User talk:Esoglou

"Sorry, Mom, I can't talk about that. I'm too tied up just now."

WARNING

THIS EDITOR HAS A SENSE OF HUMOUR THAT OTHERS FIND OFFENSIVE

I am keeping this image, which amuses me, although others have interpreted it as a laugh not at the person who until 17 December 2012 was tied up (me) - much less restrictively than in the picture - but at the person who had me tied up.

edit

hello. I did not put "JHVH". You need to check that again. I put "Y" HVH. The only thing is the "V"...but it was still "Y" in the beginning. Also, in other parts of the very same article, reference is made to "YHVH". You can look that up, that that has been a representation of the Tetragrammaton too. So I agree that "JHVH" is not a representation of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew. (In Latin but not in Hebrew). But "V" has also been used in Hebrew some times. And is verified. Cheers. Gabby Merger (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In my edit summary I did mention "YHVH", saying that I think it is not used in English. It would perhaps be used in other languages, as "JHVH" in Slav languages, "JHWH" in German. Is there a reliable source that says "YHVH" is used in English? Esoglou (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I believe so. I think Merriam-Webster has been used on Wikipedia, as a RS. It says:

Definition of TETRAGRAMMATON.

the four Hebrew letters usually transliterated YHWH or JHVH that form a biblical proper name of God.

So yeah, it's not the main representation, but it has been used. But I wouldn't put "JHVH", but rather "Y"HVH. Because the form "Yahve", has been used sometimes. Gabby Merger (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That source does not give your "YHVH". It gives instead, you tell me, "JHVH", what I mentioned as a Slavic transcription and what you say you did not put. Can you find a reliable English source for what you did put: "YHVH"? Esoglou (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Analyzing it further, I think you may have a point. I do see "YHVH" in sources, but they don't seem to be what WP would consider "reliable" per se. (Even if it's true). My point too is that in the body of the article itself, reference was made to the form "YHVH". Giving the indication that that is a form too. But if you think "YHVH" should not be there, unless some real solid reliable sources (like maybe Jewish encyclopedias etc), are found, I'll understand. Cheers. Gabby Merger (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course "YHVH" is one of the reliable English transcriptions of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. You can see, for example, the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament and the Jewish Philosophy: An Historical Introduction.-- pvasiliadis  18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have incorporated that alternative transliteration in the article that was discussed here. Esoglou (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

German /J/has the same sound as English /Y/, and German /V/ is English /W/, so when Germans write JHVH they really mean YHWH. No doubt the Slavic copy the German - so does English Jehovah, which is German for Yehowah.PiCo (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, German J is pronounced as English Y. German V is generally pronounced as English F, except in foreign words; it is German W that is pronounced rather like English V (but bilabial, not labiodental). But that is just a slip of the keyboard on your part. The Slavic languages that use V (Polish uses W instead) do not need to copy the German or the English: they have their own orthography. Esoglou (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent

Dear Esoglou,

Since you seem to be a rational soul and know about the « Byzantine » (no pun intended!) subtleties of 'old European' cultural categorization and Church(es) history, I’m writing to draw your attention to the fact that some reckless Wiki-Boeotians want to delete the “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” and the “American of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” categories!

See this page

Your erudite editorial help in the current « deletion debate » would be appreciated

Cordially,

--B.Andersohn (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no need for me to intervene in the way you desire. There is evidently no consensus for deletion of those categories. To give an opinion on usage in the English language, I would have to form one first. In Greek, I might have to take a position opposite to yours, since my Greek dictionary defines λεβαντίνος as a somewhat archaic (παλαιὀτερος) word for Ευρωπαίος εγκατεστημένος στα παράλια της Μικράς Ασίας και της Μέσης Ανατολής (a European settled on the coast of Asia Minor and the Middle East) and in practice the word seems to be used rather pejoratively of Catholics of that area (something not mentioned in the dictionary). Esoglou (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Thanks for your prompt feedback With all due respect, I think your “modern” Greek dictionary is wrong!! “Levantine” tout court (can often) mean(s) something along the lines of “Frankish” = mainly French and Italian, but also Croatian and even Scottish merchants established in WESTERN Turkey and, to a lesser extent, Syria = mainly Roman Catholics... But “of Levantine-Greek Orthodox descent” = “Rûm” Christians specifically in the Hatay/Alexandretta Province of SOUTHERN Turkey + the adjacent Syrian-Lebanese context means altogether something else = adherents of the original Greek Orthodox Church/Patriarchate of Antioch and their descendants in the diasporas of the Americas- including the so-called “Uniat” “Greek Catholics” or "Melkites"... It’s rather complicated- and very much “Byzantine”- no pun intended!  ;) --B.Andersohn (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your definition is the same as the first of those given by Babaniotis (Μπαμπανιώτης) for φραγκολεβαντίνος (Frankish Levantine): ο κάτοικος χώρας της Α. Μεσογείου που εἰχε δυτικοευρωπαϊκή καταγωγή (inhabitant of an Eastern Mediterranean country who was of western European origin). I feel no need to form any personal opinion either of the Greek term or of the English term. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mariology

I did no revert your changes on Mariology article partly because I did not want to start any festivities, partly because they were by and large correct. Yet, what I see is that your feeling is that "what originates in Rome matters most". Yet Mariology is the exception to that as Juan Diego illustrated. And the Blue Army etc. did a lot more for Fatima than most Cardinals. So I will not start a debate on that, but please somehow tone it to reflect the perspective that a lot of it was driven by popular piety and sensus fidelium rather than being decided in the corridors of the CDF. That is all I will say here and will try not to respond further. I hope yo understand. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I had finished work on that article, but now it seems I must revisit it. The article opens by saying that Mariology is "theology concerned with the Virgin Mary". Marian devotions are another thing. They inspire theological reflection, but are not themselves theology. I have difficulty in seeing how Juan Diego and the Blue Army belong under theology rather than under devotions. Events and situations that have inspired literature and music are not themselves literature or music. (The bombardment of Fort McHenry is what the US national anthem is/was about, but it isn't the US national anthem - a perhaps lame comparison.) So I have difficulty in accepting your insertion today of the statement that "popular piety related to Mary" is included in Mariology, especially when you phrase it as if that were the principal part of Mariology, which, you say, contains other matters "as well as" this apparently principal part. To me it seems that Mariology is instead the theological study of popular Marian piety, and of what the New Testament says of her, and of what the Church Fathers say of matters such as prefigurations of her in the Old Testament, and of what the Church's liturgy says of her, and of what is found in episcopal, conciliar and papal statements about her. Of these, the only things that can really be said to be Mariology are the conclusions (which are therefore theology) drawn by theologians (including their hypothetical statements, speculative theology/Mariology that for some reason you excised) and by Church Fathers and other authorities, especially the few dogmatic statements. Scripture and liturgy and popular piety are material that these draw on, but neither Scripture nor popular piety is, properly speaking, theology. Surely we agree on that, and you may wish to rephrase your edit.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines Mariology as "the systematic study of the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of her place in the economy of the Incarnation". Sounds good to me. Esoglou (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the theology phrase came not from my keyboard, but from an old friend who I fear has passed away (but I am not sure, for I never met him) for he has not edited for long. I think he got that definition from Ott's book. The Oxford dictionary item is actually better, if simplified for the economy part will get the average reader confused. I think it is better if you touch up the definition to be study rather than theology. Mariology is the study of Mary, just as Christology is the study of Christ. I followed his edits out of respect because of this. I am almost certain he was there, and he knew the man and the topic pretty well. But perhaps the Oxford definition is better than Ott's. In general this would be a very good source, the way Benedict's quote starts it, etc. But that devotions are a component of Mariology is pretty clear in any case, from Miravalle's book as well. I think we can try "Mariology is the systematic study of the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of her role in ... ". Just need to finish that with a easier to grasp form of the "economy of incarnation". History2007 (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't make out what passage in Miravalle's book (not a cardinal's, as it has been falsely presented in the article) you are referring to. I have searched for "Benedict XVI" in it, but have not found where he speaks of "Mariology", although you say it is at the start. I may have missed it through some oversight. What you mean by this reference is also quite beyond my immediate comprehension. And a Google search has failed to show up any use of the word "Mariology" in Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Giving Miravalle as a chief authority is perhaps for many not the most persuasive evidence.

We can't truncate the ODCC definition. There can be many forms of systematic study of Mary, there are feminist studies of her and there could be studies from, say, an anthropological point of view or a social or ... The phrase "of her place in the economy of the Incarnation" indicates that the systematic study in question is of theological character. So "theological study" would do as a shortened form. Mariology is a branch of theology, and that should not be obscured. Mariology is the theological study of Mary, just as Christology is the theological study of Christ.

Whether Mariology is a generic systematic study or a specifically theological systematic study, it seems obvious to me that Scripture, liturgy and popular piety are not the study, but are instead material that the study works on. So do you still think that your edit making one of these a leading part of the systematic study called Mariology rather than an object that Mariology systematically studies, and your exclusion of a speculative part of the systematic study called Mariology is valid?

The phrase I used above, that Mariology is a branch of theology, can be backed up with John Hardon's New Catholic Dictionary, by Terrence J. McNally's What Every Catholic Should Know about Mary, Jean-Luc Godard's Hail Mary by Maryel Locke and Charles Warren and doubtless by many more. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have said, I am not going to do major editing on this, or other articles as on Jan 1st 2013. In fact, I hope you will watch over these (and the Mariology f teh popes, etc.) now that you are showing interest. The book may have been Bäumer's Marienlexikon I think now. A good source may be this as well - McNally is self published. And yes, "Scripture, liturgy and popular piety" are the objects of the study, not the study itself, just as electrons are not physics. As for the word "hypothetical" I think it puts down the parts that do not come from Rome. That was the reason. I am uncomfortable with that word, so do you have another? History2007 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The article, I see, needs complete rewriting, a heavy task that I am reluctant to take on. I may rewrite the lead, but even that alone requires more than retouching. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ on that issue. But let us see if we can even get the first sentence agreed on. History2007 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed that even the claim "Roman Catholic Mariology includes dogmas, traditions, confirmed theological positions, as well as popular piety related to Mary, contemporary as well as historical" has no basis in the source cited for it. Esoglou (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My friend, look at the August version. You edited it to remove a few things, now noticed the new version does not correspond to the source... History2007 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was you who put in the word "includes". As for the August version, the sources cited, at least those I have access to, speak of Mary, not of Mariology. I had better post my revision of the lead in the state that it has already reached, in the hope of clarifying. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ok, let us discuss on on the talk page there anyway, since it relates to that. History2007 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

After your reversion, the task would be too heavy. I leave with you this article with its false presentation of Mariology (although the article on Mariology correctly explains its meaning in the way I attempted to get across), its reliance on sources such as Miravilla's self-published work ("Publisher Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2008"), which it falsely attributes to Cardinal Burke ... No, I cannot take it on. Esoglou (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not really want to bring about any friction. History2007 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No friction whatever, on my part, about your reverting my edit, for which I am instead grateful. It was with the greatest reluctance that I undertook to revise even the lead of the article. You have now released me from even that burden, which the discussion here led me into, and also from the possibility of later being induced to tackle the rest of the article. On the article that you have interested me in I can make observations for others to deal with, with no obligation to rewrite it myself. Esoglou (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of religious leaders in 2012

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of religious leaders in 2012, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. tahc ^chat 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

English versions of the Nicene Creed

I've removed a lot of material that seems obviously copyvio. I'm no expert, but hopefully the people at WP:CP will figure it out. --JFH (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

I see you've been running into Kwamikagami's capitalization changes. There's a broader discussion about them at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#the_God_of_Israel_or_the_god_of_Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a brief comment. Esoglou (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Vatican-related edits

Thank you for your contributions to the Vatican-related pages that I have recently edited—I have made a slight revision, in light of your reply, so let me know what you think.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You did right to correct (even if in rather vague terms) the questioned phrase. I leave it to others to judge whether the expressions used are suitable for an encyclopedia. Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem; I am open to specific advice, so please feel free to go into more detail if you have the time and I will proceed from there.--Soulparadox (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Holy See

Hi Esoglou,

I just wanted to pint out that the article on the Holy See uses American English throughout the article, and has been that way since it was expanded beyond stub status [1]. Let me know if you want to discuss. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. Esoglou (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Movements

All movements are associations of the faithful, but not all associations of the faithful are movements. I doubt the Knights of Columbus (or for that matter your local St Vincent de Paul soup kitchen) would thus describe themselves as movements.

I am undoing your edits on Template:Lay Catholic spirituality. I would like an explanation for combining lay ecclesial movements and associations of the faithful. It says you moved movements to associations but there was previously a page on associations that explained canon law.

Obviously, official first (associations) but when a subgroup is known by a separate title (movements), have that too. There are certain characteristics of movements that other associations don't have. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Limbo

Catholic controversy? I was merely trying to express an issue that exists. Objectively the issue should be described. I tried not to add my own biases, and continued editing in that regard. Any edits to the section should merely help me stay objective- not to remove a section that explains an objectively valid issue. I stand open to style corrections. This is similar to the controversy described on the page, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.47.131 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the article's Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Index Librorum Prohibitorum

I found an edit you made to this article in December 2011 to be somewhat confusing. Before I looked up when the edit was made, I posted an explanation of the confusing aspects to the article's talk page at Talk:Index Librorum Prohibitorum#Effects outside the Catholic world. Could you take another look at it? To me, the paragraph made more sense before the edit than afterward. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I too find it confusing. I hope to find time soon to study it. Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for revising the paragraph. The new version is a definite improvement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing up Associations of the faithful! >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 07:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a little busy with a big writing project these days. p.s. I will try to find a little more of a clear distinction and then make a subsection for each group and redirect movements to the subsection. I think that would be the best. Agreed? >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 07:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Esoglou (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible spam alert on Excommunication (again).

Hey - I thought we had this one pretty much settled over two years ago, but take a look at this beauty added to the hidden text by an IP editor. I went ahead and reverted it, but I think it might be worth our while to keep an eye on this page for a bit. Just thought you might want to know. (And incidentally, to clear up any confusion raised by this IP's edit, I am actually a "him," not a "her." ;) ) Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you Esoglou

Thank You for your recent edit on Solovyev's article page.

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank You for your recent edit on Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher)'s article page. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did no more than provide objective corrective information based on a reliable source. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

s:Nicene Creed

Hi, would you respond at s:Talk:Nicene Creed regarding what you think the page should look like? --JFH (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if maybe you misunderstood my message above, though I appreciate your comment at Talk:English versions of the Nicene Creed. The link above is to the Nicene Creed page at Wikisource where you made a comment about the title and author. --JFH (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I did misunderstand. It happens all too frequently. Esoglou (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

They are still eligble for commons. It's just that they need to be explicitly re licensed as CC-BY-SA by the copyright owner. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sede vacante beginning date

As you said, Canon 203 is about computing duration of a period of time, which here is the duration of Sede vacante, why do you think Canon 203 does not apply for sede vacante? Secondly there is reference in the article from Vatican[2] that sede vacante is calculated from March 1, why do you think that is not enough? Please do not revert it without discussion. --Jayarathina (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

For our matter of discussion and for your reference:

• Can. 202 §1. In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made;
• Can. 203 §1. states: The initial day (a quo) is not computed in the total unless its beginning coincides with the beginning of the day or the law expressly provides otherwise. --Jayarathina (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, the see becoming vacant and the period of sede vacante are two different things. The see became vacant on 28 Feb, there is no question about that. But when is the sede vacante period calculated from is the question at hand. And the reference and cannon law shows it is March 1st --Jayarathina (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict declared that the vacancy would begin at 20:00 on 28 February. 28 February is understood as beginning at midnight (00:00).

Supposing the vacancy ends on, say, 15 March, the vacancy will last from 20:00 on 28 February to whatever hour the election is completed on 15 March (a day that is understood as beginning at 00:00 on that day), and the length of the vacancy will be 15 days (not counting 28 February, but counting all the 1-15 March days.

The declaration by the Pope is what counts, not a mistaken report of what Father Lombardi said. You remember how at 20:00 on 28 February, the doors of the Castel Gandolfo palace were solemnly closed and the Swiss Guard, the personal bodyguard of the Pope, departed, because they no longer had a Pope to guard. At 20:00 on 28 February. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope did not say that sede vacante begins on 28 February. He said the see will become vacant on 28 Feb 20:00. All I am trying to say is there is a difference to both of those statements. The see became vacant on 28 Feb, so all those door closing etc., took place at that time. But the article is about the period of sede vacante. The table column "beginning" denotes the beginning of the period of sede vacante. I think we both agree on that. Canonically it begins on March 1. And Fr. Lombardi is the official spokesperson for the Holy See. It is impossible for him to make a mistake on such a grave matter or at-least not correct it yet. He didn't correct it because it is not a mistake. Secondly if assuming a fictitious pope died on 28 February Morning 00:01 then other cardinals have to wait 15 full days to start the conclave. even though 28 feb has only one minute less it will not be counted. --Jayarathina (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's enough to discuss this on the article's Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Sede_vacante#When_did_the_2013_vacancy_begin: By Esoglou (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Template inserted by Jayarathina (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Esoglou. You have new messages at Talk:Sede_vacante.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jayarathina (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting comment on whether we should rename Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore to Saint Mary Major=

I am targetting folk who have altered the entry before. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Rite/Church

I am not so sure that we can co-opt the "Rite" field of {{infobox religious building}} to read "Latin Church". The documentation for this template actually says that this field is intended for Orthodox Jewish buildings, i.e. Sephardi or Ashkenazi rite. To me, it just perpetuates misunderstanding and confusion of Church/Rite if we place "Latin Church" in there. I am not saying it is wrong. You are correct in that the building itself belongs to the Latin Church and not to the Roman Rite. I am just saying that this field is likely inappropriate and there is no appropriate field to fill in the particular Church affiliation as we would like. Perhaps an edit of the template itself is in order. Elizium23 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What you say about the origin of that line in the infobox suggests that it is not about the liturgical rite celebrated in the building but about the branch of Judaism (or of the Catholic Church) that the building is associated with. (Askkenazi and Sephardi have separate Chief Rabbis, don't they?) Unless the template is reedited, perhaps it would be best to leave this line blank in the case of Saint Mary Major's. Esoglou (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

If you continue misrepresenting the sources with the goal of pushing your POV, it is not impossible that you will be sanctioned, just as you were sanctioned for your POV-pushing over abortion. I'm willing to accept the argument that the problem is a simple lack of basic competence rather than an agenda, but both should lead you to step away from topic you cannot edit neutrally or competently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Sorry it's a day late. Yesterday was a busy day.

Christ is risen! Alleluia.

Richard

Sorry for being much more than a day late in thanking you and reciprocating your good wishes. I was in hospital for a month and am still recuperating. Esoglou (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?

Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank uou for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there is an editor who would scream if I touched anything to do with the EOC. Besides, I have just returned to editing after a spell in hospital and discussion must surely have moved on since then. Esoglou (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Opus Dei - Society

One editor is trying to claim Opus Dei is not a society in Template_talk:Lay_Catholic_spirituality#Opus_Dei_prelature_is_technically_not_a_movement_nor_a_society. Since you have been the other editor active on this template and we agreed that society was a good general term to include the rest, could you please comment. Maybe we need to be clearer in the naming but I think we want to keep Opus Dei on the template.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. The new system ("Echo") failed until now to draw my attention to this change on my talk page. Esoglou (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing Wikilinks

Hi, I see you have come across Alexander.Meier, the don quixote tilting at wikilinks. I fail to understand what he is trying to do, he has no talk page, I left a message in an edit summary, he responded on my page, but I still don't get it. Well, I do - he is helping out the bots that are migrating the wikilinks. But surely, the bots will do it one page at a time, following some programme logic, without a posse of editors now joining in? Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_slavery&action=edit&section=52 Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I reverted three of his sweepings, each of which I thought too drastic, I wonder if he is at least partly justified. Another editor, whom one of my three actions drew to intervene, seems to have clarified that sweeping. Perhaps the sweeper will himself give a valid individual explanation of each of his deletions of an interwiki link. I await those explanations before judging The bots need assistance from humans who understand the languages concerned and can judge which of several related pages in language X a page in language Y is best linked with. Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)