User talk:Cardofk

6 November 2024
From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon? In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them In focus: Questions and answers about the court case Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats? Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry • Ownership of articles Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy • Balkans naming policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy • Criteria for speedy deletion Conflict of interest • Notability • Lists of People • Biographies of Living Persons

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages • User Talk Messages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts • Welcoming Templates WikiProject • Directory • Infoboxes • Local Embassy

	The Keys of Surrey for informed research on locations in the county
	We would like to recognise your recent work demonstrating very high scholarly diligence to Wrecclesham, Holt Pound and Farnham Pottery of national importance accordingly we invite you to become a lifetime member of our project. Adam 37 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cardofk. You have been invited to join WikiProject Surrey, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Surrey-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits within the scope of the project. You may wish to visit the: Article guidelines, for help with writing surrey related articles. Article Requests Department, to help clear the list of requested new surrey related articles or to add new requests. Assessment Department, to help out with assessing articles for the project or to request an article be assessed by another editor. If you plan to contribute to the project please add yourself to the list of project members. You may also like to add {{User WikiProject Surrey}} to your userpage. Adam37 (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cardofk, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:Cardofk/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These require two parts;

a)

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>

b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";

== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Cardofk/reftest and try it out.

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 

Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

You might want to consider using this tool - (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py) - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself. For those it can;t do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually. Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), bit, if not, just open the page yourself and choose soemthing appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's a gadget I have, but when I do a compare on this history page the left hand (older) copy has a 'restore' button. Otherwise, just load in the version you want to revert to, do a null edit, eg a space, and save it. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Dougweller, thank you, got that page sorted now. It would have been a headache without your advice. Pjposullivan (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've made sure that IP won't be back for a long time. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

even better, many thanks. Pjposullivan (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating St Wilfrid's Church, Preston, Pjposullivan!

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

thank you for that article. just reviewed it! cheers.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Sorry if this is in the wrong place but i don't know how else to contact you.... but I've put up a lovely picture of the Church Sacred Heart Church (Wimbledon), no reference to my site at all.... and you still take it down can you tell me why... this is sharing an image i like with the wiki community not advertising.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bycostello (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, it's a great picture Pjposullivan (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added some citations to Live at the Garden (James Brown album), which you recently tagged as unreferenced. Please remove the tag if you feel it is justified. Thanks. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done, great article, can't believe that no one reviewed it until now. Pjposullivan (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating St Aloysius Church, Glasgow, Pjposullivan!

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

Extremely well-crafted article. A pleasure to see and promptly check off on the page curator! Thanks for your edits.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Hi Pjposullivan. Thanks for your work with Page Curation - please just remember that the A3 criterion (no content) only applies when there is no content on the page at all. The Great Tradition does not qualify, as there is something written in the article (regardless of quality). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes, you're right, sorry for incorrectly tagging it. Pjposullivan (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change it! I am much better at creating articles than improving them. SmokeyTheCat 16:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re edits like this and this, please note that per WP:FOOTERS the navbox should go before the categories, and stubs after the cats. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, good to know, will make sure that they're in the right place from now on, thanks again Pjposullivan (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on St Mary's Convent, Handsworth. I've started to update {{infobox monastery}}. If you live in the region, you'd be welcome to come to one - or more! - of the backstage pass events I'm running, at The New Art Gallery Walsall, see Wikipedia:GLAM/NAGW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes, I'm in the region and would like to attend some local Wikipedia events, when are they coming up? Pjposullivan (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Forthcoming UK meetups are normally notified at the top of your watchlist, unless you've dismissed the message (or your IP address resolves to somewhere outside the UK). The current list, plus a few that are more than three weeks off, is: Cambridge, 18 May; Liverpool, 18 May; Oxford, 2 June; London, 9 June; and Manchester, 22 June. Those in the current month and next month are listed at Template:Meetup, which also lists some outside the UK. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply; the editathon/ backstage pass events in Walsall are listed on the Wikipedia:GLAM/NAGW page I linked to above. There's one all day (10-4) tomorrow (just turn up, if you like). the meetups listed by Redrose are social events. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I won't be able to make any of the events until July, will any of them be happening around then? Pjposullivan (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For writing St Anselm's Church, Southall; a lovely article :). Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for review of my work. Well i wont lie to you I have done some good work and contribution to wiki previously. I hope you would understand that. I am from this place and so that's why i have better knowledge of it. There is also a place named as [[[Mullazai]]in baluchistan but this article is about this village which is located in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and i and other people from this region contributed lot of their time to contribute useful information to this. thank you Aurangzebkhan786 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go around putting maps into all the cathedral articles.

• They add very little value because if one clicks on the map, what one gets is useless.
• On the other hand, if one clicks on the co-ordinates one gets a variety of really useful maps.
• Including a non-workable map that merely shows the general location is simply doubling up. The name of the town, and a link is given (as well as the co-ordinates
• In practice, information is only repeated where really useful. For example, if Shakespeare was mentioned as an influence on Wordsworth, then Shakespeare would be linked, but his dates would not be given in the Wordsworth article. This is similar.
• One of the problems with those maps is that the extend the size of the box and limited the space for pictures of the building under discussion

Amandajm (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback and for accentuating the positives of what I did, but I feel this would be better on the talk page of Chester Cathedral. Pjposullivan (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that there is a list of Cathedrals in the UK that uses colour-coded boxes. The page is so hideous that it is shudder-making, and as an artist, I have attempted to ignore its existence, rather than crash in on somebody-elses hard work. Please please do not enforce sickly colours onto articles that are looking good. Neither the colours or the maps are good value in terms of the overall look of the article. The info boxes do not need to be colour-coded in order that the reader can find information or know the locality and denomination of the church. Amandajm (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the colour borders on the cathedral pics have been greatly reduced. That is a vast improvement.

The layout is still ugly. The grey band diving the information horizontally looks bad. They bold text for the name of the church also looks ugly. The page ought to look attractive. Check out List of Ancient Greek temples.

Amandajm (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've left comments.

I think the maps are very valuable and you should continue putting them in.

Especially with an article like Chester Cathedral. It's one of those poorly written and presented, "too long- didn't read" articles: no good photos and so bogged down with uninteresting rubbish.... it makes the infoboxes even more important -people can find the key info at a glance.

I would make a little improvement suggestion though... (I'm not sure if you made the maps or not) With the maps which are of city centres, could you include a little map indicating where within the country the town is. I think its quite useful. -Most in Britain don't know where these cities are geographically, let alone those abroad. The one to the right is a dodgy example I made

Just suggestion though.

And keep up the good work with the maps. They are valued.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I didn't make the maps, User:JohnArmagh did - he did terrific work. When I saw the new maps he uploaded I tried putting them in articles where the existing map was unspecific - such as the county ones.

I agree, a little map indicating where within the country the town is would be perfect. The London borough maps have something similar. When I find out how to upload or change the maps that'll be the first thing I'll do.

Thanks again for the kind words. Happy editing! Pjposullivan (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pjposullivan. Because of your excellent work on the Woking Template, I have decided to give you a Barnstar and a Wikipedia:WikiProject Woking Bronze Award.

		The Original Barnstar
		Well done for your excellent work on the Woking Template! Pbl1998 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely work and I look forward to seeing you continue to edit on Woking articles,

Pbl1998 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)![reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This even applies for infoboxes, too.

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the line "Ruf has ripped the combustion engine out of a Porsche 911 and slotted in an electric motor." because it is a random, misleading statement, completely out of context and contradictory to the rest of the paragraph. Ruf Automobiles did not take a Porsche 911 and rip out the engine. They use empty Porsche chassis' and build everything else when manufacturing a vehicle. The opening line states "The eRuf Model A is an all-electric sports car made by Ruf Automobile.". The line I removed contradicts this and states the car is made by Porsche and modified by Ruf. When reading the reference website article on msnCars, it is clear the author believes Ruf Automobiles to be a modification company of Porsche vehicles, which is a common misconception. This is contradictory to the rest of the article which highlights that Ruf only use empty Porsche chassis' to build their own cars. Ruf automobiles do modify Porsche's that are brought to them by clients but the eRuf Model A does not fall in to this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.152.147 (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've reverted my edit and replied on your talk page, Happy editing. Pjposullivan (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Mount St Mary's Church, Leeds at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Iselilja (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There has not yet been a response on the template, and there needs to be one soon if this nomination is to succeed. Hope to hear from you soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mount St Mary's Church, Leeds, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mount St Mary's Church, Leeds (pictured), was built on an abandoned mine and has a bricked-up access to the mine from the sacristy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mount St Mary's Church, Leeds. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. I hadn't seen that. What I have seen is that the template's been in use on an awful lot of pages without discussion, so I assumed it would be OK. I'll hold off for a bit unless I hear otherwise. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In regards to the revert on the list of dioceses, apologies for not checking the links to the section headings before going ahead and reformatting.

I notice you've kept the rewording of the lead which in hindsight is probably the only thing that needed any meaningful work. Sotakeit (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Edmund Grimshaw, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Arthur Edmund Grimshaw, the organist at Leeds Cathedral for 30 years, was replaced by an 11-year-old boy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Edmund Grimshaw. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cardofk. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using Wikipedia off and on for going on 7 years now across various accounts, and this account in particular is over a year old. Not new, but happy to be welcomed nonetheless. Justanaccountnothingmore (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it was so unnecessary. Look at the article Komotini and its first line. Did you see it? There is the Turkish name of the city. Because there's a mentionable Turkish minority in this lovely city. I just did the same. I edited the names, because they are locally common (e.g. considering the muftiates of Dimetoka and Iskece). The Greek WP also uses Turkish names as I did. And there is no way that the Ancient Greek name of Turkish cities - Gallipoli, Antiochia, Nicomedia, Constantinople and maybe Smyrna and Adrianople excepted - are common in English. There is no English person who types 'Magnesia' for searching Manisa or 'Dorylaion' for Eskisehir, and these names are mentioned in those articles. Please be serious. I didn't do anything wrong or mean. I just wanted to add something and not subtract as you see. WP will not close my account, the article you sent to me is about the title of an article. I didn't change any title of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatbanana (talk • contribs) 23:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Greatbanana, to be honest, I now think that you're right. I did some scraping around some policies, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and both point to allowing Turkish names to be in the lead section of articles about some Greek places, and Alexandroupoli seems to one of them. I have written about this on Talk:Alexandroupoli so that if anyone else reverts your edit on the article, hopefully they will explain their reasons better than I initially did. Happy editing, Pjposullivan (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. Komotini's nice, but it's no Alexandroupoli :-) And yes, I did type in Magnesia once, but I'm a geek like that.[reply]

Hi Pjposullivan. Thank you for the notification at Alexandroupoli. Typically these articles have a name section which covers alternative names. Per WP:NCGN these names are not repeated at the lead. These articles are frequently edit-warred over to add the Turkish name at the lead, despite the existence of a separate name section. Changing this convention in multiple articles, as the above account did, is not constructive. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my fault again. I didn't read WP:NCGN properly the first time and only read the bit about a separate name section after I had reverted those articles back. By that time I was too tired and realised I needed a WikiBreak (also known as sleep). Thanks for sorting it all out and clarifying it. At least all my previous reverts weren't in vain. Thanks again, Pjposullivan (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you for letting me know and for all your great work. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it isn't very constructive, but it is also not unconstructive. I'm still not going to edit them again. Nevertheless I would be glad to see someone correcting his mistake, not for redemption but to show seriousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatbanana (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For seeking out opinions of other editors on a difficult subject and for acting in the best spirit of this great collaborative project while displaying a superior sense of civility and understanding, I award you this well-deserved barnstar. Take care and keep up your excellent work! Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because they are being placed in the Champions and Runner-Up categories. I understand that you want to place the two teams that placed in the cup final in the chart, however the set up of the chart doesn't really allow for that, without misrepresenting one of the schools as already the champions of the Vanier Cup, and second place respectively. I more then welcome a modification of the template in order to find a way to include the schools that presently are contending for this year's Vanier Cup, but the previous edit had to be reverted as it was just incorrect with the confines you placed it in (placing the schools in predesignated Champions and Runner Up categories). Leventio (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No unfortunately I don’t know of any rules or guidelines for sorting church names. Using Hotcat I left the article sort by name as they were previously, as you say there is not one method used. I did alter 14th -century architecture (say) to 14th-century church buildings; and add some county categories by denomination where missin; eg CofE or RC churches in Fooshire’ Hugo999 (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got an alert from a Reference Bot saying that it broke a thread or was incorrectly referenced, I didn't know how to fix it it, so I removed it. NapoleonX (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I fixed it. Pjposullivan (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So hopefully you can just put the reference back even though I deleted. I thought I was in violation of some rule and I had to change it or remove it. NapoleonX (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your beef is with National Geographic, not Wikipedia. Besides, just because the article didn't list where and when he was inducted into the Jesuit order doesn't mean that the article in anyway is not a legitimate source. It's National Geographic, they are a big name and your beef is with them. I am curious as to what your motives are. Why do you care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:CF80:265:21E:6FF:FE61:7A39 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. Georges Lemaître has had biographies written about him, none of which mention that he was Jesuit. Such as this one, this one and this one. The most comprehensive of all and attributed in Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica in this article states that he was not a Jesuit, My beef is with people selecting the one source that got it wrong and then using it to justify an error. It is a hoax and is in violation of WP:Hoax. People need to have critical judgement and this was not shown when the NG article was used to justify an error. My beef was not with Wiki, NG, it is with hoaxers. Furthermore, I find your final question disturbing, no one should justify correcting a mistake. Pjposullivan (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then go and complain to NG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricalTech (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found about 20 references to this man as being a Jesuit in other sources. Standby, that little Jesuit entry will have about that many citations next to it.

Again, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, neither blogs are reliable sources, nor are other articles that use that NG article as their basis. The NG article was written in 2001 and then originally by Orlando Sentinel. If they already printed a retraction, we will not find it, 14 years later. Also, please try to stop with the 'I seem to have peaked your interest,' type of comments, it makes it appear as if you are doing editing not to get to the truth, but just to antagonise others. Pjposullivan (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comment - much appreciated! Eustachiusz (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Roman Catholic churches completed by year, have added a navbox to go to other years in the decade, see eg Category: Roman Catholic churches completed in 1999 Hugo999 (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know, I'm undertaking a major expansion of St Edmund Church, Godalming, which you started earlier this year, as one of several Godalming places of worship articles I hope to write in the next few days. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hassocks5489, thanks, it will be nice to see the article expanded. I can't wait to see what you do with it. Also, I'm looking forward to seeing the list of places of worship in Waverley. It's my home borough. Happy editing! Pjposullivan (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it's nearly ready to be moved across into mainspace now I have all the pictures! Last week I spent a day at Godalming library and the Surrey History Centre gathering quite a lot of extra sources, so I should soon be in a position to finish all the "blurbs" and the introductory paragraphs, then it will be ready to launch. List of places of worship in Woking isn't far behind, then after that I've got all the research and pictures done for List of places of worship in Elmbridge, but nothing written yet. The other Godalming articles I'm doing over the next few days, incidentally, are the Unitarian chapel, the Quaker meeting house, the old Congregational chapel (now Bel and the Dragon restaurant) and the recently closed Salvation Army hall. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I believe you made a change to the Billboard page on May 26, 2015, [1], which was tagged with "VisualEditor" which made incorrect changes, which I just saw today. I had previously added some dates, with references, for past editors of Billboard magazine. But, since I could not find the dates that editors Marks and Levine left the magazine, I had left the dates open-ended. Your VisualEditor corrections added "present" to the open-ends, which was not correct. Today I changed it to "date unknown" to avoid this happening in the future.

I'm letting you know so that you are aware that VisualEditor does this. I have not seen edits done with it before, and if you use it regularly, you might want to know this is one of it's idiosyncrasies.

I'm always happy to see all the grammar, reference checks, and other corrections by the automated bots that patrolling editors use to make corrections on edits I have done. I rarely go over these changes in full, as most I have reviewed made changes for the better. This was a wake-up call for me to "double-check" the automated corrections, too.

Now, if I could just do my edits with the efficiency of a bot! Thanks for all your hard work!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St Edmund Church, Godalming, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Godalming's Roman Catholic, Quaker, and Unitarian (pictured) places of worship, former Congregational chapel, and former Salvation Army hall are all Grade II listed buildings? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice user page! Would you mind if I copy some of its code? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chicbyaccident, thanks, yes of course, please feel free, in fact, I took it from someone else - though I can't remember who. Pjposullivan (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pjposullivan,

I realised you are a rather experienced editor, so I am not going to template you.

I nominated your disambiguation page for deletion as I felt as if it was irrelevant. Both names of the actual and disambiguation pages are the same. If I am wrong, then please feel free to contest it.

Kindest regards,

Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chesnaught555, thank you for the message. I don't understand, it wasn't a disambiguation page, it was a simple redirect to an article, taking into account British and American ways of writing Saint (St or St.). Because of the regional variation, this type of redirect is common for nearly all church articles, to allow people to find it in the search field. Thank you again for not templating me, not many people take the time to write a message. Pjposullivan (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The two pages in question almost have identical titles, and with British articles, British English should be used only. It would make sense for you to do that if the church was American, but as it is British I'd personally stick to that spelling. Feel free to contest it if I'm incorrect.

Kindest regards,

Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesnaught555 Yes, that is why it is a redirect, the title has to be British English, enough people still use the term 'St.' for it be put into the search term. There are thousands of these redirects across Wikipedia making searching easier. It is the norm. Please read WP:POFR. Pjposullivan (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I will remove the template.

Chesnaught555 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesnaught555 Thank you and thank you for your civility, explaining it all and standing up for British English - always a good thing. Kind regards and happy editing. Pjposullivan (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, too, for your civility. It is a good quality for any Wikipedia editor to have.

Kindest regards,

Chesnaught555 (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work on Sacred Heart Church, Exeter Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sacred Heart Church, Exeter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sacred Heart Church, Exeter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St Peter's Church, Aberdeen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first post-Reformation Catholic Church in Aberdeen, St Peter's Church, closed in 1860 when the cathedral was built, but was re-opened 20 years later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St Peter's Church, Aberdeen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of St John the Baptist Church, Rochdale at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (P.S. My concern is specifically with close paraphrasing: I think it's pretty addressable. Happy to talk about it, of course.) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St John the Baptist Church, Rochdale, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that St John the Baptist Church (pictured) in Rochdale was designed by a dead architect? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St John the Baptist Church, Rochdale. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help in how to lift a logo off a school or institutional website for "fair use" in an article.Jzsj (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've noticed the good work you do on here. I was wondering if you'd be interested in contributing to this ambitious British Isles challenge to bringing about 10,000 improvements to the UK and Ireland. The drive is fuelled by regional contests every few months, but it is generally an ongoing content improvement development. If you'd be interested in chipping in with the articles you improve please add your name to the participants and start adding your entries to the big list. Diversity of input will make it much more interesting to peruse! Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PJP; you tagged this article as being over-reliant on a single, partial, published list (from G.H. Cook). I am currently working, slowly, through the list supplementing from the intended full gazetteer in Paul Jeffery's study. I trust that this may eventually resolve some of your concerns. It will still, of course, consist mainly of currently Anglican pre-reformation churches; but I'm not sure that can be helped; since those are essentially Jeffery's criteria too; 'churches that maintained collegiate worship between 1200 and 1540'. What other types of collegiate church would you think should be in; and can you propose a published source for your recommendations? TomHennell (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"For a Listed of collegiate church, there are lot that are excluded. Either rename the article, or include all the collegiate churches. It is arbitrary to exclude so many types of collegiate churches in England. It gives undue, and exclusive, weight to Anglican pre-reformation churches. The reliance on one book to provide the list raises concerns for the neutrality of an encyclopaedia such as this."

Further to this; the link to the citation for the Collegiate Church of Our Lady and St Joseph in Carlisle is now broken; and I can find no other reference to the Canons Regular of SS Ambrose and Charles Borromeo. Is the collegiate arrangement still in place, and do the canons serve the church with choral performance of the Divine Office? The church website makes no mention of the canons, and the only service times it gives are those for the parochial mass? In what respect is this still collegiate? TomHennell (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TomHennell, thank you for highlighting the church in Carlisle, the canons must have moved since I wrote that article. I've just been scrawling through the diocese's page and I think the canons are now in Preston, but their new church is not called a collegiate church. Thank you too for going beyond the G. H. Cook source. Yet I am reticent about the criteria given by the Jeffery source as it excludes not just non-Anglican pre-reformation churches but other definitions of what a collegiate church is. The Oxford and Collins dictionaries give alternative definitions, by including Scottish and U.S. meanings. Wikipedia represents multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context (WP:5P), so I will work (and it may take me a while) to include more collegiate churches based on those meanings. Thanks again for contacting me about this, happy editing, Pjposullivan (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. It is a pity that the Carlisle arrangement has seemingly not worked out; I am sure there is scope for maintaining collegiate worship within the Catholic Church in England in some form, but not perhaps on this particular model. But maybe, with functioning monasteries and oratories, the Chatholic Church in England has no room for collegiate churches too. Cook was only interested in medieval churches; Jeffrey goes a bit beyond that, but I agree that the article here should be inclusive of the full range of current institutions that might claim the function of a 'collegiate church'. I see no reason why such current institutions should have to fit within the formal criteria of the late medieval English church - collegiate worship in England has a continous amd continuing history of over a thousand years, and no strict criteria could validly be applied across this full period. But that does beg the question of what may be the continuing recognisable marks of 'collegiate' worship; I would suggest something like; ' a non-cathedral church with a commitment to the collective daily performance of the divine office in worship within a secular context'. I don't think the Scots or US dictionary defintions are of relevance here though, as neither seems ever to have been used in England. TomHennell (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pjposullivan, on the discussion about St Cuthbert's Church, Durham, no worries. I'll admit that I rewrote that article with many different sources, so I'm not exactly which bit you are talking about. I did try to find a better source for the claims about parish attendance but I'm afraid I only have word of mouth (which I understand is not good enough). Also, I did not mean to make it sound like an advert, rather, I meant to add some of the peculiar theological character of the community, but I trust your judgement and if the rest of the page looks alright, I don't see the need to re-add it. Thank you, User:Trinitarian Creek

Hi User:Trinitarian Creek|Trinitarian Creek]], sorry for not replying earlier, I had taken a small break from Wikipedia. Thank you for being so understanding. I have also heard about the parish being the largest in the diocese (not surprising as it is a city centre parish with a large student population), and of its character, so I'll keep an eye out for it in the media, in case it gets a mention. Thanks again for adding to the article and thereby providing more information on St Cuthbert's. Cheers, Pjposullivan (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing the Wikipedia guidelines, even though I am very familiar with them. As you know, Wikipedia lists for reasons for a merger, the most important one in this case is overlap. Wikipedia also allows for bold mergers. What you may not have seen was a discussion (open for 3 years) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Lay_Catholic_scientists about splitting/merging articles, where a merge consensus can be found. As the main editor historically of the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists, and a contributing editor to the List of Jesuit scientists and the List of Lay Catholic scientists, I felt this was enough to warrant the merge. Here is my question: did you revert the merge because you disagree that the articles should be merged or because you thought it went against Wikipedia standards? I hope my explanation has addressed the second option.Akasseb (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akasseb, very much the second option. Sorry, but I still feel that way, because nothing was put on Talk:List of Jesuit scientists about this. At any time in the last three years a small quick line on Talk:List of Jesuit scientists saying, 'by the way there's a discussion here' would have been great. Anyway, thank you for replying and talking it over here beforehand. Pjposullivan (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there are notes on the talk pages of all pages involved, can you share your opinion on the proposed merger on one of the talk pages (preferably the existing discussion, so that it is all in one place)? We can gauge opinion there over the next week. I have sent messages to the previous discussion members asking them to weigh in as well. Akasseb (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, will do, Cheers, Pjposullivan (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Since the merger discussion has been open for a week and it appears there is a consensus, I will be merging the List of Jesuit Scientsts into the List of Catholic churchmen-scientists tomorrow (25 August 2017).Akasseb (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, thanks again, Pjposullivan (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, Cardofk! --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! Hi Cardofk! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are recipient no. 2746 of Precious, a prize of QAI.

June songs

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My song collection is especially rich, look, and the hall where I first heard DFD, Pierre Boulez and Murray Perahia. Do you find the baby deer in the meadow (last row)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re the DYK nom discussion about research into the above. You asked how I found so much contemporary information, and yes, I used the BNA, as I have done for years. It's available elsewhere, e.g. via UK libraries and Genes Reunited, but the search engine works best on the British Library website, I find. I'm afraid that I probably find more stuff because I'm tenacious. I'm a victim of my own curiosity, taking ages over repeated combos of search terms, time slots, and newspaper locations especially.

For 19th-century C of E church architecture I usually home in on the consecration date, because the architect would usually hand out a full, written, technically correct descrip of the building, and the journo would just copy the lot into the newspaper the following morning. The hacks would try to get into the consecration beanfeast, ostensibly to note down every single excruciating word of the bishop's after-dinner speech (no I'm not dissing religion; bishops just made terrible speeches in those days, full of petty politics and whatever current bee-in-bonnet they had). But reading that beanfeast bit is a joy, because as the dinner went on, the hack and everyone else would get more tiddly, and the notes on the final speeches would get a little thin, although all the hear-hears and laughter would be carefully written down.

The laying of the foundation stone for C of E and nonconformist churches can be quite good, because the workmen would sometimes do a parade, with their tools and banners, and at that point they might be named - a rare chance to see who actually did what. Non-conformists, dissenters and the like had no consecrations, of course; they had openings. Occasionally nonconformist church openings are reported, but the reports tend to be brief. They did lay foundation stones for them, though, and the list of attendees is sometimes good - you can sometimes get the names of ministers who had history - dissenters loved to wind up the public with speeches on the Reform Bill etc. on the square or green, and sometimes got sacked for it.

The RCs were not often reported in papers, maybe due to prejudice. The Catholics were legally emancipated around 1821 (I think) but certain protestant priests continued to say awful things about them in sermons, and you can just hear the raging fear and anger as you read it - quite terrifying, sometimes. I once witnessed an actor imitating cant like that, in a small room full of students. We all said afterwards that it really scared us. So that attitude may explain the absence of articles about RC churches in the regular local papers.

I'm impressed that you found out as much as you did, on Holy Trinity. My apologies for the above rambling - let me know if I can help with any specific points. Storye book (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and another thing. Have you checked out the local Pevsner for Newcastle-under-Lyme? The original Pevsner, as you probably know, didn't get UK 19th-century architecture, and sniffed at it, but the 21st-century editions of the series are fine. Storye book (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... Gottim. Horrid little man. But a glorious quote for the article. Pevsner, Nicklaus (1974). Staffordshire (2002 ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press. p. 35. ISBN 0300096461. Retrieved 23 June 2022. (Quotation: "Holy Trinity, Newcastle-under-Lyme, 1833–4 by the Rev. James Egan, is a crazy effort in blue brick".) Storye book (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is hilarious! Thank you. I've always found Pevsner quite daunting and didn't know that it was possible to search through his books on Google. Yes, he was quite pithy, but with comments like that, no wonder he's quoted so much by EH and Simon Jenkins. That's definitely going in the article! Thanks again, Cardofk (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't think Pevsner is daunting, he was just foreign. He came here from another country, and did pretty well to catalogue our buildings - EH relies on him (maybe too much) for his support of medieval and Palladian stuff, but I think that once he got into anything later than 1820 he became arrogant and pontificated about stuff he didn't understand, because it didn't exist where he came from. He liked rules, and neo-Gothic architecture made a point of not conforming to the Palladian rules, even though the likes of Barry and Pugin managed the proportions bit. So poor old Pevsner fretted that the Victorians got it wrong. Well, that's just my opinion. But a lot of his series has recently been augmented and re-written by modern authors who are doing a better job on 1820+. I only possess the Leeds one out of the recent set, but it's extremely useful, especially as Leeds is a largely Victorian city, and Leeds is on my patch. Which reminds me - are you able to get us a closeup photo of the brickwork on Holy Trinity? It is tantalising to have all those distant photos, when the front-elevation detail might be really interesting? Just a thought. Storye book (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting it, good idea, I went back and found a higher resolution photo. Well, the highest resolution free one I could find. There are some others, slightly higher resolution photos on Flickr, but they are behind copyright. I could ask the copyright holder to change them to creative commons, but I have found that quite frustrating in the past so I only ask the Flickr user to change the license if there are no other images available elsewhere. The difference in quality isn't that great anyway.

About Pevsner, yes, what you say explains his dislike of St Augustine's Church, Edgbaston - something to do with the proportions. Didn't make sense before, now I get it. I like that he praised Joseph Ireland, one the first Wikipedia articles that I created. Yes, I liked the comments on Holy Trinity from the book you cited from page 209: "a church which one will always remember with an affectionate smile." Wonderfully put. Thanks again, Cardofk (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've cropped, contrasted and lightened your new Geograph pic, but if you don't like it, please delete it from the template. It's only a suggestion. Yes, Edgbaston St Augustine is a very pretty building. But at least poor old Pevsner helped save our medieval and Palladian stuff - much of it would probably be car parks and rabbit-hutches if it weren't for him providing a bible for EH. It's just a pity that John Betjeman didn't write his own equivalent, for the 19th century.

If it helps, over the years on WP I have collected a list of research sources, mostly for this sort of subject. It's here, on one of my user subpages. You never know, there may be something interesting there. One of the surprisingly useful resources is online Crockfords. I've found 19th-century C of E clergy to be rather amusing. They lived a public life in the newspapers as well, and some of them make great biographies - plenty of saints and sinners, hehe. Anyway, I hope you find something useful. Storye book (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again so much. I didn't know that so much was accessible online. Before I just used EH and British History Online. Crockford's is so well-known I thought that it would never be available, so it's great to be able to read its archives online and some of those enjoyable biographies. Thanks also for cropping that photo too. Looks much better now. Cheers, Cardofk (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to copy the list into your own subpages or whatever, if you need to, then you can edit it to your needs.

It's much faster to flick through the real Crockford's of course, and some of the large city libraries have at least some. Leeds has a whole trolley-full (though not the whole set) - I feel very guilty when I ask the staff to bring the whole lot out of storage, because they're heavy. I'm not far from Boston Spa (British Library extension) so if you ever need me to check out a Crockford's which is not online, let me know. I can always combine that with another job.

One great thing they have at Boston Spa and some county archives is the C of E bound set of parish magazines. i don't know whether you've ever seen one? In the late C19 and maybe early C20 the vicar could apply to the diocese to print his church mag, then he paid them through the nose (presumably) and received a yearly (I think?) bound volume that was mostly a parish mag for all of the C of E, plus his own parish mag bound into it. If you're into history of church buildings or want random pix of vicars, bishops etc., then that's a treasure house. Antiquarians contributed to those volumes, so there are little histories of local churches, and detailed lithographs or woodcut illustrations. As I understand it, the Boston Spa branch has access to the same books as the London branch - they just trundle the stuff to and fro. Cumbersome, but amazingly it's worked so far for me. Storye book (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've just started to upload an old 2016 photo session I had in an archive with the Church Monthly, which is what I was referring to above. My uploads so far are here. I think this volume must have been in a box with the Beckwithshaw church stuff in North Yorkshire county archive. Storye book (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes, I've copied the list to my sandbox. No doubt it will be a big help. I never know that about Boston Spa, you're right, it does sound like a treasure trove. Also, I looked at those photos of church magazines, the detail in them is really impressive, for a church magazine, the production quality is very high. Yesterday, I used the advanced settings on that British Newspaper Archive for the first time and it resolved a question I had about the construction of the church. Very very helpful. Thanks again for so much information, I just hope that I get the opportunity at some point to put it all to good use. Cardofk (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Storye book (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

July songs

Thank you these! - Last Friday, I attended a unique concert - the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach conducting - and with some good luck caught him happy afterwards! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and another 14 July: Voces8, pictured - I have a FAC open, in case of interest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cardofk. Thanks for taking care of the revert on the template. I am reliably informed I went about it the wrong way; I added the church to the template, and then set about building an article for it, the process of which was discombobulated by Bruxton moving my work into draftspace without giving me time to do anything to it. I'm rebuilding the page, but I've now lost all the sources I was using for it. The work is currently in my sandbox, and as soon as I have it referenced and updated, and ready to go, I'll put it out for review. If it's accepted, then I'll put the church back on the template! Thanks again. Dane|Geld 20:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are doing well. I see you do great job in this field in a wider variety of articles. Your opinion about wp:NC issues might be helpful in similar cases as in Margariti or Moscopole. Cheers.Alexikoua (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing this. I've just spotted that it was listed at Grade II yesterday, so I've done the necessary updates to the article. I've just noticed above that you also did the C.A. Buckler article – many thanks: he'd been on my to-do list for years in relation to his work on Catholic churches in Sussex! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for adding that, I had no idea that it had been listed, it made my day that the church has been recognised. Yes, writing that Buckler article was enjoyable, he had a diverse range of talents. Thanks again, Cardofk (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cardofk, I noticed that you are adding plenty of "See also" type links to Catholic articles. "See also" sections and links are generally considered something of a last resort, that is, they should not be used if the link can organically be worked into the article prose somewhere. As you can see by this edit, I was able to integrate Catholic Church in Scotland into that article without needing to resort to a "See also" section at all. Please consider this, although it is more labour-intensive, it yields better results and aesthetics overall. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Elizium23, yes, I did originally think and do the same thing, I changed: Catholic Church in Ireland (for example) into Catholic Church in Ireland, in some articles. However, in doing that, I realised that I had removed two links to fit in one that I preferred. Those articles then neither had a link to the Catholic Church nor the country that they were in. I know that it may seem to have better results and aesthetics, but in most cases, there is already a See also section. Also, with how articles are read on smartphones with each section hidden until you click on it (and no navboxes), the See also section makes links more visible than they would be hidden in the text. Cardofk (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! Hi Cardofk! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 17:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 17:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Cardofk! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this anniversary message. When I received it, I was taking a bit of a break from Wiki, but now I'm very happy to be back editing again. Thank you for making this a great place to be. Very best wishes, Cardofk (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your DYK nom for St Francis of Assisi Church, Notting Hill, and approved it. Great article! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]