Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Topics inactive for30 days are automatically archived2 or more at a time byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than5.

Hello. I see that you're also a Roman Catholic. The fact stands that the more correct and full and thorough and accurate term is "Roman Catholic" not just the word "Catholic" alone because that is actually a general term that does NOT NECESSARILY mean just Roman Catholicism under the Vatican pope.

And there is a consensus for that too.

And I find it amazing how Roman Catholics have a problem (for whatever reason) with the term "Roman Catholic", when that's the official term that they themselves use in their writings and in their own church buildings. Non-Catholics did not invent the phrase.

The point is that the term "Catholic Church" is actually broad and is NOT NECESSARILY always explicitly specifically the ROMAN or LATIN catholic. And the section in the Mass article is dealing specifically with Roman Catholicism. Not necessarily "Catholicism" in general. Not sure what the problem is in having the word "Roman" in there, as that's not a pejorative, and it is a term they officially use themselves, and it is way more clear and it is correct.

But there's been this trend for years now where Roman Catholics many times shy away from the word "Roman" with the term "Catholic", and just want to have it as "Catholicism". Which to be honest is a bit misleading. The question is why is this the attitude of many Roman Catholics lately exactly with this matter?

I live a few blocks away from Most Precious Blood Roman Catholic Church and that's the phrasing that they use themselves on the church building. I also live a few blocks away from Saint Joseph's Roman Catholic Church with those very words put in by Roman Catholics themselves on the building. Should they remove that word from the sign? What is the problem specifically? Where even on Wikipedia, Roman Catholic editors and contributors want to suppress that word many times in articles and in article sections. Frankly, its aggravating and even bewildering. Just being honest.

And number two, it's against Wikipedia policy to revert and disrespect a good faith accurate edit or modification like you did. Especially for "I don't like" reasons. Breaking "I don't like" and of "No Own". So you just violated that. Please don't break 3R by the way. Thank you.~2025-42500-71 (talk)03:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd readRoman Catholic (term) you'd see that you're misinformed. Cheers. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs}04:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and who puts together these articles and sections regarding things like this? The biased ones with issues such as this, who already have the attitude and uptight hang-up about these types of things. Contributors such as you, frankly. When it comes to wordings that you may not personally like because of emotional and personal bias. So it becomes A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT. And a wrap-around narrative. With an article like that. So it's a joke. You didn't address anything specific of what I wrote in my comment previous.

But even in that article it didn't say that the word shouldn't be used. It said it's well established. That's specific phrasing "Roman Catholic". To differentiate and make more clear. Even the article that you referred to. You didn't address anything specific of what I wrote in my comment previous.

Again....

There's been this trend for years now where Roman Catholics many times shy away from the word "Roman" with the term "Catholic", and just want to have it as "Catholicism". Which to be honest is a bit misleading. The question is why is this the attitude of many Roman Catholics lately exactly with this matter?

I live a few blocks away from Most Precious Blood Roman Catholic Church and that's the phrasing that they use themselves on the church building. I also live a few blocks away from Saint Joseph's Roman Catholic Church with those very words put in by Roman Catholics themselves on the building. Should they remove that word from the sign?

What is the problem specifically? Where even on Wikipedia, Roman Catholic editors and contributors want to suppress that word many times in articles and in article sections. Frankly, its aggravating and even bewildering. Just being honest.

And also it's against Wikipedia policy to revert and disrespect a good faith accurate edit or modification like you did. Especially for "I don't like" reasons. Breaking "I don't like" and of "No Own". So you just violated that. Please don't break 3R by the way. Regards.~2025-42500-71 (talk)04:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the consensus that has been established for years, go make an RfC atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject Christianity orWikipedia talk:Manual of Style rather than complaining on the talk pages of individual editors who are following the accepted practice. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs}04:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only consensus regarding this though. Even in that article that you referred to, it didn't say that the phrasing "Roman Catholic" shouldn't be used. The article said the phrasing "Roman Catholic" is WELL-ESTABLISHED. That specific wording "Roman Catholic Church" etc. To differentiate and make more clear. Even the article that you gave. Nowhere does it say that it should be suppressed like you're doing. I looked through it a few minutes ago. It says clearly in the article that that phrasing is valid, and actually more accurate.

And there's other consensus, FOR the phrasing. Which you're ignoring.

The Most Precious Blood Roman Catholic Church is a few blocks from me. Tell them to remove the word "Roman" from the building, if that's the case. It's there. But it's amazing. Roman Catholics historically love to censor things, that they don't like. And you guys here are a good example of that. Cheers.~2025-42500-71 (talk)04:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Darth Stabro. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission ordraft page you started, "Pierre Tremblay".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.Liz^Read!Talk!23:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the
	ONLINE Minnesota Wikipedia User Group Meeting Date: Tuesday,February 10, 2026 Time:7 to 8:30 PM (CT) Meet and converse online with your fellow Wikipedians from across the state of Minnesota. Help is available for new users, and all guests are welcome.	Stay home, stay warm, attend online.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations anymore, please remove your username from ourinvitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)17:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On9 February 2026,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleList of Chaplain Corps Medal of Honor recipients, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that all fivechaplains awarded the Medal of Honor since the American Civil War were Catholic priests? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/List of Chaplain Corps Medal of Honor recipients. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,List of Chaplain Corps Medal of Honor recipients), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free tonominate it.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)00:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onFile:Bob Casey at the Metrodome.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is anon-free file from a commercial source (e.g.Associated Press,Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under thenon-free content guidelines, please add the appropriatenon-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting 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 withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.${\displaystyle 999}$REAL💬⬆00:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]