User talk:Rwflammang

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

External links from Vulgate[edit]

User talk:Rwflammang/External links from Vulgate

Vasteras Cathedral[edit]

Link

Maria Theresa thaler[edit]

Hello! Regarding this edit of yours, I just wanted to explain that Maria Theresa used masculine titles when referring to her hereditary domionions. She styled herself Holy Roman Empress and Queen of the Romans because she was wife of Holy Rman Emperor and King of the Romans; however, she was crowned King of Hungary and King of Bohemia and official documents referred to her as Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Tyrol, etc. There are references for that in Maria Theresa of Austria article. I won't insist on translating dux into duke, I just wanted to clarify why I replaced duchess with duke. Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Geologic time scale[edit]

User talk:Rwflammang/Geologic time scale

Life Domain Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species
The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks. Intermediate minor rankings are not shown.

Courage and perseverance[edit]

Please don't get discouraged. Esoglou (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't plan to, but the kids are out of school and I'm pretty busy these days. Cleaning up this article is going to take longer than I anticipated. Rwflammang (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Church Fathers[edit]

Don't you think that, in the interests of clarity, it would be better to keep the Latin Fathers and the Greek Fathers separate? (I am posting this here rather than on the article's Talk page in the hope that you will notice it before you have gone too far.) Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Too late. I just finished. I don't have a strong opinion either way. I'll finish my comment on the talk page. Rwflammang (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

After this edit I expected the analogy of the train to be inserted somewhere else. Should you perhaps restore it to where it was? As the text now stands, we are told that the PCPCU document "pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as 'proceed'". But then we are not told what this "important difference in meaning" is. Esoglou (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I moved the PCPCU statement to a place that I hope makes more sense. I also added a sentence to illustrate the difference in meaning. If you want, you can replace the sentence I added with the train analogy. The train analogy was just a tad longish for my taste, which is why I did not put it back myself. Rwflammang (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll be out of town for a week or so, starting now. Best regards. Rwflammang (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that the following illustration
A London-bound train that originated in Edinburgh can be said to be proceeding (in normal English and in the sense of Greek προϊέναι and Latin procedere) from Edinburgh and York, but in the sense of Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι it can only be said to be proceeding from Edinburgh.
is still too long? Esoglou (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Vulgate Section Novum Testamentum Latine[edit]

Hi, last day I have made the german article: de:Luthers Vulgata-Revision. I read in a edit of you (Vulgate Section Novum Testamentum Latine) the words: he edition from Wittenberg (which was favored by Luther). I suppose it is to read in the preface, but I don't own this edition. (I must see that I will buy it later.) Please can you give me a quote. with friendly greetings from Germany, Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sönke. I'll consult with my edition when I get home this evening, and I'll provide a full reference. Rwflammang (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

After listing the sigla for the editions, the preface continues:

Quibus selectis nos id quod voluimus consecuturos esse speremus. Editionem Erasmi anno 1527 emissam ideo selegimus, quod Roterodamus ille quinque quidem editiones in publicum proposuit, haec autem sola est, cui praeter Erasmi imterpretationem textus Vulgatae insit. Translationem autem Erasmi, quippe quae privato consilio confecta sit, in apparatu conscribendo negleximus. Editionis autem Wittembergensis, in qua simili licentia usi sunt interpretes, tamen respectum egimus, cum maioris momenti esset. Theologi enim, qui tum disciplinam Christianam reformabant, non, ut forsitan conieceris, Novum Testamentum Graece solum, verum etiam Vulgatam legerunt. Quo fit ut habeamus non paucas Vulgatae editiones, quae saeculo XV. et XVI. nullo Ecclesiae catholicae consilio typis descriptis sint. Editio autem Wittembergensis anno 1529 emissa (de qua parum scimus, nam et "Bibliae Germanicae" volumen V. ex operibus Lutheri Vimariae editum non omnes expectationes explevit) extra Ecclesiam catholicam quasi pro norma habita est, qua de causa opinamur varias lectiones illius libri in apparatum relatas omnibus usui fore, qui indagent, quomodo textus Vulgatae per illos circiter 140 annos commutatus sit, dum editione Sixtina/Clementina promulgata constituum atque defixum est, quo textu intra Ecclesiam catholicam utendum esset...
Monasterii Westphaliae, die 28 Martii 1991 / Kurt Aland / Barbara Aland

The money quote in all this is, I believe, the following, The Wittenberg edition published in 1529 ... was held to be a norm outside the catholic Church... Rwflammang (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this will help me very much, for the englargement of the article de:Luthers Vulgata-Revision. Later I will make an German article to the Novum Testamentum Latine also. Now I know how I can write it. ... (o: (I will place a copy of this discussion on my site.) --- I hope that you can read some passage of my German article, because I suppose it could be interesting for you. I hope so and it would be nice when it would help to enlarge the english article. --- In Flensburg we have a lot of snow in the streets and it is more than cold. brrrrr --- I wish you an Happy Christmas, Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

By all means please continue contributions to Bible translations into Latin. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Howto for uploading images[edit]

Wikipedia:Uploading_images#Procedure_to_upload

Votes[edit]

User talk:Rwflammang/Votes

Steel buildings[edit]

You're replying to three or four year-old comments, but as an architect (and as someone who has tried to dispute some of the silly things like "steel buildings have never collapsed" that appear on 9/11-related articles), I agree that steel buildings are terrible things in a fire. It's sheer luck that something like this hasn't happened before: the First Interstate Tower fire was a near-miss, differing primarily in the absence of an impact to knock the fireproofing off the steel. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks for the vote of support; I may very well need it.
Yes, I realize the comment I was replying to was ancient, but then again, it has not been archived yet, and lots of people are reading this article today, so I thought I'd say my peace. I said, "ask any architect," and I am extremely thankful that you, an architect, so promptly validated my advice. Of course, I could have also said, "Ask any sailor," who could then then have recited from drill what he learned in basic training regarding firefighting on his steel ship.
Rwflammang (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

oh, the humanity!  :)[edit]

Lolz, I haven't been as amused since the recent artwork?

Anyhow, I think your right, and maybe we can improve it still further, because I can see the occasional feminist coming along and attacking that as well, not me, I'm happy with it as you have done it. But do you think just leaving it as 'space station launched into orbit.' is less of a problem ? Penyulap talk 04:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the by man phrase can be dropped. Rwflammang (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!! Do you have an opinion on the ENG:VAR you'd like to put on the talkpage ? Penyulap talk 19:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


Laodicea[edit]

It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings; 10. Third and Fourth Kings; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel. And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon.

Debates[edit]

Hi, I hope the Brouhaha at the rosary page did not upset you. I think you did well not to even comment on the dispute page, given that you were not the main party involved in the debate. My general approach is to think that these are a waste of time and the less said the better. It will all just blow over in the end as it did. Some people get upset and quit Wikipedia, but I hope you will continue to edit. Debates come and go, good content stays in the end, and in most cases reason will prevail in the debates as it did in this case. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Rwflammang/Christmas

Zucchetto clarification for you[edit]

This[1] and my reworking of it[] deserve explanation. A zucchetto is a liturgical vestment, though not one you'd immediately identify as such - it is still a liturgical vestment. I don't see how you justify saying it isn't. The article detail begins clarifying these are liturgical colours, and how they apply to the zucchetto. Finally, it states clearly there is no green zucchetto because the article clearly states how the zucchetto is indicative of rank. (If you desire, you may paste this message in the article's talk or CC it.)—Djathinkimacowboy 14:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The colors of zuchettos do not match the Liturgical color (q.v.) of the celebration. E.g., A priest will wear a violet chasuble tomorrow for lent, a white chasuble on Monday for St Joseph's day, a red chasuble on Pentecost, but on all of these days he will wear a black zuchetto. Likewise, a bishop will always wear a purple (technically amaranth) zuchetto on all these days, a cardinal will always wear red, etc. In short, for a zuchetto, the color indicates the rank of the celebrant, while for the chasuble, dalmatic, stole, cope, maniple, etc, the color indicates the celebration. Note that the "purple" (amaranth) of a zuchetto is different from the "purple" (actually violet) of the liturgical colors. Rwflammang (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
And the article does not say the zucchetto colour matches the other scheme precisely. In point of fact the zucchetto stays within the new Church Law. Your point is generally well taken, except for the small detail that the zucchetto is technically a liturgical vestment. And your reasoning does not fit the action you took in removing that text, which is, believe it or not, a basis for the color scheme of the zucchetto. How much more liturgical can you get than the cap that shows you the rank of the celebrant? The zucchetto shows a basic conformity by being either white, red, violet or black. Due to its nature and significance, it cannot be changed according to the liturgical season because it represents a liturgical colour that does not change. That is part of the honour it confers upon the wearer.—Djathinkimacowboy 11:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
However, I will bow to your decision in that matter, if you should choose to reword or simply remove the information. I will not interfere again, because I acknowledge that I made a sort of confusion there and wasn't able to make the link or the point about the colours of the zucchetto. I did not have sufficient citations to do it. Anyway, my apologies.—Djathinkimacowboy 11:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Pages[edit]

Hi, regarding the IP selection of pizza types, I do have a somewhat longer term perspective in that by keeping somewhat bland language, one can avoid wasting 3 days of one's life to take someone to ANI, discuss for ever etc. If you look on the talk page for Jesus, you will see the latest incident: someone who kept saying there are "no reliable historians" and was then banned for 6 months. Time will tell what will happen 7 months from now. And on the same page, another half a day of life was eaten by a discussion on... guess what? The druid Jesus! The WP:OR guys will go away in the end - but usually take 1 or 2 days of one's life with them. And the Transfiguration comment may apply to Ascension of Jesus which I recently fixed.

In any case, as stated on my user page, as of June 2012 I achieved liberation from Wikipedia and will become much less active. I thought I would ask for your help in watching a few pages that are not contentious, but need the eye of someone with knowledge, such as yourself.

The RC type pages include:

  • Holy Face of Jesus and the Shroud of Turin. The first page is totally stable and also non-controversial. The Shroud page has been extremely stable given its controversial nature. There is user:thucyd who knows much more about it, but logs in every week or two, and he has provided many solid references. Every possible angle on that object is covered in the article, but there is a user Vincenzo Ruello (he also writes on UFO items) who logs in as multiple IPs (they often get blocked) and adds promotional items. He sometimes pretends to be his own best friend, etc. So that page does need attention. But every possible aspect has been discussed in the archives, so it is just a question of pointing to those really.

Then there a few other pages

Your help in watching these as your time allows will be greatly appreciated. And thank you for all the good interactions we have had in the past. History2007 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Pluto userbox[edit]

Hi! Am I missing a joke, or is there a garden-variety typo here?

This user doesn't care whether Pluto is a planet or not – but IAU's 2006 redefinition of planet was a linguistic/philosophical embarrassment.

Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Typos fixed. Thanks for the notice! Rwflammang (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Election (Christianity)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Election (Christianity) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 03:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Basilica of Saint Mary Major, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 19:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doctor of the Church, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Irenaeus, Divine Office and Leo VI (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) 11:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saint Christopher 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:
  • org/the-icon-of-st-christopher/ Understanding the dog headed Icon of Saint Christopher]] at Orthodox Arts Journal.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jane Frances de Chantal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heart of Mary (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) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Was Eugene Wigner Hungarian?[edit]

Hello. I was interested in your question whether Prof Wigner was Hungarian, in light of his claim to be Austrian. I started to respond to you on his Talk Page, but the tone of my answer seemed overpoweringly rude. It was not intended to be so. I did spend a little time verifying claims though, so rather than just discard it, I am posting it here and encourage you to delete it from here when done. I don't have a formal strategy for where any replies should go. I suspect that Wikipedia notifications work best if a message appears on the talk page of the intended recipient, but that doesn't sound optimal for conversational threads. Although evidence for Hungarian appears overwhelming, I should allow him to self-identify as Austrian, and of course for you to mention it in the article. Perhaps it is worth including informally (i.e. not in his biographical info box), but you'd need an independent verifiable source for his claim.

By the way, I was curious about his claim to be from Hitler's native country, because it was the intensity of his hatred of Nazi ideology created the dichotomous pacifist who happily contributed to the Manhattan project. I am indeed curious about your recollection of the strength (and triggering context) of his Austrian claim. Finally, here's my original response to your question:

Wigner Jenő Pál was indeed his native name (native within the English and Latin meaning, not the American meaning of ancestral as in Native American). Ethnically his ancestors were ultimately from the region that is now Syria around 150 AD. He was born in Budapest (the capital of Hungary), both parents were citizens of Hungary. H In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, he referred to his childhood home as Hungary. He was a Hungarian citizen when he returned there in 1933, as he was when he applied for US citizenship not longer after that. He did live in Austria for two periods of his childhood, but they weren't for very long: less than two months in 1913, and about four months in 1919. By 1921, he had already lived longer in Berlin, Germany than the two spells in Austria combined. His family's original native language would have been Yiddish rather than German, but his parents (who became Christian when he was a teenager) most likely spoke German (close related, linguistically) due to their higher station/class and the expectations of the time and place. His parents were both ethnically Ashkenazi Jews, so of course he was too. This means that Wigner, like all Ashkenazims (and as discovered in 2006) was of Levantine Syrian descent, specifically a direct descendant of one of just 150 specific individual women who lived in the region of Syria between 100 and 200 AD. Perhaps I should clarify that being Hungarian and being Austrian were very much mutually exclusive, and enforced by law. Through all the centuries and various forms of Austro-Hungarian unions, the two nations never merged as far as becoming just one country. It was always a union with several constituent nations (and nearly always more than the two nations in the name). They never introduced a single shared citizenship, passport, parliament, legal system, or even fiscal union, and dual citizenship of both Hungary and Austria was specifically prohibited. I suspect that his rather odd claim to be Austrian, was just an attempt to identify as not a Communist that Hungarian still might have implied at the time. Cheers from ChrisJBenson (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whole number rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whole number (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) 09:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

move to close at NPOVN[edit]

The topic whose discussion you contributed to here seeks comment on its proposed resolution with consensus. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much for your reply! I had figured "head" must be official RC or else it wouldn't have been added by consensus, but I didn't know firsthand. I thought of asking for a WP:RS to support "head", but did not want to sound antagonistic, and the POV case seemed strong enough. But I really appreciate knowing this, because I have heard the phrase before in Anglican circles (quite some time ago) as being Catholic, and viewing it as I do (anathema), it is good to know that at least that barrier doesn't stand between EO and RC. I do hate the fact of the schism. Evensteven (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Rogation Days[edit]

I suspect you may have an opinion regarding recent developments with this article (see Talk). Robocon1 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asclepias, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sierra Nevada and Mojave (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) 08:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)