Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix

message: :Image:Bishofphoenarms.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bishofphoenarms.PNG

message: An image used in this article, File:Phoenix st simon 1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Phoenix st simon 1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The statement, "Olmsted chose to live in simple quarters at the Cathedral rectory, which fits his style of simplicity," is made without citing any reference, and it may reflect a sycophantic view of the Catholic church.  Its accuracy is further called into question by the fact that Olmsted was not the immediate successor of Thomas O'Brien.  For six months after O'Brien resigned in disgrace, the Archbishop of Santa Fe served as apostolic administrator of the diocese, and O'Brien was permitted to remain in the Bishop's residence.  Absent further clarification, and the ability to cite a credible neutral source, the article should be limited to stating that Olmsted lives in the cathedral rectory and that O'Brien, the disgraced former bishop, lives in the bishop's residence.John Paul Parks (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have moved the information out of the lede paragraph, where it did not belong in the first place. Elizium23 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of View

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://g.co/maps/bmw8
*:Triggered by (?<!-)\bg\.co\b on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 01:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110815183654/http://eparchyofphoenix.org/directory-of-parishes to http://www.eparchyofphoenix.org/directory-of-parishes
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article needs some cleanup. The historical information should be put in chronological order and most of the lists should be deleted.
* Wikipedia is not a directory; it is not a soapbox; it is not an indiscriminate collection of information: see WP:NOT . Bistropha (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: are you referring to the lists of parishes, and schools, etc? Because I am looking at quite a few Filipino diocese articles that could use a slimming-down. Could we somewhere hammer out an ironclad consensus that parish and school lists do not have a place in diocesan articles, per WP:NOT? Elizium23 (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Bistropha (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs cleanup 

message: Please remove  from the section "Notable incidents". I would also submit that the policy in question is not an "incident" and you might want to consider renaming the section to something (I have no idea what) that might encompass both the murder of a priest and the traditional employment of altar boys (which, some editors seem to think, are equally atrocious). Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's safe to say that you've been here long enough to know that words like archaic and sexist are such an obvious violation of WP:NPOV that introducing them into a Wikipedia article would unambiguously constitute vandalism (inasmuch as the attempt to introduce them is an attempt at publically disparaging the church, which is the definition of vandalism) and that removing them would not be considered outside the bounds of point #1 of WP:COIU. I urge you to WP:BEBOLD with regards to the need to address the statement in question, and if anyone questions you, you may use this reply and the  of the addition of said text as your justification for action. The question of calling it a "notable incident" is not as clear and should be left alone, since as you say, you have no resolution to propose for it anyway. Regards,  Spintendo  19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP address used for that edit has a history of vandalism edits in which arbitrary disparagements were added to articles.--Bistropha (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Edited. I reorganized a few short sections into one on "events since 2000", which might ultimately be placed within a History section. I dropped the NPOV item, really a complaint about one parish. Bistropha (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request, 4 January 2020 

message: per WP:INFOBOXFLAGS flags are not included in infoboxes. Elizium23 (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I had seen lots of diocesan articles with flags in the infobox, and was unaware that this was improper. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Jdcompguy (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I took a closer look at the policy page. It says, "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. However, physical geographic articles – for example, continents, islands, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, swamps, etc. – should not." Wouldn't a diocese be considered a "human geographic" region, and therefore be permitted to have a flag in its infobox? Jdcompguy (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, don't really know for sure. It would probably be a good idea to ask a noticeboard or a MOS page for consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: As of July 2021, this article was modified to eliminate the nondescript term "Roman Catholic" in favor of the more precise distinction of "Latin Church" (the sui iuris church) and "Catholic Church" (the denomination). If you believe this edit to be in error or improper, please make the relevant reversion and open discussion on this talk page or my personal talk page. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2021 Latin Church revision

message: We learn thousands of baptisms performed by Fr. Arango are invalid because he used the word “we” instead of “I”. If this is just not a crock of ……. ! This is the mentality of those who argued about the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin. Pitiful. BTW I spent 15 years furthering my education at Catholic institutions. 2601:284:4102:A80:1877:F44:56D1:49FE (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid baptisms