Talk:Wilton Daniel Gregory

Request photo
I have a publicity photo of the Archbishop ready to upload, but apparently it is against policy to do so. If anyone has a self-made or otherwise free picture of him, please upload to Commons and link to this article. &mdash; Eoghanacht  talk 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Web041119-ArchbishopGregoryPortrait 001-8x10-edit.jpg
Copyright violation. This image is taken from the website of the Archdiocese of Washington found here. Farragutful 12:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No violation. A side-by-side comparison clearly shows that, while similar, this is not the same photo as the one which appears on the Archdiocesan website. X4n6 07:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No violation. Just compare the hands. One may wonder about the source, but "taken from the website" is certainly not the case. 2600:1000:B06A:8718:49C2:FF:6DF7:BEE2 11:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no evidence that the image is free of copyright, which is required for use by Wikimedia. Sundayclose 15:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Response - That's not how it works, Sundayclose. Not all free images say they are free. However, all images that are not free do clearly say that. Please take a position and uphold it, instead of jumping from claim to claim. First, you said this image was taken from the website. Now it is clear this is not the same image. You need to acknowledge that error first. This image may not have even been taken the same day or the same year. And since we don't know who the photographer is, we don't have provenance. Further, the photo that you insist on using is poor quality with no context. Certainly not the quality for an Infobox of a prominent, living subject. But I'll move this discussion to the talk at WP, so we can keep it in one place. X4n6 03:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that's how it works. For use by Wikimedia there must be clear evidence that it is not under copyright, which has not been provided. And I haven't been "jumping from claim to claim". Please drop the straw man argument. The is from the same photo shoot as the image on the website. The quality of the image you claim I "insist on using" is irrelevant; it's a free image and thus should be used instead of a copyrighted image. If we had to follow your argument of "poor quality means we can use a copyrighted image", there would be many thousands of copyrighted images used on Wikimedia websites that cannot be used because their free counterparts are of poor quality. This is a legal issue, not an assessment of the photographic quality of images. Sundayclose 03:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You make far too many assumptions and treat them as fact. How do you know: "Th[is]e is from the same photo shoot as the image on the website."? You don't. You assume. Because the archbishop is wearing the same vestments? You obviously don't realize he's worn the same vestments for years. 37 years, in fact. He's been a bishop since 1983! He's also posed in front of that same generic background for years as well. And how do you know the Archdiocese owns all the photos in the photoshoot? You don't. You assume. All you know is the photograph on the Archdiocesan site falls under their website's copyright. You don't know who the photographer was, and/or who owns any copyright, if one even exists, of any photos not used on that site. You don't know. You assume. So if you want to discuss strawman arguments, I suggest you look in the mirror. Additionally, you erroneously conflate two separate things. I said this photograph lacks provenance. That's true. I also said the photo you wanted to use was a poor quality image. That's also true. But they are also completely separate issues, addressed separately. So I never combined them. You did that all by yourself. But then you lied and tried to claim I did. You need to stop lying. It's just more of your strawmen. Finally, as I correctly advised you on WP, there are rules for copyright images, free-use images and fair-use images. So before attempting to lecture anyone else on the differences, you need to learn them yourself. I offered a solution for this image on WP. But as for this image's inclusion here on WM, since there is no clear evidence of a copyvio and only false claims mistaking this image for a similar one posted on a website, I vote:
 * Nor do you know who owns the copyright, and without the evidence that it is free of copyright it cannot be used. You make far too many assumptions. And apparently from your second !vote below you think you have some sort of special privilege that permits you to !vote as many times as you wish. Sundayclose 20:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep X4n6 06:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since more than one !vote is not allowed, and you have made two comments that both could be interpreted ambiguously as !votes, please either delete one of your !votes or combined them into a single !vote. No offense, but you really seem to lack understanding in how this process works. Sundayclose 15:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Image without evidence of copyright status
The image File:Web041119-ArchbishopGregoryPortrait 001-8x10-edit.jpg has been edit warred into this article several times. This image opens Wikipedia up to legal jeopardy. There is no evidence that the photo is not under copyright (see ). The argument that a copyrighted image can be used because the free image is of "poor quality" is absurd. Please take a few minutes to read WP:NFCC. Sundayclose (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I attempted to merge this conversation in the section above, moving it from Wikimedia for simplicity of response. But apparently for some reason, that wasn't good enough for you. So perhaps you will review my comments above and respond here, so I don't have to repeat them. But you have misstated my response. I never said that "a copyrighted image can be used because the free image is of "poor quality." That would indeed be absurd, which is exactly why I never said it. What I said however, correctly, was that you have never established that the image is copyrighted - and you still haven't. Please review WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:IUP and WP:FAIRUSE. X4n6 (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what you said: "the photo that you insist on using is poor quality with no context. Certainly not the quality for an Infobox of a prominent, living subject". And please stop it with the innuendo in your personal comments about me ("jumping from claim to claim"; "apparently for some reason, that wasn't good enough for you"); this isn't about me, it's about the image. Sundayclose (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trying to cherry-pick my response so as to mischaracterize it, when what I said is literally right above, seems unnecessarily argumentative - and a losing argument. What I said - in context - was: "Not all free images say they are free. However, all images that are not free do clearly say that. Please take a position and uphold it, instead of jumping from claim to claim. First, you said this image was taken from the website. Now it is clear this is not the same image. You need to acknowledge that error first. This image may not have even been taken the same day or the same year. And since we don't know who the photographer is, we don't have provenance. Further, the photo that you insist on using is poor quality with no context. Certainly not the quality for an Infobox of a prominent, living subject."


 * Luckily, I'm not interested in a non-collaborative pissing contest. Especially when there's an easy solution. So as to not edit war any further, kindly leave the current photo up for now. Tomorrow, I'll see if I can either find or obtain an indisputably free-use image that we can both agree on. I'll provide an update tomorrow. I trust WP will be safe from any possible "legal jeopardy" from the Archdiocese - or anyone else - for that brief amount of time. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree that I quoted you correctly. I'm also glad that you're disengaging from your pissing contest and that you don't intend to edit war any further. If your concern for copyright violation is any indication of your understanding of copyright law, we certainly can't trust your judgment about any legal jeopardy Wikipedia might be in. Sundayclose (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You suffer from projection. Now that I know, I'll get an image that will be above any editor's reproach on WP and/or WM. Which is more than can be said for your attitude in either place. But feel free to have the last word. It's obviously your oxygen. X4n6 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Claims of Copyvio on new photos
For those who claim there is a problem with the new photos I added to the article, all they need to do is look at the Archdiocesan website itself, here. It clearly says: "The images below are free use and in the public domain." How much clearer does it need to be? X4n6 (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Vestments in photos

 * , yes, I have reverted you twice. Now please observe MOS:HON and do not restore honorifics where they do not belong. You have been advised that discretionary sanctions apply. Elizium23 (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You were warring, so I gave you a polite warning when, given the fact that you were roundly - and incorrectly - reverting all my edits, I could have taken much stronger measures. Furthermore, you have misread MOS:HON. I suggest you review the Mother Theresa example. Accordingly, MOS:SIR really applies to professional (religious) titles. Not MOS:HON. One more thing: since that subject's titles change, it is important to reflect that. A photo taken when he was an archbishop vs when he became a cardinal, should provide the reader that information. Otherwise, what's the point? So you should self-revert on article, just as you did at Commons. X4n6 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit-war, so you've had an equal number of reverts. And you're wrong about MOS:HON and you're new to the topic of Catholic bishops, so perhaps you should listen to those of us who have years of experience and thousands of edits in the topic area, k?
 * However, I agree with you on the captions. If they're not too long, I have extended them to explain that Gregory is a cardinal in one and a bishop in another. I think it's very useful information to have, in case someone doesn't know the difference. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You tried to systematically revert every one of my edits, including on Commons, and I had to issue you a 3RR warning to get you to stop. But it takes two to war? Seriously?! It takes one to take responsibility when you're wrong. So you should. Especially when you've already had to self-revert multiple times. As for HON, don't tell me I'm wrong. I gave you the example of Mother Theresa, which is in HON! But what was your response? Crickets. So if you want to debate, fine. Try giving a rebuttal first. As for listening to you on bishops? Easy response there. See WP:OWN, k? But good on you for understanding that it is useful to distinguish between archbishops and cardinals. Amazing how I knew that - and I haven't even been editing Catholic bishops for thousands of edits! But sure, thanks for kind of self-reverting that too. But Gregory was an archbishop at the time of the photo. Not a bishop. It's useful to make that distinction too. Cheers. X4n6 (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't buy it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "We?" So your delusion now includes the "royal we?" Worse case of OWN I've ever seen. X4n6 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "We?" So your delusion now includes the "royal we?" Worse case of OWN I've ever seen. X4n6 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"vested as"
You know, I've thought about your edits saying Gregory is "vested as..." Objectively, I've realized there's a serious problem with that. The suggestion is that Gregory was "vested" as a cardinal or "vested" as an archbishop, as though his vestments someone endowed his status. I'm pretty sure we can both agree that's very wrong. He was either an archbishop or cardinal at the time. You or I could wear those vestments. It would mean nothing about us. I can't imagine a photo of Queen Elizabeth with a caption, "Elizabeth, vested as a queen." She is Queen Elizabeth, whether she's wearing a crown and cloak or not. The caption may say Queen Elizabeth in her royal vestments, but it wouldn't suggest she was only queen because of the wardrobe she was modeling. Just as his vestments don't make him an archbishop or cardinal. He was either at the time. So there's something profoundly wrong about inferring anything different. He wasn't modeling vestments in those photos. Think about it. This is about getting it right. So I'd prefer that you restore the original edits so there is no more warring - or explain your thoughts if you disagree. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't buy it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hard to argue with such an expansive and well-considered elucidation. So done. X4n6 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I'm technically a "lapsed" confirmed Catholic in their terms, I have idea about the intricacies of archbishop or cardinal vestments. But I don't think vestment of a queen is a very good comparison since AFAIK, such terms are not used. However as the article Coronation of Elizabeth II demonstrates, it's perfectly fine to say . Crowned is probably closest comparison here, and as that example and other examples there and elsewhere demonstrate, it's perfectly fine to say she was crowned Queen at that time. Yet as the phrase The king is dead, long live the king!, there's no question that Elizabeth II was queen of all those from the moment her father died, but the coronation and crowning and all that other stuff still happened. Of course accession to the throne unless by abdication or similar, is a sort of an odd time for most modern monarchs. Sure you're now the sovereign, whatever you may think of that, but it also means some relative, generally a parent, just died. Whether this means anything for Gregory, as said I have no idea. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * TBH, not sure I followed your entire point. But I did get where you seem to be agreeing that "vested as" isn't the right way to go. As I said, I think you correctly identify the person by their title, not their apparel. X4n6 (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that this is a visual medium, and a photo caption should explain the visuals. "Vested as a bishop" and "Vested as a cardinal" refer to very specific configurations of vestments, which can be looked up by a curious reader, and will explain e.g. the tinge of scarlet rather than amaranth on his zucchetto in the Mass photo, etc. Also it avoids fucking with MOS:HON which you seem to love doing. Elizium23 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Careful, your blood pressure! And vulgarity on the talk page for a cardinal?!! Surely even you are capable of exhibiting more decorum - and more class. Also, see NOTGALLERY. We are more than just a "visual medium." If your only interest is in images, maybe you'd be more at home at Commons. This is an encyclopedia. Here, the words matter. So what I love is getting them right for the readers, 100% of whom don't know and couldn't care less about your fixation on MOS:HON - which by the way, it's past time someone reminds you - is just a guideline. It is NOT a policy. X4n6 (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 99/100 references to NOTGALLERY are inappropriate, but rarely as spectacularly so as this one! Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It served my purpose. Glad you liked it! X4n6 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: description of photos
How should these two photos be captioned?

I don't have a very strong opinion on this (I just like to pop in on open RfCs), so you all can take it or leave it. jp×g 18:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or endlessly fiddle with it.... Does the first convey anything that "Cardinal Gregory in December 2020" doesn't? Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I dunno. I figured it was worth a shot. It doesn't really make a difference to me either way. jp×g 18:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional note: I see that the second image has been nominated for deletion for quite some time on Commons, due to a potential copyright issue. I don't know how this affects the current discussion, but it might be prudent to consider that the whole debate here might be pointless if one of the images ends up getting nuked. jp×g 18:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Very true, unfortunately. But some editors are determined to say it is the same photo as one taken from the church's website. They haven't closely inspected the two images. It's possible that the Archdiocese owns the photo on their website, but the photographer donated another photo from that photo session. Which, as far as we know, would be his right to do. There are subtle, but very clear differences between the two photos: like the position of his hands; the number of visible buttons on his cassock; the position of his Crucifix, etc. But those facts have fallen on deaf ears over there, so it may very well get deleted. Which would be a shame, because the article will have one less image. X4n6 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an accepted procedure, through WP:OTRS, for the author of content to donate said content to Wikimedia under a compatible license, so if desires to go that route then we can remove any doubt of his right to license the image. We are unable to just accept his word at face value. While I don't doubt that it is the truth, we just have too many problems with people lifting content they don't own, claiming that they do, and slapping a CC license on top of it. Elizium23 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To presume that everyone who wants to contribute to this project with their images knows exactly how to do it, is a leap of presumption that I definitely would never make. But my point is much more specific. Which is that it is clearly provable, by direct comparison, that two separate but similar images exist - and the one not on the Archdiocesan website is the one that appears above and in our article. X4n6 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that there are 2 different images, and that this one is very rarely (but not never) used, but it doesn't matter. It's clear as you yourself acknowledge, that this is a professional or at least semi-professional taken photograph. In cases like that, we need more information to confirm the uploader is really the photographer. We generally don't presume anything, especially when it commons to copyright. We are here to help people follow the procedures. Unfortunately, if they aren't active here, there's not much we can do until they come back. The image will have to be deleted until they do so. If you care that much, you could try emailing the editor, it's possible that may be more likely to get their attention.  BTW, as I understand it, the widely distributed image in question was on the Archdiocese of Washington's website. However, it seems fairly unlikely that said Archdiocese owns the copyright, unless Catholic Church is a lot more sophisticated on copyright than I personally suspect they are, and they bother to transfer copyright. Instead, it seems likely either the archdiocese of Atlanta or the photographer or some sub or higher entity (e.g. the Georgia Bulletin, the Catholic Church of the US) owns the copyright. So "" is likely incorrect. (As I mentioned in the deletion discussion, this also raises the question of why the uploader aka copyright holder calls themselves DC.) This is why copyright can get very complicated and we don't simply assume stuff.  Note also that if this photo did come from the same photo shoot, we have another problem. The widely distributed photograph has existed since at least 2017, and TinEye suggests maybe even 2014 although I didn't investigate further since it seemed moot. Yet the uploader stated it was from 11 April 2019, the date in the file name. So assuming it's from the same photo session and the photographer decided to donate it, has a major snag. (I'm not actually sure it is, I think it's too hard to say.)  Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to take this too OT, but I suspect the 'decided to donate' has another major problem. If the copyright of other photo really belongs with some archdiocese, how did that happen? Was it a copyright transfer of specific photos? I guess that would allow the photographer to donate any photo where they didn't transfer the copyright, although the fact that this photo seems to have been used for the farewell mass banner [//archatl.com/events/farewell-mass-for-archbishop-gregory/] calls this into question. The alternative is it's a work for hire, and I'm fairly sure taking photos where you retain the copyright in the middle of a work for hire, is "complicated". Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Top by far. Second is, essentially, an unwieldy pile of words; Johnbod's suggestion goes to the opposite extreme and cuts useful information. JpxG's isn't bad, but I think cutting the description of what he's actually doing was for the worse. (It's obvious to most readers, sure. I wouldn't like to assume all.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But "Gregory vested as a bishop" is wrong, as he is not wearing vestments, but normal office dress (no doubt there is a term). Equally "Archbishop Gregory portrait" is clearly ungrammatical. The bottom Cardinal one is just too long, and for the top one, other than his cap it is not clear his vestments are specific to a cardinal. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , it might be splitting hairs to say he is not "vested" because they are not, strictly speaking, "vestments".
 * How about "Gregory in bishop's choir dress" — is that exact enough? It's concise and descriptive. Links to a whole other article. Elizium23 (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly better. "Vested" is vanishingly rare in British English usage, and ought to be generally avoided under WP:COMMONALITY imo, & certainly only used when actual vestments are worn. Normal everyday clerical dress is certainly not "vestments" and describing it that way is bound to confuse people less familiar with the subject area.  It's certainly not something one wants to base one of WP's silliest arguments of recent years upon.  Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 99/100 references to COMMONALITY ignore that it is a guideline, not a policy. "Vested" is also not "vanishingly rare British English usage." Neither of the 2 definitions for the adjective "vested" in the Merriam Webster Dictionary; or in the Cambridge Dictionary; have any relevance to the noun "vestment". And per Merriam Webster, "vestment" has the 13th century pedigree, not "vested," which as used here, is not even encyclopedic. Also "choir dress" will just confuse 99/100 readers, since the phrase differs so much from its obvious meaning; is not in dictionaries; and even means something else on Amazon. So instead of clarity, it would just cause confusion. All the more reason why putting the focus on his apparel instead of his achievement is one of WP's silliest arguments of recent years. Try again. X4n6 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to - the dicdefs you quote make my point just fine. Gregory is clearly NOT "vested" in any of the senses given. I should have said "vanishingly rare as regards wearing clothes in British English usage" - I was aware of the financial instrument usage, and indeed the feudal and military siege ones. The OED meaning II does in fact mention ecclesiastical vestments in a couple of meanings - given the verb "vest" is the root word for both "invest" and "vestment" it would be odd if it had lost all connection to that sense.  Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your response engages two parallel tracks at once. I'll take the second one first. Your second point is simply an invitation to a disquisition on the etymology of the root "vest;" which would likely be of interest only to the true grammarians on this project. However, as an answer to your rumination, Oxford Languages says the root "vest" also seems to run two parallel tracks: one from the Latin "vestire" to the Old French "vestir," then to "vestu" on one track; then from the Latin "vestis" to Italian to the French "veste" on the other. There is also the matter of "vest" in its noun and verb forms; and the various English derivations from each. But all those discussions are likely better suited for other pages - perhaps here or here.
 * Your response engages two parallel tracks at once. I'll take the second one first. Your second point is simply an invitation to a disquisition on the etymology of the root "vest;" which would likely be of interest only to the true grammarians on this project. However, as an answer to your rumination, Oxford Languages says the root "vest" also seems to run two parallel tracks: one from the Latin "vestire" to the Old French "vestir," then to "vestu" on one track; then from the Latin "vestis" to Italian to the French "veste" on the other. There is also the matter of "vest" in its noun and verb forms; and the various English derivations from each. But all those discussions are likely better suited for other pages - perhaps here or here.


 * As to your first point, while we do agree that the term "vested" fails here; my hope is to build consensus for the larger point: that any captions which focus on Gregory's apparel rather than his position, entirely miss the point. He's not some human mannequin modeling the latest fashion in clerical garb. He was the Archbishop of Atlanta at the time of the image. So that's all the caption needs to say. As to the infobox image, any caption that fails to mention his elevation to the cardinalate would miss that point even more. It's not at all complicated. I hope most editors will agree. X4n6 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The infobox image needs no caption. It's Gregory, the subject of this WP article. As WP:CAPLENGTH says: "Infoboxes normally display the page name as the title of the infobox. If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image, then the caption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox." Nothing more about the image "needs to be said". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * CAPLENGTH is just a guideline. It is not a policy. This photo is not a generic image of Gregory at a generic Mass. Its historical significance has to be noted in the caption. Even CAPLENGTH acknowledges the full-sentence caption when an image "can convey the significance of the article by explaining the significance or context of the image." X4n6 (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And I think you inflate the significance of the occasion. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Then when you can point to the celebration of the elevation of another Roman Catholic African-American cardinal, you be sure and let us know. X4n6 (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Top shorter, clearer captions. The image pages should have a more in depth description, these are not needed here. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed solution
Thanks to everyone for weighing in. The deep dive that made was particularly interesting. Not to mention, what had to be time-consuming. So rather than belabor the point any further, because I think we've done about as much sleuthing as we reasonably can - everything from side-by-side comparisons; to questions of authorship; and even head scratching over when the photo was taken - I'd like to suggest a solution. But first, I can't help but be reminded of Rumsfeld's famous line:"Because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns."

Gets me every time! Anyway, perhaps it's time to try a different approach. First, let's target what seems to be consensus. I've heard no one say the photo in question is not a quality image, or one that is not useful in the article. So I'll presume we have unanimous consent that having it in the article is a good thing. The next question becomes can we use it. The current direction seems to suggest likely not. So the solution is pretty simple: we seek permission. Unfortunately, regarding the author/contributor, this was clearly a one-and-done. No talk page, no other contributions or evidence of discussion elsewhere. So rather than speculating on the authorship, why not just contact the Archdiocese of Atlanta and ask if it is their photo, and if not, who is the photographer and can we get that person's contact info? Better still, if they own the copyright, see if they're willing to send a release to OTRS? If it's not theirs, surely they can point us in the right direction. Perhaps it was before his assignment to Atlanta. Or even his current posting in DC. Either way, Atlanta would seem to be the smart start. And quickly, before the file gets deleted at Commons. Bottomline, rather than continue speculating, someone just needs to ask them. That is, if we can agree that's a reasonable solution. X4n6 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with contacting the Archdiocese. They likely own the image. Sundayclose (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyedit
you wrote "clean up spacing & grammar errors". I don't see any grammar errors at all. As for spacing, it's highly unusual that an article would have a space after "Category:" I suppose there is no MOS rule, but it's simply not done as a matter of course. What made you decide to apply this novel style at this time? Elizium23 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a new editor who has made a number of similar edits and made some less than helpful edits to text as well. S/he has been warned and reversed by others. I'll reverse this edit, understanding why you don't want to. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Web041119-ArchbishopGregoryPortrait 001-8x10-edit.jpg

A Statistic of Possible Interest
I just did a word count comparison between the text of the article itself (stopping at the list of references) and this talk page (not counting user name signature tags). My methodology may not have been exact, but the ratio I arrived at was 2,154 to 6,515. In other words, the talk page is three times the length of the article.The tamale (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)