User talk:Lipsio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

DYK for Quercus geminata[edit]

EncycloPetey (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Diane Roberts[edit]

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have responded on the article's discussion page. Cheers, Peter Chastain (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I thank you and I've responded in turn. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
AS you will have gathered, the tag is not added by a bot, merely dated. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC).
Yes, I did indeed gather that fact, but not before erroneously directing the comment to you. Please accept the apologies of me, a fledgling Wikipedian,
Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem, happens almost daily. :)

ΙΧΘΥΣ is not an acronym[edit]

The Wikipedia article on "acronym" sites this as an example and I've always heard this referred to as an acronym, so please tell me how or why you'd reckon it as “a poem or other form of writing in which the first letter, syllable or word of each line, paragraph or other recurring feature in the text spells out a word or a message”, to quote the opening line of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrostic

I’m inclined to change it back, but I don’t want to start an editing war, so I’ll wait at least a day before doing anything.

Regards,

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase is writing in which the first letter of each word (a "recurring feature") forms a word - exactly as it says. What it is not is a word formed from the initial letters of the word. It is a pre-existing word, unlike "radar", for instance. The phrase was tailored to fit the word. It is wrongly given as an example in the acronym article. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The difference between an acronym and an acrostic consists not in whether it be an existing word, but rather whether it be a word scanned from the initials of a phase as opposed to a sentence or phrase scanned from the initial letters of paragraphs or phrases or sentences or whatnot.
Many contemporary English language acronyms are tailored to fit words that already exist; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Contrived_acronyms
Contrastἰχθύς to common Greek language acrostics (common in Byzantine hymnography) or those in Hebrew in the Old Testament or the English language examples given at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrostic#Examples
Methinks it is clear the ἰχθύς is an acronym.
Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

You made a substantial edit to an article but (a) marked it as minor and (b) used a misleading ("Fixed typo.") edit summary. Please don't do that again. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies; my "minor edit" was made from an old version. I just undid that edit with the following comment:
Undid my erroneous edit of 19:06, 2 September 2011 which was branched off an much older version, i.e., I erroneously undid many edits in performing my “minor edit”.
Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
And I thank you for letting me know (even if there had been an assumption that I mis-marked the edit as "minor") because otherwise my inexcusable deletion of multiple edits may well have gone unnoticed. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nader article[edit]

The book is based off stuff they got from Wikipedia articles--

Hephaestus Books represents a new publishing paradigm, allowing disparate content sources to be curated into cohesive, relevant, and informative books. To date, this content has been curated from Wikipedia articles and images under Creative Commons licensing, although as Hephaestus Books continues to increase in scope and dimension, more licensed and public domain content is being added. We believe books such as this represent a new and exciting lexicon in the sharing of human knowledge. This particular book is a collaboration focused on Antiochian Orthodox Christians.

We can't use our own articles as a source as that's circular. It becomes Wikipedia saying it's true because Wikipedia says it's true. Even if that were not so it still wouldn't be WP:RS as the author isn't listed and the publisher has no reputation for independent fact checking. Mystylplx (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

- Thanks for the information. When I have time, I'll find another source and re-introduce the edit. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Public holidays in the United States[edit]

Hi Lipsio. I notice you've been a somewhat active editor of Public holidays in the United States. Per a recurring comment on the talk page, I've been trying to turn the lists of "legal holidays by states" into tables, with the hope of creating a more readable and useful page. Would you be willing to take a look at the work in progress and let me know what you think, both of the idea in general and the way I'm trying to implement it? I would really like to get someone else's feedback on such a large change to the article format. Thanks, FCSundae (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings FCSundae,
Perhaps states with "other" holidays, i.e., those with entries in the "Holidays observed by only one or two states" table, should have a footnote marking that fact or, since the footnotes may get lost in the extensive existing footnotes and references, there should be an "other" column directing the reader to the other table for details.
The typo is a missing close quote at the end of footnote 12, after Florida has both "legal holidays" and "State employees paid holidays
Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Minced oath[edit]

I moved your comment to the article talk page, so more folks can participate. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In that you're an admin, methought better than to jump the gun and make the issue public before noting it privately.
Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

arab american[edit]

Hello , did you read this: "According to the 2008 ACS, there are 1,573,530 Arab Americans, accounting for 0.5% of the American population." ? Here is the source http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_B04003&-tree_id=306&-redoLog=false&-currentselections=ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_B04003&-geo_id=01000US&-search_results=ALL&-format=&-_lang=en

Where did the 7,680,018 figure come from ? Mightymights (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply RE: First Council of Nicaea[edit]

Vincent, I see what you're saying now. I think that the most complete way to handle it would be to list specifically which Protestant groups accept the creed (there are several that don't, they tend to be the more fundamentalist wings) and list them individually (probably by broad denominational groupings). Otherwise we should reduce the list to the broader terminology of Protestants (I would still keep Anglican's separate from Protestants). I'm interested to hear what else you're editing as well.ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς 11:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

St. John Crystostem[edit]

I'm diffusing the category, by placing the saints in their proper subcategories. Crystostem's already listed under 'Greek Roman Catholic saints', and 'Syrian Roman Catholic saints', both of which are subcategories to Roman Catholic saints. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the cleaning up and please accept my apologies for not realizing the redundancy that had been there. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries! No offense taken. I'm already about halfway done. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A friendly reminder[edit]

A while back you said you would merge Sobor#Christian temple with Katholikon. If you are too busy, I will do it, just let me know. I also think the discussion regarding the rest of Sobor being merged to Synod could be closed as a merge. --JFHutson (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I thank you. While visiting sobors recently I remembered my merger proposal. In a few days I'll merge them; today I'm traveling from Moscow to Saint Petersburg) and don't expect to have time to do anything. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Pre-reform Russian[edit]

Thanks for fixing the spelling. I'm unsure how accurate all the section names are in All-Night Vigil (Tchaikovsky)#Structure, I'm fairly sure they're post-reform spellings. If you have any knowledge of this topic, would you like to correct the spellings at some point? ~ Riana 22:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, but,
1) I missed another incorrect vowel (and this time I looked it up).
2) The standard usage in Wikipedia is spelling Russian words in contemporary orthography, so methinks I should have left the spelling alone and dropped Pre-reform from the designation.
3) While the other spellings are, in fact, in contemporary orthography, the parts of the service are not given in the Russian language but, rather, they are in Church Slavonic which has a much more archaic alphabet that no standard computer has a font installed for; see, for example, the photo I scanned in for the hymn Phos Hilaron, which is one of the pieces in the Vigil, and it looks thus:
Свѣте тихій.jpeg
) Elsewhere in Wikipedia, Slavonic text is written in new-orthography Russian.
Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for giving it the once-over, Vincent. I agree with your assessment of the spelling - I'll revert to the new spelling and remove mention of "pre-reform".
Yes, it would be impossible to write it in Church Slavonic! Beautiful-looking script, which is a shame. I recently participated in a performance of the Rachmaninoff All-Night Vigil where the programme text was in Church Slavonic, it was a very impressive job, took the compiler of the programme about a year to complete - it's very hard to find the complete text online in that language. ~ Riana 04:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The texts are on-line in Church Slavonic script at
http://www.orthlib.info/Chasoslov/Chasoslov.html
If you ever need the parts in the vigil service, I can direct you to where to find them in this text so that they can be copied and pasted. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this - my linking was a bit of guess work so I'm glad they point to more definitive places now! I wonder if you know what hour of the service (vespers, matins etc) each movement corresponds to, and if we can get a bit of information about that into the structure section as well. My knowledge of this sort of music is limited to performance and I know very little about the liturgy. ~ Riana 03:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

A. Quinn Jones Center school

Thanks for hosting the wiknic yesterday. I had a good time. The school I took a photo of yesterday I was mentioning is here: 1108 Northwest 7th Avenue
29°39′28″N 82°20′09″W / 29.657784°N 82.335706°W / 29.657784; -82.335706
Do you know what kind of school this is? Its former website is down.
After reading the historical marker (located across the street from the school), it sounds like the school is an elementary school but wanted to be sure that is the current use. Those are regulation-height basketball goals (on NW 10th st) on the campus, not usually seen at an elementary school.
Thanks for any info. --Mjrmtg (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Historical Marker across street
You're most welcome and I'm happy to know you enjoyed it.
The school is A.Q. Jones Exceptional Student Center, part of the Alachua County School District, and its website is:
http://aqjones.sbac.edu/pages/AQJ0052
I'm reasonably certain that it was built as an elementary school.
The historical marker I did not know about and thanks for showing it (or its photo) to me. I can't find it in the county's page "Historical Markers in Alachua County, Florida", http://growth-management.alachua.fl.us/historic/historic_commission/historical_markers/historicalmarkers.htm . BTW, I have put photos of a few local historical markers into Wikipedia, the photos being a way to circumvent copyright problems with quoted text.
Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, feel free to use the photo of the Historical Marker, or any of my photos which are on wikimedia commons. [1]
--Mjrmtg (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Makarios may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }{{citations missing|date=July 2009}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic Barnstar[edit]

A Barnstar!
Great American Wiknic Barnstar

You are awarded this mighty Great American Wiknic Barnstar for your valorous efforts in helping to organize the 2013 Great American Wiknic in the great city of Gainesville. -—Pharos (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia[edit]

Hallo Lipsio,
nothing to thank about! :-) You know, Wikipedia is full of people in good faith, who read something and put it in the corresponding article. In this specific case this guy went against 1600 years of tradition, and all past and present specialists (Mango, Janin, Müller-Wiener, etc.). Moreover, he put this info in the lead, giving undue weight to another version of the church dedication...a little too much, I think. Alex2006 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Folks. I am trying to be accurate here. The first two churches were not dedicated to the Hagia Sophia, since that term was not in use at the time. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/haso/hd_haso.htm The Heilburn Timeline of Art History is quite specific about that. Then there is the date. In the balance of the article the date is clearly stated as 27 December 537. No where is there a claim that the dedication occurred on December 25th. If Janin(1953) says this, then either it is the wrong Hagia Sophia, or he is making some extrapolation that is not in the mainstream. This issues about who the Great Chruch was dedicated to, and the iconoclast period we can discuss at a later date. But let's just get the dates right. Neubauer95476 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that you edited in your reference before I had a chance to reply. I'm inclined to wordsmith your reply a bit, to put part of it in a footnote, because it seems to verbose in an introductory paragraph for explaining a divergent opinion on a trivial matter; certainly the 26 December date should be cosigned to a footnote because it's nearly certainly based on a misunderstanding.
[2] (and hagiasophia.com is registered in Turkey) does, in fact, claim 27 December 537 as the dedication day.
You are right that there are differing opinions on the matter and I learned something in researching your edit and I thank you. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually this is not a trivial matter. It may go to the heart of the Hagia Sophia, since the dedication date is not on the 25th. It is most curious to me that while Janin is considered an important Byzantine Scholar, no one else has picked up on the December 25th date. One does not find this reference anywhere in the english language (googling) other than the Janin citation in wikipedia. With everyone trying to do their best it seems more likely that the Janin date and comments should be a footnote. It may also be that since there are a number of Hagia Sophias, the Janin citation may be regarding some other church, not the Great Church. Unfortunately, I am hopelessly uni-lingual and cannot confirm that and it is incredibly difficult to get a copy of Janin(1953). I appreciate your word smithing. You may also note that User:Alessandro57 undid my additions although both adhere to the footnote policy. Neubauer95476 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crucession, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epitaphios (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Since this edit is a preparation for a merge (discussed since January 2012) and since the text was copied from a sandbox of mine, I'll fix it in the sandbox before copying that text into the merged article which I intend to do later today. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Procession may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Stapleton in [[Exeter Cathedral]] (painting by S. A. Hart), showing a liturgical procession|180px]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance[edit]

Hey there, I really appreciated your role in facilitating the minor alteration to the Nicene Creed article. I myself am an Eastern Orthodox network engineer, but for some time I've wanted to get into embedded systems development, so you to me are like a Wiki-starets. ;) Wgw2024 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Choco chip cookie.png

Wgw2024 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Saint John Chrysostom[edit]

Since you undid all the substantial changes I have entered, I'll try to explain my rationale for them. Generally speaking, the entry needs bibliographical updating. Just an example: the homily about Herodias is classified as spurious in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum # 4570 (referring to previous literature). I had not the reference at hand. But IF the homily is spurious, the story about Eudoxia's statue conveys some legendary element, notwithstanding the fact that the statue itself was raised. About Chrysostom's exegesis: I have never come across an example of his leanings towards the Alexandrian system, and no source is indicated for this affirmation. As far as I understand, he is a a purely Antiochene theologian.

Now, updating the whole entry would require a lot of time and work. But that would be viable only if we can cooperate. Regards. --Sever Juan (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Marking edits as vandalism[edit]

This edit is most assuredly not vandalism. It may have been disruptive, and it certainly should have been discussed on the talk page prior to re-inclusion, but it isn't vandalism - see WP:NOT VANDALISM. In future, please be careful about marking edits as such. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I thank you informing me and I've bookmarked WP:NOT VANDALISM which I'll use as a guide in the future. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicene_Creed#See_also[edit]

I repeat/rephrase my comment I made to EvenSteven...
I find your edit at Nicene_Creed#See_also to be lacking in any sort of logic. Would you care to share how you think my link, to a RELEVANT, EXISTING wikipedia article is in any way inappropriate?
More to the point, it is _YOUR_ action that smacks of "Vandalism", in that it removes a chance for a person to learn more about the Nicene Creed, and how it was developed.
Please explain HOW you think the link is Vandalism and/or how your removal of the link is NOT Vandalism.
LP-mn (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, please see the previous section in my talk page where it's explained to me that your edit is *not* vandalism. Please accept my apology. From there, I suppose, I'd suggest you open up a discussion on Talk:Nicene Creed to seek consensus by all interested parties. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Accepted.
On a related note, I've participated in talk page discussions over a Keep vrs Delete debate, but I've never been right smack on one side or the other. When and how do we as a group make a final decision?
LP-mn (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Whenever there's consensus, which doesn't seem to be happening in our case. Soon I'll post something on the talk page proposing that I put your link back in, perhaps in a new section for literary and cultural references, and if no one types anything back, then let's put it back in.
BTW, my apologies for my delay in replying; I've been working a bunch of overtime. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Council of Nicaea[edit]

I am working VERY hard to standardize the citations at First Council of Nicaea. If you are going to add sources, can you please make an attempt to follow the new formatting. It is very frustrating to literally spend hours working on this and then having someone ignore all the hard work completely. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. This was not lost on me when I was typing them in, but I was very short on time and figured I'd clean up the format later Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:APPENDIX[edit]

Hello. Congratulations for your great work. Please note this ([3]). Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for making me aware of this (as well as for your compliment) and will consult WP:APPENDIX in my future edits. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jerome Shaw (bishop) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • New York]], where his classmates included the future Bishop Peter (Loukianoff)of Cleveland]], Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, Fr. Stefan Pavlenko, Fr. Vitaly Kichakov, Bro. Adam Krotov and others. As

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Holy Cross Monastery (Wayne, West Virginia)[edit]

I would like to ask some free photo for this article. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Easter[edit]

I touched your recent edit on Easter, replacing "church building" with "temple" once again. But I highly respect your editing and knowledge of things Orthodox, and if you consider it appropriate to overturn me, I offer no resistance. Perhaps it's a too-little-known application of the word to be used so directly on WP, though I thought it somewhat ameliorated here by the wikilink. I just wanted you to run the idea through your mind another time. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I had simply thought that "church building" would be more comprehensible to the average reader, but I hesitated changing it, so you did what I nearly did anyway. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. I hesitated too, but figured I could let the wikilink resolve any uncertainty of meaning. Cheers! Evensteven (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)