrase an old saw, an edit history is worth a thousand words. 32.218.47.251 (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Then why are y'all bringing up this discussion here. Just let the record stand! Jzsj (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, could you please review the link The Banner added above and the subsequent removal by Jzsj, noting the edit summary? IMO, either this is clearly him flaunting his topic ban and trying to weasel out of it, or a WP:CIR issue. I came here with the intention of listing more specifically what his topic ban prohibits him doing, but his statement immediately above dissuaded me from that. He's simply got to get past the notion that he is right and the community is wrong. John from Idegon (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

My statement above had nothing to do with protesting the ban itself or with raising the issues that are behind us. I made a mistake posting a suggestion on the talk page of one of my articles which Banner had proposed for deletion: I should have posted it on the article's deletion page, as per the permission for me to do this. But understand this, I do not intend to do anything further to save any of my school articles which are being proposed for deletion: I'll leave that to others now, and if they keep referring to me I'm out of it. I do not have the opinion that I am "right and the community is wrong" but these last two months have introduced me to a lot of new terms and issues. I think I can understand but had a couple slip ups in trying to save the articles proposed for deletion, and undid the last myself. Jzsj (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Technically a violation but I’ll leave this on as a warning.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Loyola College, Vettavalam for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Loyola College, Vettavalam 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/Loyola College, Vettavalam 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 20:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPG

One of the reasons you received a ban was your inability to follow proper talk page etiquette. And yet today, (here) in the last change to this page prior to this, you insert a comment in the middle of a conversation from two weeks ago. IMO, development = education and is under your topic ban. The wikilawyering is getting quite old. My suggestion would be to not worry about editing anything for a time and study on policy and guidelines. I'm certain there is someone somewhere that would be willing to mentor you, and perhaps one of the many administrators that are now following your talk page may be able to provide a suggestion. Pinging Cyberpower678 for clarification. John from Idegon (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

^ Your topic ban is broadly construed so if people consider it a topic on education, then you should stay away from it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

In my view, unless the organizations you are referring to are engaged in some sort of medical therapy to promote physical development, development is directly synonymous with education. Whether its purpose is to promote academic development or spiritual development, it's still teaching someone something, which is by anyone's definition, education. John from Idegon (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"Providing training" is also a warning sigh of imminent danger. The Banner talk 05:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Loyola College, Mettala for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Loyola College, Mettala 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/Loyola College, Mettala 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Joseph's Industrial School, Ooty for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Joseph's Industrial School, Ooty 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. Joseph's Industrial School, Ooty 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Loyola Industrial Training Institute, Ranipet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Loyola Industrial Training Institute, Ranipet 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/Loyola Industrial Training Institute, Ranipet 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 02:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Xavier Institute of Business Administration for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xavier Institute of Business Administration 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/Xavier Institute of Business Administration 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 12:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Hekima Institute of Peace Studies and International Relations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hekima Institute of Peace Studies and International Relations 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/Hekima Institute of Peace Studies and International Relations 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 13:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox copyright again

Hello, I took note of your latest work in User:Jzsj/sandbox. While it's perfectly fine to copy within Wikipedia, we still have to be mindful of the copyright license of the material we're working with. That would be CC-BY-SA which, among other things, requires us to attribute the author of whatever we use. So the good news is that this is exceedingly easy. When you copy it, just use an edit summary such as "copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution" anyone may follow the link and discover the authors' identities there. See my links for more information. This would be especially important if you're copying between articles in mainspace, so that attribution is retained for posterity. Happy editing! 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your desire to be helpful. Just one question. If the work that I am copying is entirely my own, must I state that or can I simply copy it without attribution? In other words, in creating an article or part of an article for Wikipedia do I lose the personal right to use that matter in other places, in or outside of Wikipedia, without attribution? Can you direct me to where this specific question is answered? @2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26: Jzsj (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You cannot ping an IP. John from Idegon (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Jzsj, you don't actually have to provide attribution for content you wrote entirely yourself (WP:NOATT), but it's very easy to do and might conceivably save someone some time if they were looking into the attribution (or lack of it) in the future. I sometimes use an edit summary along the lines of "add [foo], using some stuff I wrote earlier at [bar]". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

How about "outside of Wikipedia"? Can uou direct me to where that question is answered? Thanks, @Justlettersandnumbers: Jzsj (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't – I don't know if it's ever been asked, let alone answered! You perhaps could try asking at the Village Pump. Sorry, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If you own the entirety of the copyright, and are putting the content forward as your own, you are meeting the attribution requirement as the only person to attribute is yourself (all editors retain individual copyright for their contributions). It is still likely better to attribute the Wikipedia page, however, as most of the time, other users make contributions to things, even if minor, which would be better to put forward as attribution. It's also a pretty simple process just write something like Content from Wikipedia, the Free Encylopedia, see [URL here] for attribution. Content is published under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported and GFDL. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Jzsj (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team not the route to ask that type of questions? I know that the Dutch OTRS-team is answering that type of questions. The Banner talk 21:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You could, but I have him the same answer I would have given if he had emailed. Though, I should give the standard, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice bit. Like I said, it'd probably be easiest to attribute to Wikipedia as he would get his own attribution that way, and meeting the licensing requirements is very simple (see the example text I wrote in code.)TonyBallioni (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

True. I did not know that you were part of that team. The Banner talk 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Hakimani Centre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Hakimani Centre 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/Jesuit Hakimani Centre 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Higher Vocational Agricultural School of Bevalala for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Higher Vocational Agricultural School of Bevalala 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/Higher Vocational Agricultural School of Bevalala 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Catholic organizations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Catholic organizations. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abortion and the Catholic Church

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion and the Catholic Church. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello Jzsj. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Jzsj. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jzsj|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric: members of the Society of Jesus are not paid (vow of poverty) and Jzsj has declared his affiliation with the Society on his userpage in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm....I will await JsJ's reply.This is not related to the particular locus you mention. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. Members of Catholic religious orders are not allowed to own property or accept direct payment. All payment is made to their province. That might be an indirect payment, but I also find it pretty unlikely that his provincial is directing him to edit Wikipedia, and we typically don't consider employees outside sales of marketing or sales to be "paid editors". A COI may exist, but assuming that he is in fact a priest in the Society of Jesus, the odds of him being a paid editor under WP:PAID are approximately zero. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...I completely missed your point.On scrolling through this t/p, I'm not sure of my evaluations, based on off-wiki/OTRS leads.It can be a genuine case of good-faith creation of ill-sourced promotional stuff about NGOs. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, he was a Jesuit priest who was creating articles about Jesuit NGOs and schools. The COI line there is difficult to establish (i.e. he would not have a COI for a Jesuit run parish in India as a Jesuit in the United States, IMO. May he have one for a Jesuit high school there? Possibly, depending on his exact relationship.) He's been TBAN'd from schools, though, which would make it difficult for him to work in the main area he had been focusing on. Drmies has been fair to Jzsj in the past while also dealing with the goals of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and might, if you ask him kindly, be willing to look at specific things. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the articles about Indian NGOs are non-notable (I can't evaluate the case of USA ones) and his versions do often seem to be a copy-paste of About Us sections with self-sourcing.Anyways, will be looking at deletion-scopes and all.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The difficult part in this is that he was asked to edit, as he properly declared on an older version of his userpage. The Banner talk 10:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I tried to help Wikipedia by making available on it all the Jesuit social service centers that seemed to correspond to the criteria for notability. Nobody paid me for doing this, and I am not in contact with any of them. Similarly, I'm also a Catholic and I work on articles about the Catholic Church too. I suggest that a common sense approach to centres devoted to helping the poor in countries of the South is to find at least one independent source to verify their existence and to use whatever material you can reference that seems factual and not mainly self-promotional. I don't think you'll find anywhere that I simply copied and pasted material: I always tried to rewrite it in a way that respects copyright laws. And in all cases I checked Google refs, often to the number of 100 or so, until they ran out. Hindi newspapers, for instance, may have little or no mention of services offered to the illiterates of the untouchable class. Jzsj (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:Winged Blades of Godric, User:The Banner, TonyBallioni (thanks Tony), I don't have much to offer here. I do think Jzsj has a conflict of interest, but it's certainly not paid editing, of course, and I'm glad that was struck. A COI doesn't have to be a specific one for a specific subject. I am perfectly content regarding the editor as (simultaneously) having a COI and acting in good faith. I am not convinced that Jzsj is always fully cognizant of what we are and what we strive for, but that's fine--this is a collaborative joint and we can figure this out together in individual articles. As for RS and all that, yeah, for some things it's more difficult to find the right material, though it remains true that notability is not dependent on for instance what an organization or institution is trying to do. Does that help? Jzsj, for sentimental reasons I incline more toward the Benedictines and I hope you're OK with that; drop me a line if you think I can help. I know we have disagreed before, but I hope you accept that my comments are based on policy, guidelines, and common sense (or at least that's what I strive for). Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abdullah al-Harari

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abdullah al-Harari. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Saint Dismas Prison Ministry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saint Dismas Prison Ministry 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/Saint Dismas Prison Ministry 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 05:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You now start canvassing to safe your article?

And please, acknowledge your Conflict of Interest on your user page. Older versions of your userpage make it clear that there is a CoI. The Banner talk 22:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Banner: I think any COI discussion is best resolved at WP:COIN. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Friendly asking is the first step... The Banner talk 08:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Banner: I have responded on the deletion page. Also, I changed my user page because it left me open to charges of clericalism. You can find the original page at Wikimedia Commons where I haven't run into this difficulty. Jzsj (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nun article

I am deeply concerned about your comments on the Nun article. Your comments all appear to be back-handed insults (such as "I assumed too much, that we were all conversant with the facts..." etc. This kind of behavior is disruptive and will get you kicked off Wikipedia if continued. I've tried to be supportive and encouraging, but I will not endorse renaming the Nun article, and I will not participate in a multi-month boondoggle like that high school article. Coming back 3 months after your last post, and insulting everyone because the proposal you abandoned was closed without action is discouraging and frustrating for all parties - I've personally left Wikipedia several times after becoming fed up with this sort of tedious behavior. Please, back down from this proposal, because it will not be supported by the community. I will not be addressing this matter further. –Zfish118^⋉talk 09:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I cannot entirely agree with your analysis but am not able to respond to it because of the ban. I reproduce here my entire comment which I think was a fair conclusion if one reads over the whole array of responses.

You're right, in the original argument I said nothing about what came up in my response to others, that "many sisters don't want to be called nuns and they shouldn't have to see themselves (so) described in Wikipedia". I was assuming too much, that we were all conversant with the facts that the Catholic Encyclopedia was produced in 1913 and no longer spoke for the sisters after the Second Vatican Council (1961-1965); and that most sisters have put behind them the image of the nunery and, like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, leapt over the wall and immersed themselves in the social problems confronting Christians in the modern world. I hope to introduce this as a Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial, with the sophistication that I've achieved from all your comments here.

I'm sorry if you take offense at what I thought an impersonal and objective statement. I am taking your advice and removing the proposal. Thanks, Jzsj (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nun

Sorry, I have reverted your last edit on Nun. Reason is the lack of independent sources and the poor readability. The older text was much more clear. The Banner talk 22:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roseanne Barr

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roseanne Barr. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I see you're editing schools again

32.218.40.204 (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, it was an oversight. I began just correcting the links to sisters, and got into the schools inadvertently. Jzsj (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that this was just an oversight and requested a block for you. The Banner talk 19:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not lie, and have no reason to risk a block when there's plenty of meaningful work I purpose to do. Jzsj (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI: the discussion is moved to AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jzsj topic ban (moved_here_from_AIV) The Banner talk 19:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to retain this section (containing 37 of the 81 edits I made on June 1) but, given my honest response, I find no reason that such a showy list be retained once the matter has been resolved. If you wish for it to remain, please restore it to eight columns I had created. Jzsj (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No matter what, it was a long list of edits falling foul of your topic ban. Working hard is no excuse for not adhering to that topic ban. The Banner talk 11:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You really don't get it - the formatting is part of the comment; don't refactor it again

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Jzsj, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 32.218.43.40 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I must say that Jzsj has a point here. Could you please change the list of bare URLs into something more readable? Adding the article names would already be an improvement. And then adding columns would improve the layout even more, without changing the content. The Banner talk 07:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Formatting and layout chances is not altering the content of your edit, user:32.218.43.40. But by now, YOU are clearly editwarring. The Banner talk 22:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Violation of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Catholic Commons for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catholic Commons 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/Catholic Commons 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Goliath

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Goliath. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberty University

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ad cautelam

Good idea... The Banner talk 19:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Center of Concern for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center of Concern 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/Center of Concern (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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Outreach, Segundo Barrio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Outreach, Segundo Barrio 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/Jesuit Outreach, Segundo Barrio 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Detroit Collaborative Design Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Detroit Collaborative Design Center 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/Detroit Collaborative Design Center 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 12:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Harry Tompson Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harry Tompson Center 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/Harry Tompson Center 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 07:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Kripke Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kripke Center 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/Kripke Center 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 07:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Urban Research and Learning for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Urban Research and Learning 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/Center for Urban Research and Learning 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 17:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Kino Border Initiative

The article Kino Border Initiative needs some tender loving care, and independent sourcing to bring it up to date. I have no doubts that the present government activities in the USA will bring a lot of extra work for this group. The Banner talk 09:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Infocap for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Infocap 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/Infocap 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 08:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noah's Ark

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noah's Ark. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Boboto Cultural Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boboto Cultural Center 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/Boboto Cultural Center 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 14:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of African Jesuit AIDS Network for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article African Jesuit AIDS Network 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/African Jesuit AIDS Network 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 17:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Service Yezu Mwiza for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Service Yezu Mwiza 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/Service Yezu Mwiza 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

3 July 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

–Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you please explain where Jzsj fell foul of these decisions? The Banner talk 21:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your header was a year out of date, Sangdeboeuf. I've corrected it. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC).

@Sangdeboeuf: We should be concerned that the last 1000+ words of the article are largely concerned with accusations of bias against her. Just saying that she shows "support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and a one-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" does not give a balanced account in the lead section of here position vis-a-vis the Jewish people. I've tried to word some balancing statement but have been reverted at all attempts. Can someone help rather than just reverting? Maybe we need another Rfc to remove the poorly-sourced criticism of her, but as it stands now a large part of the article that would define her position is absent from the lead. Jzsj (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to open a discussion to that effect on the article talk page, I would certainly support condensing or eliminating much of that material. Sadly, the article seems to be a magnet for indiscriminate inclusion of any criticism by various talking heads who happen to appear in the news for a day or two. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Or you could try boldly removing material that you think is poorly-sourced, and we'll see how it goes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It would save a lot of effort for many people if you could come up with a brief indication in the lead that you can accept (I've tried 4 times) that her opposition to the present Israeli situation does not represent any verifiable bias against the Jewish people. Jzsj (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be starting with the assumption that it does, which is a reversal of the burden of proof. Once again, "verifiable bias" is an invalid concept. What's verifiable is what someone has said or done; whether that shows "bias" is a subjective interpretation. We don't publish our own interpretations; instead, we summarize the interpretations of reliable, secondary sources while not giving disproportionate weight to any criticism or documenting everything that makes the news. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

No such assumption, and I know we don't use the word "bias" on the article page but there's a good deal there that discusses the charge of "disproportionate weight against one group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair"; I think she answers such charges and that this should be somehow indicated in the lead. Jzsj (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

My mistake; in any event, such an interpretation would need reliable sourcing to back it up. Whether any of us think that she has "answered" the charges is moot. This is a basic tenet of our verifiability policy: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I had hoped that after the statement about her "support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and a one-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." that something like her Jewish cemetery involvement might be mentioned to balance the picture. I give up on this. Jzsj (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that I and others appreciate your efforts to improve the article. But there seems to be a misunderstanding here about what it means to write a neutral encyclopedia. Neutrality doesn't mean "balancing" every view with an opposing view. If we did that we'd have to "balance" our article on Global warming with the (inaccuate but popular) view that it doesn't exist. Balance means sticking to the weight given to various claims by published, reliable sources.. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, I think the matter is already there in the cemetery bit, backed up by her own (therefore less credited) published statements. But I'm ready to drop it. Jzsj (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Zambuko House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zambuko House 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/Zambuko House 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 16:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Mother of Peace Community for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mother of Peace Community 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/Mother of Peace Community until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Research and Social Action for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Research and Social Action 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/Center for Research and Social Action until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Jews

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Jews. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Al-Ahbash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Al-Ahbash. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi

The article St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Already deprodded, but highly at risk should it go to AfD. The school website is a deadlink. I'm sure you are aware you cannot fix the article, but it would be advisable to have quotes from the book citation, and maybe a better link for the school's website to throw out at AfD if one happens. That would not violate your topic ban. Please don't reply. That too would probably violate your TB. I'll try to find someone who may be able to help, but frankly am pretty lost in that part of the world. FWIW, if it goes to AfD, I'd likely !vote keep, simply on its age. John from Idegon (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that I may only make suggestions on the deletion page, not make changes in the articles themselves. Jzsj (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I will try to locate available sources but in all fairness,the aspects of it's age will grant it some immunity.∯WBG^converse 02:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, John is not suggesting that you do otherwise. If the article is taken to AFD it would you behoove you to be prepared to provide sources at the AFD. I have been unable to locate the school's new home page. There are many schools with the same name so searches are difficult. I have found that there are sources that show up under the English place name "Tuticorin" rather than under " Thoothukudi". Meters (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi 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. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 08:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Loyola Cultural Action Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Loyola Cultural Action Foundation 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/Loyola Cultural Action Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 15:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Research and Promotion of Farmers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Research and Promotion of Farmers 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/Center for Research and Promotion of Farmers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 17:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Centre for Research and Popular Service for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Centre for Research and Popular Service 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/Centre for Research and Popular Service until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 18:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christian ethics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christian ethics. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for inadvertent condescension

I Just replied to you at the help desk, and I have now read your user page. I now feel fairly silly, as I just told a priest with experience doing counselling work in prisons to be patient and assume good faith. I now suspect you have a whole lot more experience and capacity for this than I do. -Arch dude (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Example Passages in Christian Ethics article

I added some potential passages for inclusion on the Christian Ethics talk page. Since you commented on the associated RfC and noted it would be useful to see some specific examples, your comments on these passages and whether they are appropriate for the article would be welcome. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

remove from watch list

What were you trying to do here, here and here? If you want to remove a page from your watchlist, just click on the blue star in the top bar, while you're on that page. byteflush _Talk 22:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much for this very helpful bit! Jzsj (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban violations

For your information: I have reported new topic ban violations here: [here. I do not believe any more that it are plain, honest oversights. Sorry. The Banner talk 11:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Alternative Culture Centre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alternative Culture Centre 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/Alternative Culture Centre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Casa Ricci Social Services for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Casa Ricci Social Services 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/Casa Ricci Social Services until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of College of Our Lady Mediatrix for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article College of Our Lady Mediatrix 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/College of Our Lady Mediatrix until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. —Pórokhov ^Порох 02:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Institute of Global Concern for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute of Global Concern 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/Institute of Global Concern (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 18:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of KPTT Agricultural Training Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KPTT Agricultural Training Center 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/KPTT Agricultural Training Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 18:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Service Cambodia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Service Cambodia 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/Jesuit Service Cambodia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 18:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Tagged by me and G11ed by Jimfbleak. ∯WBG^converse 09:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Mission Australia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Mission Australia 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/Jesuit Mission Australia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 18:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Tagged as G11. ∯WBG^converse 09:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Social Center Tokyo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Social Center Tokyo 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/Jesuit Social Center Tokyo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jesuit Social Center Tokyo

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.

A tag has been placed on Jesuit Social Center Tokyo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ∯WBG^converse 14:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Social Center Osaka for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Social Center Osaka 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/Jesuit Social Center Osaka until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 18:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Tagged by me as a G11 candidate and executed by AnthonyAppleyard. ∯WBG^converse 07:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jesuit Mission Australia

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.

A tag has been placed on Jesuit Mission Australia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ∯WBG^converse 09:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments

I see that you have said you have no relationship to the Jesuits, yet your user name ends "sj" and you persist in writing promotional articles about them, and you contributions are mainly related to the catholic church. That's fine as long as you write in a neutral way. I'll remind you again that if you have any conflict of interest you must declare it.

Also read the following regarding writing an article

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

• you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. You said The promotional nature of it is not at all obvious and a matter of definition of promotion, and of personal judgment.; although that is to some extent true, you aren't the best judge of whether your own writing is promotional. It doesn't meet the notability criteria defined above, it is largely referenced to affiliated sources, and it's full of unsourced and self-sourced claims presented as fact. 14:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Jimfbleak: My question is whether the promotional nature of this article is so patent that it could not be allowed to go through the ordinary process of discussion. If it is, then it doesn't say much for the reviewers who passed on articles like this without objection: no way to run a business! Out of respect for those of us who tried to add articles that were informative of public works that seemed to have notability and enough verification (to prove their existence and more than regional impact) I propose that you allow articles like this go through the ordinary process, causing less harm than by a needless speedy delete. As to my "COI" that has been refuted before by those who recognize that everyone in the Catholic church or in a religious congregation can't be assumed to have a conflict of interest: it must be proven. Wanting to out the truth about an organization is not a conflict of interest. Jzsj (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• You say seemed to have notability and enough verification; I've already says that your article does not have independent sources, and therefore cannot meet the current notability guidelines. You obviously hope that the article passes an AfD on notability, which is what they always concentrate on, and the promo can be slipped through on the back of a possible "keep" decision there. COI or not, it's clear that you have an agenda here; Wanting to out the truth may not be a COI as such, but it basically amounts to an aim to promote an organisation with little regard to Wikipedia's insistence on proper sourcing or neutrality. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please allow that I'm telling the truth when I say that I think that an article like this does not satisfy the criterion: This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. Others may agree with me that the article is not exclusively promotional and deserves a chance for improvement.As I note above, I'm not arguing that this article should survive but that the speedy process should not be applied in cases like this, especially with the false assumptions made here. Jzsj (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Your desire to out the truth speaks volumes about the motives behind your initial creations.Also, I can assure you that 9 of 10 sysops would have G11ed my taggings, on sight and Jim isn't any of an outlier, in CSD arena.That you choose to differ as to the ambit of promotionalism, in such clear-cut-cases, is due to your self-admitted phenomenal COI, which have manifested in a complete lack of capacity and competency to evaluate quality of sources and write in an encyclopedic language.∯WBG^converse 16:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• With regard to your COI: This first version of your talk page is loud and clear in that fact that you edit on request of a bishop at subjects related to your work. The Banner talk 16:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• If you're interested in the whole story of what is said there, it is that I first started creating articles in Wikipedia out of my own interest, and without any remuneration from the Bishop, who was never my employer: I was living in the USA in 2015 and checked with the Bishop whether he wanted the recently published book on Catholicism in Belize to be on the web (or whether he preferred to sell more books). He agreed that it would be good to place it in Wikipedia and so I proceeded on my own, with no further contacts with him on the matter. My interest in Belize goes back to 1989 to 1997 when I taught at our Jesuit College there. Even if the bishop had initiated the idea and any of the articles I created were "related to my work" (which they weren't, if you check my early contributions) this would in itself not prove a conflict of interest. My work creating c.400 articles has been noted for its objectivity. Please, let's be objective. Jzsj (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think it would be best to have this discussion at WP:COIN. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Your pretence of not having a COI is rather blown by I taught at our Jesuit College You may or may not be a paid editor now, but most reasonable people would assume that that sentence alone means that you are not a disinterested writer, and that your claim to have no relationship to the Jesuits was untrue. I see that you have received numerous warnings, blocks and a topic ban because of unwillingness to follow our rules, and this page is littered with AfDs and comments on ad hominem attacks. You are clearly an intelligent editor who has chosen to push an agenda rather than follow our rules. I'm going to spell it out.

• If you can't find sources that are independent verifiable sources as defined above, don't write about the topic
• If you can't satisfy the current notability guidelines, don't write about the topic
• If your now obvious COI prevents you from seeing the promotional nature of your poorly sourced agenda-pushing articles on obscure catholic organisations, don't write about the topic

• I'm spelling this out because if necessary I'm prepared to block you indefinitely as WP:Not here if you persist in disruptive and agenda-pushing editing. We have had no previous interactions, and I have no interest in Catholicism, so I have no axe to grind, you have to accept that disregarding our rules to tell your or the Jesuits' version of the truth will have further consequences. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Jimfbleak: I take seriously this charge and so I'm trying to find how I can reasonably respond. Firstly, I have never denied being a Jesuit, it's been on my User age, removed only briefly at Wikipedia because some seemed to think I was using it for special privileges. It has always remained at Wikipedia Commons, since I try to be upfront and honest about things, and to follow all the Wikipedia rules as I get to know them. Note that I edited for 30 months before the dispute arose last January, and so my editing reflects what I learned there only since this March.

I'm not sure where you find me exhibiting a conflict of interest in my work since March 2018. My work has been very largely limited to copy editing articles on the Categories: Catholicism articles needing attention list, for grammar and general readability. Also, I have been invited, by the administrator who banned me, to enter the deletion discussion on my articles which are up for deletion. Where do you find I have not followed Wikipedia policies in doing that? Please bring the policy to my attention so that I can correct my behavior in that regard.

If you find specific places where my being a Catholic or priest or Jesuit is vitiating my work then please let me know, and I will be more careful there. The St. John's College I worked at in Belize did not belong to the diocese, and it was the diocese that I wrote about. The College already had a long article in Wikipedia, I did very limited edits on it which you might check out. As to not being willing to follow the rules, right up to the ban I was misled by what "consensus" meant, and that since then I have consistently applied my new knowledge of not opposing any consensus. What I found misleading was the frequent references at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School talk page to MOS that I still find inconclusive, and some were saying things there that led me to believe that the issue would be resolved by some uninvolved administrator who looked at the arguments alone rather than at consensus. My understanding now is that in content disputes consensus prevails, which alone determines the decision of administrators in content disputes. I accept that and have had that in the forefront of my mind since learning it in March 2018.

Next, when I did two reverts during that argument (my only time ever) I thought I was following the "3-revert" rule I'd just discovered: please check my 27,000+ edits to find about a dozen reverts or less. And I didn't understand that the part being discussed (see Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School archives) had to remain out of the article until consensus was reached. I thought then it might be in the article until consensus was reached. I let go of that one when my second revert was reverted.

As to some general incapacity to work on Jesuit or Catholic institutions, my interest is only in creating better articles according to the rules. I suggest that you owe it to me to mention where you find me demonstrating a COI in the last few months. I created numerous articles on Jesuit development centres with the understanding that if the reviewers accepted them without tagging then they followed Wikipedia policy for notability. Led on by all the favorable reviewing, I took as my guide that if there was one independent source establishing notability and the organization had at least regional impact, then it had sufficient notability, especially in poor countries and among illiterate people, where newspaper coverage was unlikely.

I note we disagreed above on whether speedy deletion should be used on an article which I had created. I quoted what I was going by in disagreeing with speedy deletion, but my defense received no reply. Please clarify why the ordinary process of discussion could not be used on that article. I note that someone has proposed for deletion about 3 dozen of my articles which I created before 2018. About a third have been retained, another third redirected, and another third deleted. This is why I think that they all deserve consensus before deletion, unless you can explain why the recurrence to speedy deletion in this case. That's all I was asking for. Jzsj (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what conflict of interest means. As a Jesuit catholic priest, you have a COI by definition if you chose to write about those topics. That would be the case even if you wrote perfectly balanced, well sourced articles. The problems, of course, is that COI editors find it difficult to write good articles because their judgement is compromised by financial, or in your case faith factors. If you really wanted to get articles accepted, the process isn't "write anything... go to AfD... hope for the best". It's "write a draft... submit it for review... respond to review comments... get it accepted" Why don't you follow that recommended procedure? Articles can be deleted even as drafts, but it gives a degree of protection, and as a contentious editor, you should chose that route rather than create articles directly.

As I pointed out above, the notability criteria for organisations and companies to make promotion more difficult. Effectively, as you say, previously a few random references were chucked in, the most blatant spam was toned down, and articles got through. I suspect that many articles accepted then would fail now.

Afd can work for notability, but I don't think it's appropriate for eg Jesuit Mission Australia. Let's look at that in detail

• Of your 12 references, six are to the organisation itself, the rest are to other Jesuit or Catholic sources, none to independent third-party sources. If you read the notability criteria I linked , it cannot be verified as notable because it doesn't have proper sources.
• Furthermore, there is little about the organisation itself. The location is only in the infobox, we don't know how many staff it has, how it is funded and what its income is. You say how the organisation say it spends its money, but no figures. I would have thought that a balanced article would include some basic facts an figures about the organisation the article is supposed to be about
• The point, of course, is to tell us what good works the organisation claims to do without independent verification and in a self-serving light. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as facts in the Australia article include a basic commitment to education for the poorest sectors of society... The focus remains on education and lifting marginalized people out of poverty and powerlessness... responding to catastrophic needs, from Africa and the Middle East to Asia, remains a commitment... invest heavily in educational efforts... and by 2018 will be offering 6 years of education to disadvantaged students, drawing also on surrounding provinces... and so on, self-sourced mission statement stuff rather than real facts.

I'm aware that arguing with Jesuits is stereotypically seen as a frustrating experience, but the fact remains that you have the intelligence and knowledge that you could write acceptable articles if you chose to, but seem prepared to write stuff that isn't properly sourced, doesn't meet our notability criteria, and is almost fact-except for presenting the organisation's version of what it claims to do. I think that you are gaming the system by avoiding writing drafts for proper review and instead writing what you want and hoping that AfD saves some of your efforts. I meant what I said in my last message Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing for the sake of winning but of learning, what the best practices in Wikipedia are and whom to trust on the commonsensical application of those practices. That said, note that I have created only three articles since my ban in March: Religious sister which seems to be well received, Laurent Morin which I regret making a stub for just to get the red ink out of another article I was copy editing (I knew bishops who are over dioceses are generally keeps) one of the few times I have created an article without checking sources up to 6 pages on Google search; and Dismas Prison Ministry which received mixed reviews. The vast majority of my 1730 edits since I received the schools ban have not been creating articles but improving them for spelling and grammar and forming links. As to why I don't use draft, I was admonished by someone to stop using it because I was too experienced an editor for that. I assumed they were right since I thought review of an article without a tag meant it had no serious problems. (You'll find I suggested recently that reviewers be told to be critical and not rush to approve articles: the route they told me to take on this left me feeling like there was no hope, so I gave up on the issue.) I raised the issue of your speedy delete only after checking WP:SPEEDY and finding WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) as the closest to a reason, but it didn't seem to apply in this case. Finally, I'm not sure where your contact with Jesuits has been but in my 39 months of editing Wikipedia I just recently ran into the only other Jesuit editor. I just recently eliminated the category Jesuit Wikipedians which I had created. Jzsj (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• You two (@Jzsj: and @Jimfbleak:) have actually already met, in pretty much identical circumstances, with an identical warning two years ago (scroll to item 61, "Reply"). Not much has changed since then.96.127.243.251 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Institute of Philippine Culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute of Philippine Culture 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/Institute of Philippine Culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This missed my own G11 standards by a whisker...... ∯WBG^converse 16:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ugat Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ugat Foundation 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/Ugat Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 16:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Tagged for G11. ∯WBG^converse 16:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Saint Dismas Prison Ministry for deletion

[[

File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saint Dismas Prison Ministry 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/Saint Dismas Prison Ministry (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. ∯WBG^converse 16:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've found several completely independent sources at this Bing search: here. I'll be happy to vote keep if you can find a way to incorporate them into the article. I absolutely hate it when editors just drop links at an AfD and it passes based on that with no improvement in the article, but I haven't the time to do it myself. So, here you are. John from Idegon (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Be sure that if you use these that they are speaking of the national Saint Dismas Prison Ministry program. Local ones may call themselves after St. Dismas but have no connection to the national program. Jzsj (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you probably do not have notability. John from Idegon (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What WP:GNG says about notability is that "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." From this I would conclude that the large-circulation, national newspaper Our Sunday Visitor is an independent source, or all Catholic sources would be excluded from articles about church organizations, and all newspapers should be considered as dependent, catering to the perspective of those who buy the paper. Here is where I suggest some careful judgment and common sense is needed to judge each case for reliability. Jzsj (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Shanti Community Animation Movement for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shanti Community Animation Movement 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/Shanti Community Animation Movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 16:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ateneo Social Science Research Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ateneo Social Science Research Center 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/Ateneo Social Science Research Center (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Novum Organum

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Novum Organum. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of ADZU Social Development Council for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ADZU Social Development Council 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/ADZU Social Development Council until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 17:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Satyodaya Centre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Satyodaya Centre 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/Satyodaya Centre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 18:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Xavier Social Center, Nepal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Xavier Social Center, Nepal 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. Xavier Social Center, Nepal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 19:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat 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/Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 20:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Sixth Work San Fedele for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sixth Work San Fedele 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/Sixth Work San Fedele until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of San Fedele Cultural Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article San Fedele Cultural Foundation 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/San Fedele Cultural Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Appalachian Institute for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Appalachian Institute 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/Appalachian Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 15:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, & Service for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, & Service 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/Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, & Service until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Service & Social Action for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Service & Social Action 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/Center for Service & Social Action until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 23:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Kateri Northwest Ministry Institute for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kateri Northwest Ministry Institute 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/Kateri Northwest Ministry Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 00:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Dolores Mission, Los Angeles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dolores Mission, Los Angeles 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/Dolores Mission, Los Angeles until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 00:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

COI

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. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

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

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know what brought you here but I've gone over this again and again with those who agree that I have no conflict of interest with these organizations and with a few who have insisted that being Catholic or a Jesuit necessarily gives me a conflict of interest with all articles on Catholic organizations and with the 1000 or so Jesuit organizations in the world. Please specify for me if you find somewhere where you see my editing is forbidden by some conflict of interest. (As I recently explained for someone, the Jesuit schools I attended or taught at I've done very little work on their articles.) For the past four years I have been employed by the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph and am doing volunteer prison ministry, hardly a conflict of interest with my editing. Jzsj (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ocer Campion Jesuit College for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ocer Campion Jesuit College 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/Ocer Campion Jesuit College until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Social Research Institute for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Social Research Institute 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/Jesuit Social Research Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 10:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice 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/Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Barnstars

Would it be a good idea to move the barnstars from this page to your user page? It frees up your talk page a bit without letting the barnstars go to waste. For an idea: [User:The_Banner#Barnstars]] The Banner talk 19:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I prefer not to showcase the barnstars, just to leave them here: they are a miniscule part of the page. I will archive this page, leaving the barnstars, when all the present issues are resolved. I prefer to retain the entire record evident for now. Jzsj (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. The Banner talk 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Udayani Social Action Forum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Udayani Social Action Forum 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/Udayani Social Action Forum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Loyola University of the Pacific for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Loyola University of the Pacific 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/Loyola University of the Pacific until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite Block

• Jzsj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jzsj has been blocked indefinitely by Jimfbleak. The block justification was Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: compulsive promotion of Jesuit causes despite warnings of his obvious COI and of the likihood of a block

Some questions for Jimfbleak:

• Can you elaborate on why Jzsj has an obvious COI? There has never been a discussion WP:COIN about this editor's general COI. Previous discussion on COIN have not reached a consensus that being a minister of a church is an automatic COI. See, for example, this discussion.
• Can you provide specific examples of where Jzsj engaged in disruptive editing since your August 8th warning?

Thanks — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• That's a good point, essential to my defense. Jzsj (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Jzsj, which one is a good point, not having been reported at COIN, or the lack of concensus on the role of ministers?.96.127.243.251 (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

What about not understanding the concept of independent sourcing? The Banner talk 20:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Banner, do you mean items like this gem from a week ago where he says "Also, please add this independent reference to the Kellogg Foundation."? The 'source' was a granting agency that gave the article subject money.96.127.243.251 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• How do we conclude that granting foundations are not independent of the recipients? Foundations are not mentioned at WP:IS, and the Kellogg Foundation ($7.3 billion endowment) is completely independent in whom it chooses to gift with its funds. Jzsj (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• TLDR: People who give you over a million dollars really like you or what you are doing. Those people are not independent sources on your notability. Editors who do not understand that should not be editing. You just do not get it. When party A gives the article subject a hundred thousand dollars, or indeed any amount of money, part A is no longer independent of the article subject. That's very elementary. In this case, the Kellog Foundation (your "independent " source) gave Loyola University New Orleans (the parent organization of the Jesuit Social Research Institute, the article subject) over a million dollars over the course of several years. Your ban is a good call, as evidenced by your complete failure to understand (after three years of editing) something so simple about how reliable sources need to be independent of the subject. if I can figure that out, why do I have to run around showing you how it is a bad source? Should you not have figured this out by now? And why is your reply always to challenge what is a plain fact, that if acknowledged could improve the encyclopedia? 96.127.243.251 (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm willing to accept your conclusion that no foundations are independent sources, but it's not as obvious as you flaunt it to be. I looked at it from the perspective of before they gave the grant to the Center they had no reason to favor this Center over so many others. After they gave the money I would agree they may well lose their claim to independence. Jzsj (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I said nothing about all foundations being unusable as sources. The 'independent' source you gave called the article subject "one of our grantees" or something like that. it's clearly not independent, as it was talking about a recipient of their money. I'm afraid you still do not get it, and I am tired of explaining it to you. I have seen you give stunningly articulate answers to complex religious and philosophical subjects at other pages. At this point, it seems like the intentional editing strategy of ignoring policy, or simply not understanding policy, might be in use, in order to keep as many Jesuit articles as you can. 96.127.243.251 (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  Jzsj, please tell me that you understand the difference between primary and secondary sourcing, which is related to the difference between dependent and independent sources. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've read USEPRIMARY many times, and have no problem with "self-published" and "closely affiliated with the subject". I would think that the Kellogg Foundation is a primary source on what it says about itself, but for those organizations which it discusses at a board meeting and decides to bestow an award on, in view of perceived merits, this might be conceived of as a secondary source about the recipient of the award, am I wrong? Similarly, in the case of a "most valuable player" award bestowed by a football conference, is the conference website a primary or secondary source for the player's website? I note that "award" and "foundation" are not discussed at USEPRIMARY: can you point me to the most explicit coverage of policy on this? Jzsj (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Are you saying that everyone has agreed with you about what sources are independent of the organization? I can find evidence to the contrary. Jzsj (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• The prior discussion that gave you the topic ban was in part due to your habit to rererererediscus policies and guidelines. The same thing you are doing now in relation to sourcing. That is either willingly and knowingly disruptive or a lack of competency. The Banner talk 00:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• He has persistently ignored and/or misunderstood the core policies of RS, GNG, promotion and COI, despit them having been explained to him dozens of times. It's an entirely reasonable block. The same thing is being discussed over at User talk:Jimfbleak.96.127.243.251 (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'm wondering if we'll see this up for review someplace. In the meantime, "COI" can mean a bunch of things and here it applies in a somewhat unusual way. I hope no one has argued that "the Jesuits" are paying this editor, but the combination of who they are and what their interests are here makes for a combination of SPA and COI. I cannot say if the editor has been disruptive recently, though I note a recent warning by JamesBWatson, and JamesBWatson does not do these things for no reason. And I cannot confirm The Banner's accusation, that the editor has a tendency to cite non-independent sourcing, but if that's true it's an important point. Let me add that I have not found the editor's COI to be a blockable obstacle, but it's been a while since I looked closely at the editor's work. Jzsj, I am interested in you bringing up a defense by way of an unblock request (and I wish you good luck with it), and I assume that the "opposition" will have some specific diffs to post that led to the block. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just as I acknowledge what I have learned about consensus since earlier this year, so I have tried to help according to the policy of Wikipedia. Since this COI issue was emphasized on August 7, I left off voting or commenting on 13 of my articles for deletion which I now see as not notable (though passed without comment by the reviewers at the time, and also misleading me then). I have commented on 11 others proposed for deletion, and have sent those comments to 2 administrators for evaluation. I will abide by their agreement about such sourcing as I have been offering of late. Jzsj (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• @Drmies: For example the sourcing of Jesuit Social Research Institute. 15 of the 23 sources link to the website of the university where the centre is part of. The Banner talk 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm kind of divided on this one. Personally, I would consider this a breach of COI, but not PAID editing. However, I'm not sure there is consensus about either of those. What I certainly disagree with is the indef block. Jzsj is already under a TBAN (educational institutions, IIRC) - why not broaden the TBAN to Christianity-related topics? Or Jesuit-related? Perhaps adding sources without first discussing on talk page? Or any other combination. If they're a SPA, it would severely limit their disruption methods, and they would cease editing in entirety (or violate the TBAN and get indef'd). If not, great - we get to keep the editor and perhaps lift their TBAN eventually. byteflush _Talk 22:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Fwiw, it’s my view that they have a COI with the contemporary Society of Jesus, but not broader topics in Christianity or even necessarily all of Catholicism (i.e. improving our article on Francis Xavier would not be a COI since he’s been dead long enough that COI doesn’t really come into play.) He may have a POV there, but no more than an imam would have writing about a historical figure in Islam, where I also would not call it a COI (POV != COI). I’d be interested on Drmies view on this.
    I think the block is non-ideal, but I also generally agree with Jimfbleak, who has always been one of the admins I personally admire (and apologies to him for the back and forth with an IP on his talk), and to be frank, his use of blocks for promotion are normally on point. I just think we should work towards a resolution here that works for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Bbb23, is there something you'd like to share with us? I see you've been busy... Drmies (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: It's fairly small. However, I can confirm that Bbfrain (talk · contribs · count) is a now-blocked sock of Jzsj. Because of the few edits, I didn't think it was necessary to report it. I should also add that for reasons best understood by another CheckUser, which I would not care to disclose publicly, that I did not do as thorough a check as I usually do. I also didn't think anyone would argue that the the user should be unblocked, but I'm not really familiar with anything more than the very basic issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• What you judge to be a sock pup is really a community computer that all the Jesuits can use. I think you owe it to (Redacted) to unblock this computer. Whatever he did on it was his own business, not mine. Jzsj (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Providing the real life name of a user is always a serious breach of policy. @Drmies and Jimfbleak: for redaction.96.127.244.27 (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• The first I heard of this, though it seems reasonable enough and, now that you mention it, apparently the norm. How about if you can assume they would want me to use it to defend myself? And please reference your remarks to policy, that would add to your credibility. I will follow what you say in the future, assuming for now that this is "common sense" and not stated policy (until I can know how to access such policy). Thanks to Billhpike for removing the full name I added (for the Bbfrain that he used). Jzsj (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Why don't you look it up? Anyone with proper wiki competence can find that easily. I found it in three clicks, from this page. Can you do it? I'll give you a hint: start with the "help" link. 96.127.244.27 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: A day later the outed user is still in the history., could you fix please? Jzsj, do you have any responsibility to follow this up, or do you just let others take care of your ignorance of policy?96.127.244.27 (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going off-wiki for the day/evening.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Would those who advocate any sort of block please point to what was improper in my contributions to the delete discussions below. Again, I think some of the statements about a COI in my editing history are greatly exaggerated and fail to take into consideration that the vast majority of my edits establilsh that I try to be constructive according to the Wikipedia policy, whatever institution I'm writing about, as I understood that policy at the time. I thank those who in disagreeing with me quoted the specific point in Wikipedia policy that they found applicable in the specific case they were commenting on. Some may be giving too much credence to a few editors who have consistently opposed my efforts without giving specific references to justify their remarks. My main fault may be arguing for "common sense" bending of the rules in places where the institution is for illiterates and newspaper coverage is scarce. I have had little success in applying that Wikipedia principle, and will cease to employ it unless someone explains to me its applicability.

Jzsj Contributions to delete discussions since Jimfbleak entered the discussion on August 7

Since August 7 when Jimfbleak entered the deletion discussion on my Talk page, here are all my contributions to those discussions. I stayed out of most of them, 13, and entered into 11, with my contributions detailed below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesuit_Service_Cambodia I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesuit_Social_Center_Osaka I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Institute_of_Philippine_Culture I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ugat_Foundation I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saint_Dismas_Prison_Ministry_(2nd_nomination) I furnished these possible references, and a dispute ensued over the independence of Our Sunday Visitor. The discussion produced 4 keeps and 3 deletes and was still open on August 15. I did not return to the discussion after it was relisted in the second attempt at deletion. My original suggestions for added references were: Lori Hadacek Chaplin (July 3, 2017). "Prison Ministry: From Convict to the Diaconate". Catholic Digest. Retrieved May 12, 2018. 2. "Freedom behind bars". Our Sunday Visitor. Retrieved May 12, 2018. 3. Company. "Deacons see prison ministry as blessing behind bars". Our Sunday Visitor. Retrieved May 19, 2018. 4. "Dismas Ministry: Spreading God's Word in prisons". Angelus News. Retrieved May 19, 2018. 5. Everett, Paul F. (2005). The Prisoner: An Invitation to Hope. New York: Paulist Press. p. 180. ISBN 9780809143016. 6. Amy E. Rewolinski (September 1, 2010). "Dismas Ministry celebrates 10 years". Catholic Herald. Milwaukee. Retrieved May 13, 2018. 7. "Dismas Ministry". Our Sunday Visitor. Retrieved May 19, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shanti_Community_Animation_Movement Here I made the following observation and no further comment. Keep. Of the nine references, number 3,5,8 are now dead but the other six are alive and together show notability. Also, please add to these one which updates number 3 on foreign volunteers; this which shows the natinal army's collaboration with the school; Italians lending assistance; The "European Culture Foundation" organized a charity concert at Schloss Nörvenich.... The benefit of the charity concert will be donated to the Christian charity project "Shanti".; Lund University on reconciliation in post-war Sri Lanka; and this; and this, all independent of Shanti and showing its opngoing relevance in post-war Sri Lanka. Jzsj (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ateneo_Social_Science_Research_Center_(2nd_nomination) I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ADZU_Social_Development_Council I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Satyodaya_Centre I entered respectfully into the discussion of the following references and cut out when my questions were answered. Keep. Satisfies criteria for notability. Possible additional refs: – Facebook. – Buddhist recognition. – Colombo Telegraph tribute. – Sri Lanka Brief news interview. – S. Janaka Biyanwila. The Labour Movement in the Global South: Trade Unions in Sri Lanka. London:Routledge (2011) p. 52. ISBN: 978-0-415-58080-9 states that Satyodaya Centre has "made significant interventions in community development issues and organizing workers" and also "launched the Coordinating Secretariat of the Plantation Areas (CSPA)." – Daily News article. – Daily News archive. – Tom Reidy. Critical Mass. Create Space. ISBN: 978-1481161169. describes it as "a good example of inculturation in action." – Asian Tribune article. – Sunday Times article. – New Internationalist article. – Listing by American Institute for Sri Lankan Studies. Jzsj (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Xavier_Social_Center,_Nepal I did my bit to save the Nepal article, where sourcing was most difficult, and simply offered this. Keep Sufficient notice in a very small country. Additional refs: – Nepal Home Page. – Sufficient independence to attest to notability. – Alcohol and drug abuse in Nepal. – CTV Atlantic News: Independent verification of its work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St._Xavier%27s_Higher_Secondary_School,_Thoothukudi#COI_tag Next came this discussion, and no one there chose to move the COI discussion forward. That gave me some hope that they did not see a clear-cut issue of COI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Social_Justice_and_Ecology_Secretariat I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sixth_Work_San_Fedele I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San_Fedele_Cultural_Foundation I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Appalachian_Institute I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Center_for_Social_Justice_Research,_Teaching,_%26_Service I gave an argument to keep. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Center_for_Service_%26_Social_Action I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kateri_Northwest_Ministry_Institute I did not enter into deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dolores_Mission,_Los_Angeles I gave sources and three people agreed with me, no dissent. Next came this: avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors. If anything this gave me greater confidence that I had no cofllict of interest, as I explained, without any further response from the editor who suggested the COI: I don't know what brought you here but I've gone over this again and again with those who agree that I have no conflict of interest with these organizations and with a few who have insisted that being Catholic or a Jesuit necessarily gives me a conflict of interest with all articles on Catholic organizations and with the 1000 or so Jesuit organizations in the world. Please specify for me if you find somewhere where you see my editing is forbidden by some conflict of interest. (As I recently explained for someone, the Jesuit schools I attended or taught at I've done very little work on their articles.) For the past four years I have been employed by the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph and am doing volunteer prison ministry, hardly a conflict of interest with my editing. Jzsj (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ocer_Campion_Jesuit_College Here I simply found sources that proved the existence of the school, all I claimed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesuit_Social_Research_Institute Here I furnished sources that produced 3 keeps and only one delete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twomey_Center_for_Peace_Through_Justice Here I can only wonder at those who called for delete while admitting that they had not checked the 10 new sources I furnished. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Udayani_Social_Action_Forum Here I checked for what was on the web and left others to decide whether they were of any value: I did not call them independent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Loyola_University_of_the_Pacific I did not enter into deletion discussion.

For the sake of any future editing I might do, please give reference to the specific point in Wikipedia that shows for a specific case above "where's the beef?" Jzsj (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I've actually unblocked for now, since it was correctly pointed out that the deletion that triggered this block had not been edited by Jzsj subsequent to what amounts to my final warning higher up this page at User talk:Jzsj#Comments. I don't otherwise accept that a block is, in principle, inappropriate. To me, he is gaming the system, promoting what he has described as the Truth, and happy for his articles to go to AfD where they are likely to be scrutinised more for notability than their pov. However, this is a discussion that is likely to have to take place at some time, so this is as good a time as any. My view is that this edit, already topic banned in one area continues to produce a steady stream of COI articles that present a view of the world as he wants us to see it. To me, he is here to further his view of his faith, not to help the encyclopaedia. If there is a clear disagreement with this view, I'll walk away and leave him to it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ll give the similar advice I have given to Jzsj in the past: avoid contemporary topics related to the Society of Jesus, and if he wishes to edit articles related to Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular, focus on those that are historical, where COI is less of an issue: our historical Catholicism articles are generally in rough shape, and I haven’t at this time seen anything to suggest Jzsj has tried to whitewash anything (and if he had, I’d be the first to object). POV != COI and some of the best scholars of religious history are in fact clerics. If he is able to summarize and neutrally report sourcing on 19th century bishops, historical churches, or even significant figures from the 20th century, that is a positive for the project. If he isn’t, he should be blocked.

The issue here is that the community is pretty clear that his work on institutions run by the Society of Jesus is not within community norms. I don’t see him working on the things he’s been working on outside of that of late much different than the BYU Mormon history projects that we have ongoing, which I also find helpful. Controlling for POV is important, but the simple fact is that those most qualified to write about religion often have an affiliation with the religion they are writing about, even at secular universities. It’s a difficult situation to deal with, and my hope is that Jzsj will realize this going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to be able to copy edit all articles on any topic except schools from which I have been banned. Then if you find my edits reflect a conflict of interest, please explain what is wrong with the edit. You can use as an example my copy editing and responding to tags on Peter Canisius which I am currently editing for grammar and responding to tags. Jzsj (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Jimfbleak that Jzsj is here to further his view of his faith, not to help the encyclopedia, and I believe the block was appropriate, though the timing wasn't right. Jzsj wastes the time and energy of volunteers with his tireless insistence and lawyering, IMO. I have an argument to make for that, with examples, but in case this is on its way to WP:AN or WP:ANI, or indeed WP:RFAR, I'll hold off for a day or two. When appropriate, and/or when I have time, I will also offer a critique of the supposed copy editing of Peter Canisius as an example of what he wants to continue doingBishonen | talk 09:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC).

• I'd like to know what you find unacceptable with what I did there, citing 2 elements that were tagged for no citation. Are you saying that the sources I found are worse than nothing, or that sourcing to a Catholic website is worse than no sourcing, and should never be trusted? As a matter of fact, this article on Peter Canisius is not typical of my recent copy editing, where I seldom tend to sourcing (as you can tell from my hundreds of articles in the past months, from the Catholicism portal on their talk pages where I left the citations and sourcing questions unanswered, very seldom tending to these at all).
  

While you reverted one of my Canisius edits, I want you to know that I always check for the source of the material, and at the bottom of this page I find "Written by Austin Cline". It is only under the picture that I find Source: Wikipedia, am I wrong? Jzsj (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm wrong, I apologize. It's only the picture that's explicitly sourced to Wikipedia. But it looks a lot like citogenesis to me, compare [43]. Cline doesn't offer any sources at all for his short text, and he uses only facts present in Wikipedia's article, including the striking quotation about not curing the patients, but making them them incurable. Admittedly he could have got that directly from Burg's German Kontroverslexikon of 1903, where Wikipedia got it, or from religion.wikia.com, whose article is much the same as ours. But, well, which is more likely? It's a poor source in any case. Is it the best you can find? As for your implication that I despise Catholic websites, it's unfounded. I may be naive, but the name skepticism.org didn't suggest a Catholic website to me, and its homepage doesn't either — is it really Catholic? Anyway, I thought you offered Peter Canisius as typical of the copy editing you want to be able to continue doing? Now you say it's not. And adding sources is indeed not copyediting, it's big-ass editing. I've reverted a couple more of your changes, all to do with sources, not copyediting. Not because they were heinously mistaken, or because the sources were Catholic, but, well, you and anybody else who cares can see my explanatory edit summaries. Bishonen | talk 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC).

And I'm not saying that I never make mistakes, but that I am trying to follow what I find a huge complexus of policies in Wikipedia, that are at times subject to interpretation. I wasn't referring to you as excluding Catholic sources, but I would say that use of such sources, even for non-contentious material, I see as a chief factor in charges about my POV. Jzsj (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• The big question here is why practically everyone else has little trouble understanding the "complexus of policies", and does so without involving other editors in overwrought, wikilawyered pointless discussions that never end with the editor changing his behavior. Whether it is post nominals on names, COI, understanding reliable sources, AFD's to remove his spammy Jesuit articles, school bans or a multitude of other subjects, it's a huge waste of other people's time.96.127.244.27 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Intercultural Institute of Ayuuk for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Intercultural Institute of Ayuuk 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/Intercultural Institute of Ayuuk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ibero-American University Tijuana for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ibero-American University Tijuana 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/Ibero-American University Tijuana until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit University System for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit University System 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/Jesuit University System until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Workers Development Union for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Workers Development Union 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/Workers Development Union until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of House of Love (Mumbai) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article House of Love (Mumbai) 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/House of Love (Mumbai) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Help:Archiving a talk page

Your talk page is getting a little long. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

See "Barnstars" section above.96.127.244.27 (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I did. Hey, IP, I appreciate the comments here, and I scrubbed the outing from the history, but maybe you can direct your attention to other matters. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your concern. I prefer to leave the whole record directly accessible, as a reality check on statements that are made, until the present issues are resolved. I am applying what I have learned through issues arising mainly since 2018, and I am trying to correspond to all the policy as I come to see how it is understood and applied. Jzsj (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuitenmission for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuitenmission 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/Jesuitenmission until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Social Research and Action Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Social Research and Action Center 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/Social Research and Action Center (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 13:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Paulo Freire Institute, Malta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paulo Freire Institute, Malta 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/Paulo Freire Institute, Malta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Migra Studium Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Migra Studium Foundation 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/Migra Studium Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of People United Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article People United Center 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/People United Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 18:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ignacio Ellacuría Social Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ignacio Ellacuría Social Foundation 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/Ignacio Ellacuría Social Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of "Pedro Arrupe" Political Training Institute for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article "Pedro Arrupe" Political Training Institute 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/"Pedro Arrupe" Political Training Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Sciences for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Sciences 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/Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Sciences until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Lay Association for Development for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lay Association for Development 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/Lay Association for Development until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Migrant Service, Mexico for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Migrant Service, Mexico 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/Jesuit Migrant Service, Mexico until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Pedro Arrupe Training Center for Leaders and Educators for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pedro Arrupe Training Center for Leaders and Educators 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/Pedro Arrupe Training Center for Leaders and Educators until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Christ the King Child and Adolescent Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christ the King Child and Adolescent Center 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/Christ the King Child and Adolescent Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christ the King Child and Adolescent Center

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.

A tag has been placed on Christ the King Child and Adolescent Center, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jesuit Migrant Service, Mexico

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.

A tag has been placed on Jesuit Migrant Service, Mexico, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesus the Worker Agro-industrial Training Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesus the Worker Agro-industrial Training Center 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/Jesus the Worker Agro-industrial Training Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 23:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jesus the Worker Agro-industrial Training Center

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.

A tag has been placed on Jesus the Worker Agro-industrial Training Center, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ilo Center for Education, Organization, and Promotion of Development for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ilo Center for Education, Organization, and Promotion of Development 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/Ilo Center for Education, Organization, and Promotion of Development until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of El Agustino Educational Services for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article El Agustino Educational Services 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/El Agustino Educational Services until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Christianity and Justice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christianity and Justice 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/Christianity and Justice until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Religious sister (Catholic)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Religious sister (Catholic), Jzsj!

Wikipedia editor Xyzspaniel just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for the article

To reply, leave a comment on Xyzspaniel's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

XyzSpaniel Talk Page 14:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Religious sister (Catholic) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Religious sister (Catholic) 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/Religious sister (Catholic) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 14:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at AfD

I need to warn you about being disruptive in your editing at AfD. if you have problem with recent edits to Lay_Association_for_Development, the place to discuss that is on the talk page, not the AfD. Your continual disruption of the AFD discussion and refusal to WP:dropthestick is not good practice. I have collapsed the discussion at that AfD because it does not relate to the notability. discussion. Disruptive editing can lead to you being brought to ANI for discussion of your editing behaviour, which given your current topic ban and other issues, may not be a good idea for you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Tell me this: can you point to where Wikipedia policy says that several briefer mentions of an organization within books, as independent sources, are not helpful to establish notability? What I object to is removing this independent reference from the article while the notability discussion is in progress. You need to give some specific reference to policy here, or admit this is a judgment call. Jzsj (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is a judgement call. However it is also policy under RS to assess the quality of sources and the claim they support. The source itself is of fine quality, but what it claims is patently ridiculous. There have been three centuries of immigration, colonialism, religious missions and development work. To make the claim that a thirty-year old organization was the first (in 1986!) in several hundred years to send young people to Africa for development work... it's a ridiculous claim as literally millions of foreigners preceded them, and some of them must have been young, and some of them must have been doing organized development work. The problem with your editing in general, and this pertains to this issue as well, is that you search for XYZ organization, and then no matter what you find (Facebook, Wordpress, event announcement, one line mention, non-independent source), you synthesize a nice little sentence of new information that the weak source is used for. This applies to basically all of your editing: you do not assess the source independence, value, weight, depth and importance. I think this is because you are a COI editor editing exclusively to promote Jesuit subjects, and your eye is always on promoting those subjects with a very minimal regard for policy. If you stopped editing with such a clear promotional agenda and actually questioned the sources you were using, things would be fine. However it does seem as if you will continue as you have done, promoting Jesuit articles and subjects by synthesizing any old minor source published just about anywhere with other similar sources in order to promote your agenda. It's my opinion that many editors and Administrators are now hip to those methods, and that should you not change your ways my bet is that you will be indefinitely blocked within a month or two from all of wikipedia, or all religion articles. It would seriously be great if you stopped treating the wiki as you personal Jesuit promotion space and battleground. You could still save yourself, no pun intended, by making a concerted effort to a) stop battling other editors b) stop promoting Jesuit subjects, c) only creating articles with very solid in-depth sources, and d) developing a yes-I can-get-along-with-the community attitude. If you don't do those things, some of the people above are going to get out their blocking tools and put a stop to your activities. Many many editors have spent inordinate amounts of time trying to get you to undertsand basic concepts and to help you to become a better editor. However you usually respond by battling against poeple's advice. that will get you indeffed, as people are getting tired of it. Just some friendly advice there. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have responded to your above statement before at and you failed to respond to my correction of what you said. My correction repeated the following ref that had just been removed from the article: "Volunteers range from ages 21 to 40 and it has been called the first association to send young volunteers to help with development projects in Africa." Note the importance of all four words "young ... volunteers ... development.. Africa". I might add that they were sent by an association, not freelancers. Put it all together and it may credibly be a new development in our time, unless you can exhibit an earlier association with an identical claim. Jzsj (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(replying several hours later than the replies below) "unless you can exhibit an earlier association with an identical claim". OK. Canada World Youth has sent young people to do development work in Africa in continuously since 1972. So there you go. Obviously there are many more who have done the same thing. The source i that you added and I removed was obviously inaccurate. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying this. I'm not so sure there were many others: as your source says Netherlands was the next country to get on board this innovative program, in 1989, and other European countries followed in 1993 and 1999. Jzsj (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted. However it's just another example of your failure to understand WP:SIGCOV and to be able to assess references objectively. You also wasted a huge amount of wiki time complaining about my edit, which was correct. Totally disruptive.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, I'm sorry for your inability to understand the basics, and more importantly for your refusal to take advice and work as a member of the WP community. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you now trying to re-discuss the notability guidelines and policies? Youy are coming close to another trip to WP:AN/I due to lack of competence amd trying to bend the guidelines and policies. Just as you did with that school... The Banner talk 19:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, re your "can you point to where Wikipedia policy says that several briefer mentions of an organization within books, as independent sources, are not helpful to establish notability?", you may not realize how aggressively your calls for policy come off whenever you're given reasonable/common-sense/guideline-compliant advice. But in this case I'll respond: mentions in passing do not establish notability. It doesn't help if there are several of them. What's needed for notability is significant coverage: reliable sources that discuss the subject in some depth. Please see WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That's from the notability guideline. Yes, guideline, not policy. A very important guideline. If articles don't adhere to it, they're liable to be deleted. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC).

• Thanks for your clear answer here. I still have a problem with the removal of this reference to a book, but I will follow this guideline interpretation of policy since, as you say, that's being enforced. Jzsj (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Funny, I told you exactly the same story yesterday on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People United Center and it did not take hold. Why should we believe that you will adhere to it now? The Banner talk 21:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Sorry to see that you already ignored the wise words of Bishonen here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuitenmission. The Banner talk 18:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleting the comments of editors at AfD

DO NOT delete the comments of other editors at an AFD, as you did in this edit to my comment. That is a seriously lame thing to do. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, that was inadvertent, the sentence that followed my own which I was taking out of the masked area. Jzsj (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you are drinking in the last chance saloon here. That's a pity. I think you are a decent person with good motives but this talk page tells its own story. I recommend that when your block expires you stop watching AfD and focus instead on improving existing articles. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you taking as fact everything that TheBanner says on this page? Must I make for you a list of the misrepresentations and gratuitous insults he has directed toward me on this page, in contrast to the more considered views of those who have not gone along with his indiscriminate efforts at deletion, and then today his near blanking of three articles that he proposed for deletion and was overruled. Jzsj (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, you have to stop battling every action by an admin of editor that you perceive to be a slight or attack. You have to stop because it takes up huge amounts of people's time, and it is the definition of disruptive. I don't like what you stand for and the agenda you are pushing, but I am happy to see you join us again in a community of editors who work together. To do that you have to change your attitude and stop battling. I'll repeat my advice from above, about how to avoid being blocked, which turned out to be correct: "You could still save yourself, no pun intended, by making a concerted effort to a) stop battling other editors b) stop promoting Jesuit subjects, c) only creating articles with very solid in-depth sources, and d) developing a yes-I can-get-along-with-the community attitude. If you don't do those things, some of the people above are going to get out their blocking tools and put a stop to your activities. Many many editors have spent inordinate amounts of time trying to get you to understand basic concepts and to help you to become a better editor. However you usually respond by battling against people's advice. that will get you indeffed, as people are getting tired of it. Just some friendly advice there."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

PS, finding a mentor who would help you understand some of the sourcing issues would probably help your overall situation. I see several excellent editors seem to be on your side, you should approach one with a view towards learning how to be a better, less disruptive editor. But you have to be willing to learn and improve some of your understanding of policy and behaviour on wiki. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Hogar de San José Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hogar de San José Foundation 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/Hogar de San José Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 18:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jzsj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no clear reason given for this block. A careful study of my talk page will indicate that I have tried to correspond with all policy and guidelines as I have progressively come to understand them. I ask that the block be removed, or explained so that I can respond to it.

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for evading your topic ban; that's clearly noted in the block notice. This is the violation. Please read WP:GAB before posting another unblock request. Tiderolls 18:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I think Jzsj would benfit from reading WP:PROXYING. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wording of topic ban

@Tide rolls: The topic ban as interpreted by the banning editor reads: My interpretation of the ban, as per the "broadly construed", is that any article remotely related to education or covering education is within the scope of the ban. However, articles not primarily about education, universities, and similar topics, and are at best a few sentences in articles mentioning the topic, should not be including in the ban's scope. CYBERPOWER (from User talk:Jzsj page)
I did not see how this alert you reference violates the above wording of the ban. My alerting DGG was in view of the fact that DGG had voted to keep the article, and then TheBanner proceeded to delete most of it, along with two other article that he had proposed for deletion and were retained, all today, giving promise of more such stubifying of retained articles that had survived his delete proposals. Jzsj (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Requesting proxy edits within a topic from which one is banned should be an obvious situation to avoid. You are banned from the topic; avoid the topic. Full stop. I can't really understand how this could be perceived differently. Feel free to ping Cyberpower to review the block. Tiderolls 19:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You've been warned that discussion of school articles would be a violation of your TBAN. (See "Proposed deletion of St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi" above). Clearly, requesting a proxy edit is. I cannot imagine anyone (except you, apparently) would think otherwise. This incessant wikilawyering is very disruptive, especially since you are lawyering as poorly as you are writing. Your overall competence is highly in question here, and clearly I am not the only one who feels that way. You are just not getting it, and you refuse to back off your ego far enough to learn from your errors. It's sad. John from Idegon (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Suyusama Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suyusama Foundation 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/Suyusama Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 10:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Faith and Culture Center, Medellin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faith and Culture Center, Medellin 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/Faith and Culture Center, Medellin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 10:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Angelus Silesius Meeting House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angelus Silesius Meeting House 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/Angelus Silesius Meeting House until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Amar y Servir Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amar y Servir Foundation 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/Amar y Servir Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Heinrich Pesch House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heinrich Pesch House 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/Heinrich Pesch House until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 13:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Central American Historical Institute for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Central American Historical Institute 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/Central American Historical Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 13:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for the Study of Christianity & Justice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for the Study of Christianity & Justice 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/Center for the Study of Christianity & Justice until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Rerum Novarum Centre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rerum Novarum Centre 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/Rerum Novarum Centre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 17:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Studies Centre for Social Action for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Studies Centre for Social Action 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/Studies Centre for Social Action until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of KPTT Agricultural Training Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KPTT Agricultural Training Center 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/KPTT Agricultural Training Center (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Warning

During your block you can use your talkpage ONLY AND ONLY for discussing your block. Not for anything else. So removal of notices is not allowed (while blocked). The Banner talk 19:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please check Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Setting block options Jzsj (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • While I do not agree with The Banner in this case, this is just another example of why you, Jzsj, need to stop wikilawyering. That guideline has nothing whatsoever to do with editor behavior when blocked, it is simply instructions for administrators on how to block. Removing an automated message is simple housekeeping and I strongly doubt any administrator would sanction you for that. There is a currently active discussion on ANI right now about what an editor can and can't do on his talk while blocked and reading that would probably be enlightening for both of you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • My warning was nothing more than a warning, to tell him that what he did is not allowed. I have, as of now, no intention to escalate it. The Banner talk 20:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• The edit in question seems pretty banal. But John from Idegon is correct, Jzsj: if you continue responding to editors by citing policy and wikilawyering, IMHO, you can expect admins to mete out longer and possibly indefinite blocks. You don't seem to get that people are tired of your antics. Or you could fall into line with policy and the whole wonderful idea of getting along with other editors. if you want to edit, spend the next month on Wikimedia commons or fr.wikipedia or one of the many other language sites where you are not blocked.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• @The Banner: Can you cite a policy consensus for your claim that blocks superceede WP:BLANKING? There seems to be a consensus to the contrary. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I will look that up tomorrow evening. The Banner talk 22:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see now, there was a proposal but that was rejected. Still, another page (I have to look up which one that was) states that the talk page should be used appropriately. You can put question marks about this edit being appropriate or in appropriate. I take it as a personal attack... The Banner talk 18:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
      • The closing of the recent ANI makes clear that at least until policy is clarified (and I for one definitely thinks that needs to happen, and block notifications modified clearly and appropriately after that is done), it's discretionary. The Banner, your initial posting was clearly about removing a notification. I cannot imagine an admin discretionarily doing anything about routine housekeeping. Same would go for removing unambiguous vandalism. Beyond that, it's a crapshoot. The posting you mentioned in your last post was after the block, could possibly be interpreted in a weird CIR way as trying to clarify the block, so I doubt, especially after that ANI, anyone would block over it. I don't see it as a personal attack, but rather further evidence of CIR. John from Idegon (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Xavier Institute of Management & Research for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xavier Institute of Management & Research 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/Xavier Institute of Management & Research until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 10:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Vincent College of Commerce for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Vincent College of Commerce 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. Vincent College of Commerce until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 10:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Bihar Dalit Development Organization for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bihar Dalit Development Organization 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/Bihar Dalit Development Organization until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 12:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Solar Alternatives and Associated Programmes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solar Alternatives and Associated Programmes 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/Solar Alternatives and Associated Programmes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 12:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Homeboyz Interactive for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Homeboyz Interactive 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/Homeboyz Interactive until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 17:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Using bibliography entries as reliable sources.

I just finished cleaning up many very dubious sources that you used to concoct the article over at Central American Historical Institute. I feel the need, after removing three or four "sources" at that article, to tell you that an entry in the bibliography of a book is not a WP:RS. Perhaps you will never return from your block, but if you do, please know that making claims like this, and sourcing them with short entries from the indexes or bibliographies of books, is really bad editing practice that approaches WP:OR: "A focus in IHCA's efforts is promoting gender equity.", sourced by this Bibliography entry. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St Joseph's Evening College, Bangalore for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St Joseph's Evening College, Bangalore 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 Joseph's Evening College, Bangalore until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 20:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gonçalo da Silveira Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gonçalo da Silveira Foundation 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/Gonçalo da Silveira Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Workers Development Union for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Workers Development Union 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/Workers Development Union (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. ∯WBG^converse 13:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Xavier School, Gamharia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xavier School, Gamharia 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/Xavier School, Gamharia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Astalli Centre JRS for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Astalli Centre JRS 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/Astalli Centre JRS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Holy Family Professional Schools Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Holy Family Professional Schools Foundation 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/Holy Family Professional Schools Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Paraguayan Studies Antonio Guasch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Paraguayan Studies Antonio Guasch 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/Center for Paraguayan Studies Antonio Guasch until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 10:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Xavier's College, Raghabpur for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Xavier's College, Raghabpur 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. Xavier's College, Raghabpur until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Saint-Joseph of Reims for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saint-Joseph of Reims 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/Saint-Joseph of Reims until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Ignatius College, Messina for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Ignatius College, Messina 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. Ignatius College, Messina until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 15:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. John de Britto Institute for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. John de Britto Institute 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. John de Britto Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 17:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Bonaventure College (Netherlands) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bonaventure College (Netherlands) 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/Bonaventure College (Netherlands) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 23:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Mapuche Mission for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Mapuche Mission 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/Jesuit Mapuche Mission until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 00:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Reflection and Social Action (CREAS) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Reflection and Social Action (CREAS) 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/Center for Reflection and Social Action (CREAS) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 07:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Munzihirwa Centre, Kinshasa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Munzihirwa Centre, Kinshasa 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/Munzihirwa Centre, Kinshasa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Aloysius College, The Hague for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aloysius College, The Hague 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/Aloysius College, The Hague until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 15:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Polite request

Could you please refrain from translating articles from Dutch? I have seen a few of your translations now and - to be honest - they vary between bad and horrible. The Banner talk 17:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me rephrase part of it: they vary between bad and absolutely tragic. The Banner talk 19:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Catholic Comprehensive School, Breul for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catholic Comprehensive School, Breul 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/Catholic Comprehensive School, Breul until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 19:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Canisius College, Nijmegen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Canisius College, Nijmegen 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/Canisius College, Nijmegen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 19:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Rerum Novarum Centre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rerum Novarum Centre 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/Rerum Novarum Centre (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 07:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Following unblock directions

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jzsj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Odd autoblock

Accept reason:

Autoblock lifted.

@JzG: Please explain why my block has been extended by a day: I made no edits but immediately logged in when informed that I was logged out (due to an internet provider failure, and need to reconnect). I was checking when my block expired, due to the discrepancy between local time and Greenwich mean time. @Jpgordon: Jzsj (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was called away by a big dog. Your block expired at 17:43. The autoblock was triggered at 11:57. It would be a good idea if autoblocks expired automatically when the underlying block expired -- I think I'll report this as a feature suggestion. I've unblocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Thanks, that worked. Jzsj (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

St. Peter Claver Catholic parish, Belize

Hello Jzsj, I saw your work on St. Peter Claver Catholic parish, Belize. I was happy to read so detailed information on a remote part of Belize. One question though: The article says, that Sarstoon village was part of the parish and the file description of File:SarstoonKeckchiVillage.jpg says that Sarstoon village is part of Belize.

But today's village of Sarstoon (spelled Sarstún in Spanish) is on the Guatemalan side of the Sarstoon River. I wonder: did the parish span across the border into Guatemala? Or was there once a settlement on the Belizean side of the border which doesn't exist anymore today? Do you have any idea? Thank you --::Slomox:: >< 09:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That 1930 article from Jesuit Missions Journal was all I had to go on. I do see on Google Maps a village about 2 miles up the river on the Belize side, identifiable by the boats moored at that spot. Further up the map is blurred by clouds or reflection making it impossible to identify more villages. I trust that the Jesuits visited the village by boat in those days, but it may have been only the village on the Guatemalan side of the river, in spite of what the photo says. Jzsj (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

After some further checks I think it could be the now depopulated village of "San Pedro Sarstoon" which is almost 20 miles inland. San Pedro Sarstoon was part of the Cramer Estates. Is there any mention of "San Pedro" in the article from Jesuit Missions Journal? --::Slomox:: >< 13:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Slomox: I don't have this journal. You might get answers to any questions you have about the Belize mission from the Jesuit Midwest Archives. Jzsj (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Saint Dismas Prison Ministry

Please, stop changing this article AGAIN in a promo vehicle. The Banner talk 22:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This will go to an Rfc if it can't be resolved on the Talk page of the article. Jzsj (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROMOTION solves this straight away. The Banner talk 22:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islam in South Asia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islam in South Asia. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:D. H. Lawrence

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:D. H. Lawrence. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Article discussions

DeMello and Sosa discussions

== October 2018 == Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Hesychasm, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Madrenergictalk 05:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Please take the time to read the references, and you'll find that there is plenty there to support the main point. Your saying that Keating should not be mentioned is more to the point, since the sources show that his contribution came after that of DeMello. If we're going to mention the popularization of Eastern prayer methods in the US, then the sources we have now happen to show that DeMello came first. Jzsj (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Please refer to my edit summary, where I have explained to you that your references do not mention Hesychasm or any form of Eastern Orthodox prayer, hence your content additions claiming him to be a proponent of 'Eastern prayer' constitute WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Please be reminded that the topic of the article in question is Hesychasm, and failing any verifiable claim to relevance to the topic, such additions are also considered WP:IRRELEVANT. As such, I have reverted them as appropriate. Your personal view as to whether DeMello preceding Keating makes him of greater importance is not up for debate, since you have not proven your additions to be relevant or verifiable to begin with. If you wish to restore your edit, please cite reliable and relevant sources that support your claim. Furthermore, if you wish to insist on your view that DeMello is the most important proponent of Eastern prayer in the US, remember that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia about global topics, not primarily the United States, and that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. —Madrenergictalk 05:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC) I never said that DeMello was "the most important" proponent. I think you did right in removing Keating and the fallacy that ignores DeMello's prior contributions in the US, as shown in the sources. Jzsj (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC) To me, and I believe to most literate English speakers, "Anthony de Mello ... introduced the Eastern tradition of awareness prayer to audiences in the United States" suggests that he was the principal, if not the only, person to introduce it, so if you did not mean that he was the most important then you made an unfortunate choice of words. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Arturo Sosa. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Your edit has been reverted, and is reproduced here: "Sosa has not hesitated to weigh in on various issues that distinguish the papacy of Pope Francis from that of the previous two pontiffs, such as socialism in Latin America and use of a Biblical approach to theological questions, with great emphasis on God's mercy." Also, please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. —Madrenergictalk 13:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. Do not use the "minor edit" checkbox for major edits that involve the insertion of words, sentences, and phrases that add, remove or otherwise change the meaning of the content, as you did here. Per Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one "that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute", such as "typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content". Your edit — which inserts the phrase 'which he explains as "go[ing] along with what Pope Francis says", interpreting the Scriptures with discernment' — does not qualify as a minor edit and could be considered misuse of the checkbox. Thank you. —Madrenergictalk 14:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Edit to Arturo Sosa Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Arturo Sosa. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. The content that you inserted is reproduced here: Addressing leaders of the nearly 200 Jesuit institutions of higher learning from around the world in Spain on 10 July 2018, Sosa chose from the Jesuits' thirty-sixth General Congregation the theme of reconciliation. According to Creighton University President Daniel S. Hendrickson, S.J., Sosa emphasized that "inequalities, conflicts, and divisive polarities breed poverty, warfare, forced migration, and discrimination, and the work in Jesuit universities of study, dialogue, collaboration, outreach, and experience of other people and places mitigates such divisions." There are multiple issues with your edit: Religious leaders are expected to give many speeches in the course of their career, however your edit here appears to place an undue emphasis on a specific speech on the topic of educational institutions that does not appear to be noteworthy or helpful in illustrating the biography of the subject Arturo Sosa. Instead, it appears to serve the purpose of promoting and advertising "the work in Jesuit universities" quoted herein, which is not relevant to this biographical article. The first source given appears to be an essay file without any authorship details present in the file, and hence is not a reliable source. The second part of your content is a quotation that appears to be a personal reflection of the author and of questionable relevance to the subject Arturo Sosa, making it unhelpful in illustrating the subject. Furthermore, the second source that you have given is authored by a Jesuit individual and published by a Jesuit-operated university, both of whom are closely affiliated to the subject, who is a leader of Jesuits. This source has a clear conflict of interest, is not independent, and therefore not reliable. In the absence of reliable sources, and the lack of noteworthy relevance to the subject in question, the content appears to be an undue promotional piece of an educational institution (or a specific group of educational institutions characterised as Jesuit) and has been reverted. Thank you. —Madrenergictalk 17:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Madrenergic, if your characterization of this as a promotional piece on a Jesuit educational institution or institutions is correct, then this sounds like a violation of the topic ban as meted out here: "Jzsj (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC) The following is from the administrator's explanation of the topic ban: "Articles not primarily about education, universities, and similar topics, and are at best a few sentences in articles mentioning the topic, should not be including in the ban's scope." CYBERPOWER ... "My interpretation is that the “few sentences” may be interpreted broadly. ...I also note that the clarification seems to me to imply that the ban applies to whole articles rather than statements within articles." CYBERPOWER I note that Sosa's ideas are criticized in the following section, and it's these ideas, not the context in which they are explained, that should be the focus here.Jzsj (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC) The criticism section of Arturo Sosa runs 561 words while the whole rest of the article is a mere stub of 435 words. I believe it should concern all of us that in this biography of a living person there is so little tolerance of credible sources that would give a more balanced view of the person; the focus is on conservative adversaries of his, and of Pope Francis with whom he is agreeing. Even the fact of this agreement has been ruled out of the article as irrelevant. I question whether it is irrelevant, and not necessary background to understand some of his statements that are being criticized. Jzsj (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Hmmm, this statement at least causes friction with the topic ban. And selective quoting of the works of user:cyberpower678 is also not new for you. The Banner talk 20:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC) @Jzsj: May I clarify who or what might be causing "so little tolerance of credible sources"? Being that I am the main person you appear to be in conflict with on the page in question, it appears to be an indirect attack upon me, hence I would like to request that you clarify your remarks. If you disagree with my edits, I would like to invite you to first resolve our differences through talk page discussion and other means of dispute resolution, rather than making personal attacks that would appear to be inappropriate for a man of your vocation. —Madrenergictalk 17:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC) I don't see your twisting this into a personal attack. Please review the way you schooled me above, without reason. This difference of interpretation of policy belongs on the Sosa Talk page where I have taken it. Jzsj (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC) @Jzsj: The discussion on your recently-proposed content changes continues at Talk:Arturo Sosa. As for your earlier edits, I have explained the rationale for the reversion to you in detail, as above. May I clarify what you mean by "without reason"? —Madrenergictalk 17:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, but collapsing this discussion is not the way to end it. This is my talk page and you have no right to take control of it. The discussion should be at the Sosa talk page, where it is presently being held. Jzsj (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC) My main question: are you sure you have no conflict of interest here? After all, Sosa is your "boss". The Banner talk 18:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Sosa doesn't deal directly with Jesuits on matters like this. I am free to do as I see right. My arguments are based on Wikipedia policy, not on any obligation to Sosa. Jzsj (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not the first time that you try to polish away discussions that are not going your way. The Banner talk 21:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Louis Farrakhan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Louis Farrakhan. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added a new separate sections about the so-called allegations... The folk is now 85 years old, he really needs to retire... There are so many young people in the Great Old democrat party who would deserve to get a part in the current political world. --Wisdood (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Centro Bonó for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Centro Bonó 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/Centro Bonó until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Aloysius Institute of Management & Information Technology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Aloysius Institute of Management & Information Technology 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. Aloysius Institute of Management & Information Technology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 12:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Warning

You are supposed to engage in a meaningful discussion. Wiping out everything you do not like does not fit within the definition of "meaningful discussion". You run the risk of a block when you fail to engage in a meaningful discussion. So, please... The Banner talk 20:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jzsj. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Translating from French

Please, translate only articles from languages you master. A translation of "Monsieur l'Abbé" as "abbot" caused me a severe case of toothache. In fact, it is just a courtesy title for a (usual secular) priest, identical to the courtesy title "Father". The Banner talk 21:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ow, and the fr:Frères de l'instruction chrétienne de Ploërmel are in fact the Brothers of Christian Instruction. Not the Christian Brothers, nor the De La Salle Brothers. The Banner talk 21:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Saint Ignatius University Centre, Antwerp for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saint Ignatius University Centre, Antwerp 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/Saint Ignatius University Centre, Antwerp until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 13:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Miguel Pro Human Rights Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miguel Pro Human Rights Center 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/Miguel Pro Human Rights Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 13:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Your exclamation marks =

Good work on your persistence. You're an inspiration. How can we work together to think about the notices? We appear to be on the same team. Check out my commons talk page. I'll have a good think and try and think of an appropriate barnstar E.3 (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Radio Progreso & ERIC-SJ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Radio Progreso & ERIC-SJ 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/Radio Progreso & ERIC-SJ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Working Boy Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Working Boy Center 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/Working Boy Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 12:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LoyolaSecund.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LoyolaSecund.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of FMC Electronic Technical School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FMC Electronic Technical School 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/FMC Electronic Technical School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 20:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Dublin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Dublin 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/Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Dublin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 10:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of ALBOAN for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ALBOAN 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/ALBOAN until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:StJoeBangalore.png

Thank you for uploading File:StJoeBangalore.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am unable to remedy this since I am banned from discussing school pages. @FastilyBot: Jzsj (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:XtoReyEc.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:XtoReyEc.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:INEASpain.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:INEASpain.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Workers Development Union

There is no need to add irrelevant or spammy info to the article Workers Development Union. No every minor project is noteworthy. The Banner talk 16:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• I find that your minimalist idea of relevance differs from others' who find some material from an organization's website to be reliable and helpful in characterizing the organization.Jzsj (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that you tend to over-blow everything that is related to the Jesuits, often based on sources not conform WP:RS.
  • Beside that: what you added is already summarized in the present text: The Union has a shepherd training program in sheep care, modern medicines, and modern breeding practices, carried on in the largely pastoral northern districts of Karnataka.[3][4] The Banner talk 16:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    • You seem to be constantly ignoring WP:SELFSOURCE. Jzsj (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Aha, the classic cherry picking to suite your purposes. But read better, my friend. I have no problem with the own website backing up a start date or an address. But you like to use it for every detail, while you know quite well that you need independent sources for that. And when you read WP:SELFSOURCE properly, you see restrictions that severely bite with the way you use it. The Banner talk 19:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Where do you get the restriction to "start date or an address", that seems rather "to suite your purposes". And your last two statements are simply not true.Jzsj (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
          • (ec)

“ (...) so long as the following criteria are met:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

”

• • • • • • Please read that and adhere to that. The Banner talk 20:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Hi, Jzsj. I noticed The Banner's post above, and was inspired to take a look at your recent contributions. Thank you for your good copyediting. But I was a little shocked to see the tendentious way you select and use sources. Here, for instance, the source itself acknowledges that it was written by a friend of Pell's; and, what is in the context worse, you removed the Guardian as a source. I would also have thought you've been here long enough to know that direct quotes of self-promotion by the subject of an article are not appropriate parts of a Wikipedia article; not unless they're put into context and ascribed to the subject. Here and here, you instead let "Wikipedia's voice" speak in the words of the subject's own website. Moreover, all your additions to Workers Development Union are AFAICS sourced to shramik.in, in other words, to the subject's own website. (Workers Development Union = Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh).

Articles are supposed to be written from secondary, independent sources. Not from what subjects say about themselves. I see you defend your practice in the section above by referring to WP:SELFSOURCE. But, as stated in that guideline, organisations may be used as sources of information about themselves provided the material is not unduly self-serving. Most websites of most organisations are self-serving, and shramik.in is certainly no exception. We are so used to seing the self-praise on organisations' websites that perhaps we hardly notice it; but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. You can only take facts from an organisations website — such as, when was it founded, who is the CEO — not the promotional fluff and vague self-praise. Please raise your game where sources are concerned. Note that this is a serious warning from an administrator. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC).

Thank you for your observations here, and I'm not disputing most of what you are saying. I admit I should have left the charge against Pell but felt that in biographical information about living persons we need to be especially careful: the conviction had not yet been sustained on appeal, and the points against the conviction seemed fair (not surmise) as reported later here, here, and here for just a few examples. As to my additions to Workers Development Union, please note that my first additions were from the FAO article, clarifying the work of SAS. Also, wouldn't you agree that what is "unduly" self-serving is not easy to agree upon: and one may have to seek community consensus to resolve some of these issues? @Bishonen: Jzsj (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

What you clarified in the article about the Workers Development Union was already in the article, sourced and all. Making it - in my humble opinion - promo. The Banner talk 22:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't keep saying things that are not true and then, when your mistake is pointed out, divert attention by going on to another point. In this case, what I added from the FAO site dealt with this, which was no wise in the article before my addition: In 1996 SAS helped local women produce and market bags and other handicrafts made of jute and cotton fibre. In 2005 SAS teamed with the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and helped Kuruba women in the Belgaum district in Karnataka to make and market wool products from sheep on the Deccan Plateau. Why have you eliminated this? Jzsj (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, Jzsj, but I've been busy IRL, and I also had to do some thinking, and some reading back. First about Workers Development Union; no, I would not agree. We can use concrete facts such as year of foundation, name of CEO, etc, from an organisation's own website; not their self-praise and fluff. It's not really difficult. Your use of this reference and this is a good example of unduly self-serving material from the website of the subject. Note, I'm not saying their website is outrageously self-serving, as the internet culture goes; we all know that self-promotion is the norm for the websites of organisations. I'm saying it's self-serving, in the usual organisational way, and therefore the material is not suitable for the use you make of it.

But atm I'm more concerned with your edits concerning sexual abuse by clergy. Reading further back in your contributions, I found this. Did you ever consider taking part in the discussion at Talk:George Pell, before you tried to learn how to change the Wikidata item "Australian Catholic cardinal and convicted sex offender"? Apparently not; I see you telling Dlohcierekim: "When I began this I didn't think it would be controversial, given WP:BLP. Going through a 30-day discussion would not be a solution." You didn't think it would be controversial, even though the talkpage looked like this at the time, and the article itself like this? That strains credulity, and I'm afraid it strains my WP:AGF. I was going to let your edit at Catholic Church in Australia pass with a warning, considering you acknowledge above that you should have left the charge against Pell. But after my further search, I view it in a darker light. It's amazing to me that you're still, above, harping on how there might be a BLP vio in question, after everything you have been told. After all the blowback and clear explanation you have received, both on Wikipedia and on IRC, you must know that being 'especially careful with biographical information about living persons' has nothing to do with removing well-sourced negative information, and even less with removing the very sources themselves. You are an experienced editor. Did it occur to you to remove your Catholic Church in Australia edit when you had been told by so many people there was nothing BLP-violating about saying Pell had been convicted? (Praxidicae removed it a bit later. Doing it yourself would have looked better.) Instead you bring out your false BLP vio argument again here, to me. That's quite disappointing. Pell has been convicted; that is the fact; we don't substitute our own views of fairness, or add them. Wikipedia just isn't written like that.

You also made two other edits concerning sexual abuse by clergy around the same time, here and here, both concerning grand jury findings of a cover-up of sexual abuse. These are tendentious edits, you know. In the source, the findings of the grand jury are presented in an extremely harsh and pointed way, and at some length, but in our article they're only mentioned in the most brief and low-key summary: "Bartchak was criticized for his handling of a 2005 investigation against former Erie priest William Presley." That's probably defensible, as long as the text is balanced; but after your edits, it no longer is. You leave the toned-down summary of the finding as it was, while adding actual quotes of Bartchak's self-defence, thereby giving much more weight to that than the (I would have thought) obviously more important grand-jury finding. I conclude that you have difficulty in editing neutrally regarding this subject, and I'm very close to topic banning you from it. If I see more tendentious edits concerning the subject, I will. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

No question, I should have entered into the discussion on the talk page of Pell, but I bypassed it and went right to making a change in the article. I will be careful about this in the future. Thanks for pointing it out. But as to your first paragraph, I think you should give credit where credit is due, and my question about why the reference from the Food and Agricultural Organization was deleted still deserves an answer. I dropped the issue of restoring matter from their website: why do you bring that up rather than the issue still under dispute, the material from FAO? Jzsj (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do I bring it up? Not for fun, but purely because you asked: "Also, wouldn't you agree that what is "unduly" self-serving is not easy to agree upon?" I thought you expected and wanted an answer, even if delayed. I was less concerned with your exchange with The Banner. But I'll reply to that since you wish it: I think your point about FAO is reasonable. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Freedom of religion by country

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Freedom of religion by country. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Werner Brix

Hello, Jzsj,

Thanks for creating Werner Brix! I edit here too, under the username Doomsdayer520 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Thank you for your new article on Werner Brix, but note that more evidence is needed of media notice by independent, outside sources. Without such references, the article appears to be promotional, which is against Wikipedia's rules.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conspiracy theory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conspiracy theory. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gender feminism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gender feminism. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Century

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Detransition

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Detransition. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jewish religious clothing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish religious clothing. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pope John Paul II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pope John Paul II. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Culture of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Culture of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Heathenry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Heathenry. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gospel of Peter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gospel of Peter. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Just a quick question. In here, did you mean retaining the death toll in the article or remove it? Since saying Yes means remove it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• OK, I just clarified my response. Jzsj (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Santa Claus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Santa Claus. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Appeal to nature

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Appeal to nature. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falun Gong

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Falun Gong. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Domenico Losurdo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Domenico Losurdo. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Being and Nothingness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Being and Nothingness. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xinjiang conflict

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xinjiang conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Catholic ecclesiology

As the subject says,Catholic ecclesiology needs some work. If you can contribute to it would be great. Also, Did the Catholic Church change "militant church" to "pilgrim church"?(https://collegevilleinstitute.org/bearings/a-pilgrim-church-part-two/). If so, would be nice to see some references to the “pilgrim church" from Lumen Gentium.Manabimasu (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: Thanks for the lead; the Catholic portal page is in need of updating. As to referencing Lumen Gentium I'll try to do that while avoiding WP:ORIGINAL. Jzsj (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Stott

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Stott. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Apostles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Apostles. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Original Sin

I was reading articles from Catholic Answers(https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Original-Sin). I came across this sentence "Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii)."Earlier on, the article states that Council of Trent is not obligatory, but since you are an expert on the matter. When does Original sin come about-for lack of better words- conception or at birth? This is interesting because of the Church’s position on abortion and how apologists could defend against a point if the latter. Should this be included in Original Sin sections and articles pertaining to the Catholic Church. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Scriptural studies of the past 150 years as well as historical studies have moved us far beyond questions like this based on Genesis. See for instance here and here. I hope to get to articles like you mention, but it will take time. Jzsj (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, "CCC, 403". Vatican.va. specifies we are all born afflicted. I am assuming birth as the answer as the second document from Pope Benedict the 16th mentions birth. The first document is critical but it is a sedevecantist source and not official teaching. To be clear, Conception or at birth? Correct me if I am mistaken but The Church currently from the CCC holds that Original Sin derives from birth. Maybe the translation is poor and I should look at the Latin CCC. This is the Latin CCC reference- http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p1s2c1p7_lt.htm#Paragraphus%207%20LAPSUS And I think I found a discrepancy because I cannot find the keyword born(natus) unless I am mistaken. I am now worried that translation is causing the loss of understanding between languages(latin&English) further questioning which beliefs are a mistranslation. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You're wading into an area where there is a lot of room for development, even in the past 27 years since the publication of the latest version of the Catechism. When you've arrived at a conclusion I suggest you place it on the talk page of "Original Sin" and begin a community discussion there. Jzsj (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Although my questioning does seem trivial, I do want answers.Where do I raise an inquiry into church teaching?Manabimasu (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The simple answer is that on complex questions like this (where the Church allows belief in evolution and in the mythical background for the creation stories in Genesis) you need to decide whether you wish to follow a fundamentalist or scholarly approach to the topic. And, like the current papacy, I see no need to pontificate on such matters, especially considering their remoteness from issues pertaining to living the Christian life today. Jzsj (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Australia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Australia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban

I guess this and this is just another slip of the pen regarding your topic ban on education? The Banner talk 10:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You have recently nearly escaped a community ban and now you violate your topic ban again. Twice. The Banner talk 10:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, this "twice" pertains to one mention of a gay teacher in an article on homosexuality. I was brought to the homosexuality article by the Rfc above and, yes, it escaped me that this pertained to the schools ban broadly construed. Also, I need to point out that you are misleading in your statements, like that I "nearly" escaped a community ban. Jzsj (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, please note that I am now bringing you to WP:AN/I for infraction number somany of your topic ban. The Banner talk 14:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jzsj! You created a thread called Topic ban at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC) For your information See here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jzsj_topic_ban_violation_June_2019 The Banner talk 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC) June 2019 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for once again violating your topic ban ([44]). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Recusancy The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Recusancy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Swedes The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Swedes. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Eid al-Adha The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eid al-Adha. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:List of common misconceptions The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of common misconceptions. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Donald Wuerl The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Wuerl. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Donald Wuerl The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Wuerl. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Mauritius The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mauritius. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Century The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:CESNUR The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CESNUR. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Psalms The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Psalms. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)