User talk:Lukascb

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Debbie0007.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lukascb! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 31 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mimi Jabalee - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Mimi Jabalee, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Jabalee until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia : The Missing Manual; John Broughton; O'Reilly Media; 312 pages; 2008; ISBN 9780596515164. (Download 30MB PDF eBook) (Online HTML eBook)

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lukascb. I suggest you peruse the policy about galleries. Image galleries are meant to illustrate aspects of the article, not to show everything possible. Images should be chosen carefully. The commons box points the reader to all additional images. I am going to reduce the number of images in the gallery in Holy Name Parish per this guideline. Also, in your edits you reverted my edits. It is required to leave an edit summary explaining this. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lukascb, We appear to keep crossing paths regarding the RC church buildings and church architects. I'm a real fan of all the information that you've enthusiastically been adding to this site. Your sources are great. As someone with similar interests, I'd be very interested if you shared the book list you've been consulting. Is this a hobby for you or related to your profession? (Do you teach?) I started on Wikipedia a while ago and was a slow learner. On the other hand, you've hit the ground running. Nevertheless, here are some tips I've slowly picked up that might help you:

• According to the last Wikipedia meet-up I went to, there is no definitive format for building article titles. However, titles should be as specific as possible. For instance, instead of St. Joseph's Church, present it as St. Joseph's Church (Stamford, Connecticut). There are many Stamford's throughout the world, so it needs to be clarified as Stamford, Connecticut.
  • How to clarify the location of a church or historic building is an ongoing battle at the moment with Wikipedians in the UK, preferring to separate the title and location with a comma. However, in the US, because most of the locations needs to be specified with states, two commas are confusing and the preferred method for clarity is to place the location in St. Mary's Church (town, state).
  • Constructing the title is equally tricky. I've noticed many people prefer to lead the title off with the dedication (hence, St. Mary's Church, instead of Church of St. Mary). This is shorter, more recognizable, and doesn't need a DEFAULTSORT tag. The title, Church of St. Mary, can then be used as a redirect page. However, when the dedication is more complicated, such as the Holy Rood, I prefer to default back to Church of the Holy Rood.
  • Possessives are also up for grabs. I use them. Some other people don't. I think their absence sounds incorrect in a title.
  • Denomination clarification: I prefer to keep the title as simple as possible and not add St. Mary's RC Church, or St. Mary's R.C. Church, or St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church, or St. Mary's Catholic Church, precisely because there are these four potential titles. It's not uncommon that two or more articles exist about the same subject camouflaged by these titles. Easier to drop the denomination listing altogether.

Since the article title already includes a location, it is likely that the only possible church of the same dedication in the same town is Episcopal. Episcopal churches almost always have the denomination on their notice board outside and they are always listed as just Episcopal without any derivation (Anglican can refer to a church outside the PECUSA, and the term Protestant Episcopal is rarely used). Dedications to United Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian are equally straightforward. It's only with the RC churches that there is often confusion, and again, it's not uncommon that an RC church sign will not clarify that it is Catholic, whereas Protestant churches are generally very good about providing a full title.

• • Throughout all of the church articles I've come across, they are titled "Church" and not "Parish." Even if the article is written about the parish, which has had a number of parish churches.

I realize that some parishes have a parish church and chapels of ease and mission churches, but am just telling you that I haven't seen any parish article listings. These details are generally referred to in the church article under different chapter headings.

• Please use footnotes. Your articles are consistently being flagged by bots for not having the cited information. This is incorrect since you include one or more book titles in the reference section. To prevent this in the future, it would be best that you imagine the history of your article after its creation. Others may add to it (possibly unsubstantiated facts). To clean up the article, it would be difficult to determine your cited facts from the unsubstantiated ones. To solve this, after each sentence that was generated by a fact, please use a ^[1] and then after that ^[2]. If you're going to be citing separate page numbers, it might be easier to just use standard ^[3], ^[4], tags.
  • Use the citation gadget (to activate, locate under user preferences), this can help you archive a website that you're referring to.
  • When citing a website, archived or not, please include the full name and accessdate: "Wikipedia" Wikipedia Home Page (Accessed 18 January 2011)
  • When citing a newspaper archive (since more and more of the online content is becoming unavailable), feel free to include a quote or some relevant part to indicate why the article is being cited.
• Since you are generating so much info for these articles, try and use [[]] internal links as much as possible for subjects that are likely to exist (such as architect names, locations, and architectural styles), to see better connect your article with the rest of Wikipedia.
• Finally, chapter titles: Apart from spelling, be sure to only capitalize the first word of the chapter title (unless the second word, etc. is part of a proper name). Also, the common format for biographies on Wikipedia has "Early life and education" (even for architects), instead of "Childhood and architectural education".

I certainly didn't mean to dump this on you but these are a few tips that I've learned over the years that I would haven liked to know when I started. Since you're generating so much content, it might be useful to you. Keep up the good work. --James R (talk) 18 January 2011

Another note, the historic building info box has sections for construction start date and construction completion date, as well as for architects, engineers, and builders. There's even categories for buildings to reflect this: C: 1896 architecture, C: Buildings and structures completed in 1897

One format that is widely recognized to write about historic buildings goes like this: X Church was built 1890-1891 by name of builder (if known) of builder company (if separate) to the 1888 (year of original design if separate) designs of primary architects name of architect's firm (if separate).

I'm no expert but for RC churches, dedication dates refer to when the church was dedicated, not necessarily when they were completed. This is just something interesting that learned (very basic but occasionally clarified a matter). Dedication of a RC church can only go forward when the land the church is built on is fully paid off. I worked on a church that had been completed in the late 1890s but only dedicated in the 1930s. The time difference just referred to the debts incurred.

The style classifications are not that advance, however for US structures the historicist styles are always described as Revivals, hence

Romanesque Revival architecture instead of Romanesque architecture or Romanesque style, (ditto for Gothic).

As I've mentioned, I'm no expert on Wikipedia but I can't find the email address you referred to that was linked to your page. I'd be very interested in discussing your research further and helping you however I can. My email is my just my surname at gmail.com. Feel free to contact me.--James R (talk) 19 January 2011

It might be helpful for you to contact me and share some of your information. I see you've been contacted about the lack of citations and the formatting problems you've had in your template. Perhaps I could help review the article template, and you would just have to delete the irrelevant categories. Regardless, you've got to clean up the stuff before the time stamp starts deleting. One main problem is your default search tag listing everything by city. While the right to do that for parishes is still being decided, churches are listed by dedication. That type of mistake flags an article to be reviewed.--James R (talk) 21 January 2011

The article Holy Name of Jesus Church (Stratford, Connecticut) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The article St. James Church (Stratford, CT) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you create an article about the parish, please name it as "Parish" not a "Church". The parish is the area and the church is building. Good luck in writing new articles about the parishes. But most will be deleted, as those that I wrote by myself, because they must have a good sources.--WlaKom (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you slow down a bit and show how these churches (or parishes) are notable? Instead of creating so many articles so quickly, you need to create better articles. Why does each one of these merit its own article? It should be clear from the article, and it is not. LadyofShalott 02:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take your time. There is no hurry. You should not be publishing an article about Fairfield, Connecticut full of links to Farfield, Connecticut. You are also still not giving any indication of how these churches/parishes are notable. LadyofShalott 02:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Are you looking at these messages at all? Do you proofread at all? You have now created your third article with links to the nonexistant Farfield, Connecticut. Would you please slow down your article creation just a bit and try to create articles of higher quality so that others don't have to clean up your mess? LadyofShalott 02:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

...And I think we are up to five with the same mistake you apparently don't mind leaving for others to fix for you. So it is quite clear you are completely ignoring these messages. Thanks, LadyofShalott 03:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Let me ask a question as well: Sacred Heart Church (Georgetown, Connecticut), is that about a church or a parish? The article says parish. The name says church. Same for St. Thomas Acquinas Church (Fairfield, Connecticut). Drmies (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Please stop entering not known in infoboxes. First of all, if you don't know, just leave it blank. Second, don't put wikilinks around it--"not known" is not an article, nor will it ever be. Note, I said "please", but since you keep repeating the same thing over and over and completely fail to communicate, you should not be surprised to find that editors' patience is wearing thin. This kind of behavior quickly becomes disruptive. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please stop changing how the articles are sorted by location and revert you edits. You created mess in related categories. If you want to sort by patron one of the category, you can add {{|PAGENEME}} after the name of the category. Also you can use it or make another category, similar to Category:Church building disambiguation pages. --WlaKom (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am running WP:AWB over pages you have edited to check for formatting issues. Nothing personal, just checking against the WP:MOS. Thanks, --Darkskynet (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think by now there are at least three editors changing your "parish" to "church." I think that should be a sufficient indication that you should change your editing ways. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this user even reads his talk page....(not to be rude) --Darkskynet (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

STOP - Please stop and listen

For: Church and Parish articles

Sorry to use the big picture, but I had to grab your attention - A few users would like to talk with you about the recent church and parish articles you have been making.

Please come and talk to us at User_talk:Lukascb/Church

Thank you for your attention. --Darkskynet (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The article St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Please do participate in the AFD discussion. Note another editor and i have added about 60 more new church articles to the AFD. Although this may seem negative, I do hope it will be productive in clarifying what Wikipedia standards for articles are for you, and that it will help in your contributing to Wikipedia going forward. I myself have enjoyed creating and editing articles on churches that are historic and notable, as established by NRHP listing. --doncram 16:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The AFD is now larger, and may now include all 48 Parish articles in Massachusetts although those have not yet been named and individually tagged for deletion. Lukascb, i appreciate that you are online and improving several articles, and appropriately consulting a few editors. Please do take some time to familiarize yourself with AFD processes any way you want, by consulting others or by reading up at wp:AFD or elsewhere, but you will need to comment within the AFD. You are welcome to begin to comment there now. You don't need to understand everything about the processes to begin to comment. My point with the AFD, and what others wish for too, is not to ensure deletion of all of these, though that is what i technically propose. I and others would hope the AFD will lead to improvement and keeping of a good number of the articles. Your familiarity with the churches and parishes and sources you have used in starting these, would help now in informing some good compromise. Or perhaps your sources are good and the great majority of these will be kept. Where you are adding pics, I will say that the pics are pretty convincing visually to me. Your developing a few example articles, and if you can honestly assert that equivalent development is possible for others, would also go a long way. There is a disconnect between sources u know about, vs. sources i and others know about. I and others are familiar with and accept NRHP nomination documents; we are unfamiliar with sources you might have. Sharing about them would help.

I commented in the AFD that "The creator of articles really needs to comment here about the sources used in these, and suggest some approach to separating notable vs. non-notable ones. All the parishes could possibly be listed within archdiocese articles, and brief info be given there about them, without creating separate articles for them / with deletion of the existing articles after info is copied over."

Hope this helps. --doncram 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are doing things on here. Please take a little time to come comment in the AfD discussion. LadyofShalott 17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've tried to write what I believe was your project here []. Your library research and sorting through pdfs are very valuable and I hope that your work is not deleted. Try to archive as much of it as you can now. As I've said before, I'd be very interested to see it. Since you continually return to the articles and flesh them out with more notable details, I think they should have some time to mature from stub status. It might be helpful if you clarified that your work is cited and comes from yor research collection. --James R (talk) 24 January 2011

You added a link to a well-referenced article, but the article itself still only has one reference. More would be better. Good article BTW. If you could find some more references, you could nominate it on DYK. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 04:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to persuade you, to create the articles in your sandbox User:Lukascb/Sandbox. When you finish your articles and possible consultation with other Users, you can move them to the main space. Assuming that you do not know how to do it, let me add examples to your sandbox. See Also you can make your draft Wikipedia:Subpages as User:Lukascb/name of the new article. After moving text to the main space, you can delete it. Good luck. --WlaKom (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note my request, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)#One list needed and comment or volunteer to make a list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at Talk:James Murphy (architect) and notice the templates used for the architect, and also the historical information about the church added to the description of the image in Wikimedia Commons. This technique should be used in any articles about church architects you create or update.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is now a discussion on the notability of churches at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Notability_for_parishes_or_churches.

I think this should help in retaining many of the articles that you've written, but please remember that the ultimate practical determinant of notability in Wikipedia is the number of references you can get (an overly mechanical approach would be to say if you get 3 references, your articles should be safe - but it depends on the quality of the references and what they actually say). Please also note the importance of asserting notability: in the lede you might say something like "this church is important because ..."

If I can help you in any way - perhaps in userfying some articles - please let me know. And I'm sorry that folks have jumped all over you on this. Editors can get wrapped up in what they are doing to the point that they ignore other's contributions (or worse).

Sincerely,

Smallbones (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's deal with this from a purely practical point of view. You've got a reason to put a lot of material onto Wikipedia - what hoops are your fellow editors going to make you jump through to put it here?

• • Sources, sources, sources. See WP:Reliable Sources - they don't have to be on-line, they don't have to be major newspapers or scholarly journals. See the bottom of Talk:Salvation Army Headquarters (Saint Paul, Minnesota) for how one editor got in archival material.
    • If the diocese has an organized archive that people can access, you can use that as one source. Note that you should include some of that material - it should say something interesting, and some editors might quibble that it is a "primary source" - which is considered less important in establishing notability.
    • Local library, see. e.g. [] and talk to Mary Witkowski - she'll know other sources!
    • Local newspapers, maybe at the library, maybe via their own websites and archives. You never know - they may have had a series on historic churches!
    • Google Books - works best for old buildings
    • Historic American Buildings at the Library of Congress
    • include something from the church's own website, e.g. the priest's name, some of their programs (maybe foreign language programs) - It's a primary source so doesn't officially establish notability, but it will convince some editors that there is some underlying notability nonetheless.
    • Other websites, historical or otherwise, try to establish reliability. "Is it edited to establish accuracy?"

• • Relation to other notable things - the rule is that notability is not inherited - but this will help establish underlying (unofficial) notability.
    • There are 20 NRHP historic districts in Bridgeport - see National Register of Historic Places listings in Bridgeport, Connecticut and Focus - if they are in the district it will help. If they are "contributing buildings" you're almost there. Check this out in detail!
    • Burials - anybody famous buried there? If they are on Wikipedia, list them.
    • Historic events, notable visitors or parishioners (Did the Pope visit? (automatic notability) How about Mother Theresa, Desmond Tutu, or the Dali Lama? (almost automatic) Did the Archbishop consecrate the church? Is the mayor a parishioner?

• • Take photos, get details, talk to people - you're likely to dig something up unexpected. At the worst you'll convince others that you think the church is notable - and that might be half the battle. On the photos, make sure to get the tip of the steeple and use widely available software to make sure the steeple is straight!

There's a lot more, but that should be a start. If you don't think you can do something like this move the article into your sandbox User:Lukascb/Sandbox to give you time to work on it, or maybe do an article on the diocese rather than individual churches.

Enough for now. Good luck.

Smallbones (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The article St. Agnes Church (Greenwich, Connecticut) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Regular run of the mill church. No indication of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ravendrop (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you've come across the architect name for St. Francis Xavier's Church (Bronx, New York), please add it now as the article is currently going to be deleted without it. Please bring references. If this article goes (with eleven references), there's little hope for most church articles. I'd still be very interested if you shared with me some of the research you have collected. I've been trying to collect the info on New York City works.---James R (talk)

Or perhaps you could weigh in on the discussion.---James R (talk)

Hi, thanks for looking into the above St. Francis Xavier's Church (Bronx, New York). If you have an opinion on keeping the article, you can always (I think, not up to date on the Wiki rules) vote to Keep or Delete. Would like to share some of my grievances with you as well. Regarding your recent addition of a "reference to architect and dedication" to Our Lady of Good Counsel's Church (Staten Island, New York), I thank you but I've substituted your spelling of Genovese and Madeline with Genovese & Maddalene of 175 Rock Road, Glen Rock, New Jersey (for 1968 church)^[5] This may be a mistake on my part, as it was with Louis C. Giele to Louis H. Giele, but that was a typo in the AIA Guide to NYC (2010). The Maddalene spelling comes from the NYC Building permit archives, which are known to have misspellings but that's my only source. Could you cite your reference for the architect and dedication date? Thanks---James R (talk)

Is this what you referring to as the bite? If it did not come across, I was thanking you for your efforts on S.FX Church, BX, commiserating with you on the AfDs, and commenting/questioning the spellings of the architects (since you have access to more sources than I have), and you caught a mistake in the AIA Guide to NYC (2010). Hope you did not take this to be an unfriendly request on the spelling and sources.---James R (talk)

Many many thanks for providing the architect names for those Bronx churches. You've caught another error in the new AIA Guide. MY X is my last name at gmail.com.