User talk:Tb

Hello

Hello my friend; are you visible today? Scirocco6 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Various things relating to Daily Office

Hi, I saw your recent edits in the Morning and Evening Prayer articles and that got me to thinking about them myself. First of all, isn't it sort of stupid to have Evening Prayer be a disambiguation page, but Morning Prayer be specifically Anglican? Particularly since the Vespers article talks about non-Roman Catholic forms of vespers and includes Evening Prayer as one of them? Secondly, have a look at the way I re-sorted the headings in Evening Prayer, grouping them into the pre-liturgical renewal forms, which have 1662 as their model (why the 1928 BCP should be more "traditional", when it omits the Phos Hilaron and is more Puritan-Reformed-oriented, is not clear to me...don't you think that heading is problematic?), and those forms which reflect the liturgical renewal movement (Common Worship, BAS/ASB, 1979). Shouldn't we do something like that with Morning Prayer, too? The problem there is that the section about Common Worship is just so long that it is hard to integrate with the others. But it would have the added advantage of not specifying the 1979 BCP be particularly American. Three hours ago, I just completed an Evensong service done in the 1979 BCP form in the Federal Republic of Germany. Similar things will take place in Colombia and other parts of the world (Province IX) outside America. The whole ECUSA, TEC, etc. abbreviations are pretty problematic, I agree, but spelling out the word "American" doesn't help much, except to make clear we are not talking about Scotland.--Bhuck (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do like your recent change, but I would love something further reaching. I agree with your concerns expressed in this note as well. I think it's silly to have the Anglican and RC and Orthodox pages separated. Indeed, now that RCs use the terms "Morning Prayer" and "Evening Prayer" it's particularly silly. Detailed service outlines are not really that helpful in my opinion, but regardless, some unification and so forth is needed. As for "liturgical renewal", I think that's the wrong place to pin this. Indeed, despite the protestations of some, the 1928 BCP office is very similar to Rite One, which (aside from language) is virtually identical to Rite Two. Notice that the "service in tradition of the 1662 prayerbook" is almost a perfect description of the Rite Two office in the 1979 BCP! Tb (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I could easily live with a merger of the Anglican, RC, and Orthodox versions of Morning and Evening prayer all being in one article. We would have to figure out what to do to differentiate between Mattins and Lauds, though, if both are Morning Prayer. Or is Matins Compline if it is in the night watch?--Bhuck (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Compline is Compline. :) Matins is the same as Vigils; Lauds is the same as Morning Prayer. Anglicans came to call Morning Prayer "Matins" (or "Mattins"), because "matins" means morning--though it was always the *early* morning office, the same as monastic "Vigils", sung about 2am traditionally. Tb (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of that clear explanation, I find the "this article..." blurb at the top of the Morning Prayer article particularly confusing.--Bhuck (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I just came across these articles; seeing them, I'd like to note that Jews also have Evening prayers and morning prayers! They differ greatly, however, from Catholic and Anglican prayers. See Jewish services. As such, I am going to introduce a bit of disambiguation to these articles. RK (talk)

I set up a disambig page instead.--Bhuck (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Book of Occasional Services

While looking at the Tenebrae article (the German one is even more RC-POV), I noticed there is no article on the BOS, which is a shame. Other than this, I haven't been able to find much, but I think there should be an article. Any ideas or ambition on your part?--Bhuck (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Saint Mark

Hi Tb. The article Saint Mark the evangelist is not at all about Mark the evangelist, but about Saint Mark the apostle. As you can see there are seperate articles about Saint John and John the evangelist. S711 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I added a number of third party RS refs today to the Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis) article (the subject of the AfD that you've participated in). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I still doubt it is notable, but regardless, I'm certainly delighted to see the considerable improvement in the quality of the article. Tb (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- nice of you to say. Sorry it took me a few days to move the google search stuff into the article. Thanks for your forbearance.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image review related to File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif

A media file you uploaded, File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif, may be affected by the outcome of a non-free-image-review discussion for File:TEC arms.PNG. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:TEC_arms.PNG. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm @#$&@(#742# pissed at the whole thing, and I wish the @*#($*@ admins could get their @#*$(@#* act together and stop just deleting images, refusing to discuss, and saying "oh, do this", and then we go around again. I can tell you what will happen already, but instead, we get to play this unending game. Tb (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I marked it for deletion then undid my actions when I law some old discussion indicating it might be public domain. I then opened the current discussion. PS: I am not an admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:MedicineMan555

Thanks for the post. Its all seems reasonable and I'm happy with the arguments. The only thing I must note is that you'd better talk to me first before reverting my edits en masse. There is no intrinsic contradiction with linking an author, but there might well be in this case. As you noted, the notability of JoAnn E. Manson is borderline and there was a clear pattern of its promotion by MedicineMan555. In such case, I do not see any reason why that author should be linked, especially when she is a 3rd or 4th co-author in an article, especially when it is a mass linking. This may well bias the reader, that she is the major contributor, which is not - she just happened to have a WP page. As to MoS and COI policies, it can not possibly cover all scenarios and is especially vague on references, simply because there is no accepted policy on those. COI concerns are often handled by the community or individual admin actions, such as this case. If you're planning to bring this specific COI concern somewhere and see what happens - that could be fine, if not - let us talk, as I'm not entirely happy with your global revert. Materialscientist (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) (i) I treat this situation as specific case (ii) Even abstracting from COI, how about my comment above - why a 4rd co-author of an article should be selectively linked? Materialscientist (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think linking authors of journals is of questionable WP:notable. Having one user go around and promote this physician is a COI aswell.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If the JoAnn E. Manson is notable, then the subject is notable. If it's not notable, then an AfD is in order. As I indicated on User:Materialscientist's talk page, I am on the fence about whether it's notable, though I'm very much annoyed that it seems to be a giant COI problem. I agree that links to non-notable authors shouldn't be present, but there are only two ways that can happen: it's an external link, or the article itself is of a non-notable subject, and should be deleted. Perhaps that is the right course here, but I don't know. Now that I've given it some mental energy, if an AfD is opened, I'll investigate more carefully, think more carefully, and weigh in with my opinion at that time. Tb (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Episcopal Shield

Sorry I didn't realize that I was complicating things until after I changed the page. I was simply intending to upload a superior file type to gif. I've sent an email to images@episcopalchurch.org and hope to request formal permission for the image. -Vcelloho (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I'm sure that will confuse them since I sent such an email myself. Tb (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I just got permission over email unfortunately the image that I uploaded was deleted -Vcelloho (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

images

First off, I'm very disappointed in ZScout's rush to delete, although to be fair he was probably acting on both your request to close and my pre-struck motion to close.

Tonight's activities were made worse by facts changing by the minute.

One minute, the claim that a vector image was copied from the church web site appeared false on its face. A few minutes later it was clarified and *poof* I knew the image was drawn by the church.

For several days, there has been no movement. I see you asking to close. I write up a detailed concurring statement. Then *poof* I see there is an email correspondence which means we should put any closures on hold until that winds down.

Here is what might have happened if I had been asleep today:

• You would've made the statement you made to close the discussion.
• Some admin, possibly ZScout, would've started deleting images and replacing image usages in articles with commons-hosted images.
• Vcelloho would've done his thing, you would've corrected him on the source, and he would've fixed that up.
• When I woke up, I would've found the articles with commons-hosted images and the Wikipedia images deleted, along with their talk pages.
• The discussion may or may not be marked "resolved"
• If either you or another editor sent an inquiry to the church and got a reply, you would then have to act on that reply.

In other words, my being here tonight wasted several editor's time but didn't do any harm beyond that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered at all that you were here tonight. :) I am bothered that when Commons deletes the image, as they will, we will be back where we started, and you and ZScout will probably be gone, as the previous people who played your roles in this little game in the past have also vanished. Did you notice than ZScout deleted the images citing F8, which does not even apply, because the images are not identical and of the same format? While I would be happy to see his drawing stay on Commons and be the sole one which we all use, this points out that admins can and do delete images in wild contravention of not only consensus, but clearly stated guidelines. On the other hand, the fair use rationale I uploaded, was clear, and has lots of very clear precedent behind it on Wikipedia. If you had only been willing to let it be, as I requested you back when you thought it would be fun to stir this up, it could stay for years, because we know that admins will leave non-free logos with clearly stated explanations in place. Instead, we'll be back here again, if not next month, in six or ten. Tb (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Zscout370

Zscout370 (talk · contribs) took the time to draw the shield commons:File:Shield of the US Episcopal Church.svg and put it on the commons earlier this month. He also re-drew the flag commons:File:Flag of the US Episcopal Church.svg at about the same time. He deserves some thanks for this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree. [1] [2]. Tb (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Tb! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 19:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(Roman) Catholic

Hi Tb, I saw you had also reverted some changes made by an IP (71.145.162.148) who insists on dropping the "Roman" from "Roman Catholic." This appears to be the latest outburst of something that's been going on for longer: in December last year I ran into User:Rev.JamesTBurtchaell,csc, who was making the same changes (and User:Sunray got involved also), and before your flurry of activity I had one of my own, with User:71.145.168.215. I am going to guess that between "your" IP and mine it's not intentional IP hopping, but it's something to keep an eye out for anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a long-standing thing. Precedes December too. Tb (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Episcopal shield can of worms

Hi Tb, I noticed that you had been quite active in the semi-current discussion regarding Episcopal shield images, and I have suggested to Zscout370 a path toward resolving the deletion merry-go-round once and for all. I remember the same crap going on 4-5 years ago when I was first active on WP, I couldn't believe that this cycle is still ongoing. Anyway, if you're interested, have a look at my suggestions on Zscout's talk page and let us know what you think. Cheers! Wine Guy Talk 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits to the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone)

Hello Tb, You are quite right. My reading of the page as it was infuriated me. I felt it was hardly neutral, but painted the Diocese in a very poor light. I will try to neutralize my edits to see if they meet the standards of WP. Thanks. Revzoom (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is never a good idea to edit Wikipedia when you are infuriated. In particular, your expectation that you can simply remove mention of the views you disagree with is not a good sign. Tb (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

hi

Hi please dont add back the chart, nasarani evolution in the Indian Churches wiki pages. The history depicted in the chart is a manipulated history created by some catholic historians in the 19th century. It is not the official history of any Indian church(Marthoma, Orthodox etc).

Facts:

1.Portuguese brought Catholicism to India. 2.Potuguese found the sea route to Asia only in the 15th or 16th century. 3.Kerala had historic connections with the Middle East, Syria, Iraq etc. 4.There were several migrations from the Middle East to India from the 4th century onwards. 5.The middle eastern Christians are mostly Orthodox, Chalcedean and Assyrian. 6.Catholism spread throughout the world through the Spanish and Portuguese Colonialisation, after the 12Th century AD. 7. Catholic church spread rapidly only after the Spaniards mastered cartography and the sea routes.

Eg: Spaniards & Portuguese in Latin America
    Spaniards             in Philippines
    Spaniards             in Japan (Never Succeeded)
    Many many more ......

Now in India, the history of Catholics begins only from the 16th century, like in many parts of the world. However, since being excellent manipulators of history, they would like to claim to be first everywhere. These chart is an example of it.

You are hurting the sentiments of many indigenous Christians of India, who have no ties with catholic church, by allowing them to add their chart in other christian denominations website. The original chart is the exact opposite of what is being shown.

So I would sincerely urge you not to side with people who distort history. At least why would other Indigenous Christians have a catholic chart on their page. Please think and Many Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.97.34 (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This chart was agreed by all concerned, and your edits have been disruptive. You need to discuss it, and not simply make unexplained and POV blanks. Tb (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, the proper way to proceed is not by blanking, but by improving the chart. That will require you to engage in good faith discussion on the talk page for the chart, and propose NPOV alternatives, working together with other editors. Tb (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

hi..

thanks .. i will surely open a discussion topic.. til then please hold this .. and not add it back.. please go to Marthoma Church ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Thoma_Church ) discussion page and see what they haev done to this chart. Again no indigenous local christian church would allow such a chart to be put on there webpage.

plese guide me through the proceedings.. appreciate your help. Thanks .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.97.34 (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not your web page, it is Wikipedia's web page. Fix the chart by fixing the chart, not by deleting it. Tb (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tb: Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to do an improvements re: indigenous Christianity in India--though I am very interested in learning more. If there is aything else I can do for you, please do not hesitate to call upon me. MishaPan (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you were confused slightly; I wasn't asking you to help (though if you want to, great!) The anon editor has been making uncommented blankings, and in a brief flurry tried to recruit others to help him in that goal. I'm trying to encourage him to fix the graphic that bothers him, rather than just delete it over and over again. Tb (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

@tb. The reason why it is told, that there is no common history is because of the numerous history that floats in India. Get to each of these churches webpages and find how different it is. What is correct for the Indian Orthodoc church is not correct for the catholics and not correct for the Jacobites and not correct for the pentecost and so on and so on. Why create a commotion here, by adding a chart. The present chart is floated in almost all necessary and unnecessary places, even in Oriental Orthodox wikipage.. Is this really necessary. One guy is trying to propagate his version of history whereever he could. When you initially told, the chart was accepted by the wiki editors , did you ask, whether any one of this editors belong to the Orthodox church which has around 2mn ardherents. Did any one out of the 2 millions gave the consent to add another churches history here ????????? This is clear act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.17.39 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not "vandalism"; you simply disagree with what the chart says. I'm not telling you you have to agree with it; I'm saying that your proper course of action is to make it better, not to delete it. Tb (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The offending chart!

Just left a note to Neduvelilmathew simply recapping what changes were made by Rahuljohnson4u to the chart. User_talk:Neduvelilmathew#Mar_Thoma_Church_2. See what you think. I don't believe he has looked at it yet, so I can still make changes!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic vs Roman Catholic

I'm not going to change it on you and I know where you are coming from, but the article is Catholic Church. After many many fights which caused it to change in one direction once, then over years, back again. It was not fun, believe me. I avoided it!  :) Oddly enough, the Catholics could have cared less. They simply wanted the article to stabilize for GA, and it pretty much seemed that the changes were done for sand-in-your eyes reasons. Anyway....

Episcopal are IMO, small-c Catholics as are Orthodox, no? Is there really a conflict? I admit that there are Episcopal Franciscans (and maybe other orders), but calling them catholic instead of Episcopal or Anglican, seems unusual, doesn't it? Student7 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholics usually don't know this, but many Anglicans consider ourselves Catholic (with capital C) in the same way Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics do. The claim of the bishop of Rome to represent all Catholic Christianity is a claim not accepted by the Orthodox or the Church of England. This is quite distinct from the "little c" that, for example, the Reformed tradition speaks of, and some (more protestant-identified) Anglicans as well. When one such as I, or the Church of St. Mary the Virgin in New York City, refer to ourselves as "Catholic", we mean, in the way that Presbyterians are not, and refer to things like bishops in apostolic succession, sacramental theology, attitudes towards Mary and the saints, a sense of the development of theological tradition, and so forth. Indeed, we regard the attempt by the Bishop of Rome to declare himself the leader of all big-C Catholics to be (um, sorry) a usurpation of sorts. He is unquestionably the leader of some, but we would insist, not of all. (It would be bizarre, would it not, to regard the Old Catholics as protestant? Just so Smokey Mary's in New York, or me.) Tb (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the article, I have no objection to the use of the term "Catholic Church" to refer only to the part in union with the Bishop of Rome, in contexts which are otherwise unambiguous. For example, it is crucial that Catholic Church say "also know as the Roman Catholic Church". But to say that Trent is a council of the Catholic Church is to trade on the ambiguity... all of it, or only the Roman part? (Because the Roman part believes it is all of it, Roman Catholics generally do not see the point. But by implying that the Roman part is all of it, one takes the POV that the Bishop of Rome is right on this rather important point of controversy.) What complicates this is the minority of Roman Catholics running about insisting that the word Roman is some kind of insult or wildly inaccurate or something--despite its use by bishops, popes, official documents and organizations, and so forth. So by all means link to Catholic Church directly, but in many contexts, pipe the link where the term "Roman" is important in disambiguating. Tb (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Henry VIII did regard himself as head of the Catholic Church until his death. That it was for England, was sort of understood. The name change to "Anglican" to designate it as a national church came later, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "Anglican" came about surprisingly late. "Church of England" was the usual name, still is, in England, and was the name before the 16th century too... Tb (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussions about Orthodox CHurch

Do you even know, what you are talking about? Please think before making allegations. I was only answering to what you were talkin about , " terrorists, hitler " etc. People tend to talk in rage seeing this wikipage, and as you can see, many people have tried altering the unnecessary information. As I told, we love our church and we are trying to improve it. and we have not done anything til now, other than discussing ... Is anything totally new added here ???? Did anyone try to remove anything ??? Now i humbly urge you to tone down... `````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyodor7 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So far you have not inspired me with your ability to contribute usefully, but I hope you will prove me wrong. Tb (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I require time , currently I am office and doin this , stopping my work, I need to read and collect references, its not that easy.. I need to plan, write the articles and then post it.. The titles "anglican influence and "English Assist, were not present from the begining.. its clear that, it was added by some fundamentalists.. do we even need a discussion to remove it??? But still we are humbly doing it... Atlesst by looking at the chart created by catholics you can know where the Orthodox Church stands... and its sad when we are not allowed to pen down anything here... In such a commotion do u expect me to do anything overnight?? And i dont see many others figthing here, other than one Kozhencherry Mathan, then how could you say, that we are a group here ? I just saw his id fews days before... and i was happy , seein someone raising his concerns. Fyodor7 (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well their is no point arguing like this, are you wready to lend us a helping hand ? Fyodor7 (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it again. Your strategy: I need to plan, write the articles and then post it is a very bad strategy. It is extremely likely to entirely fail to accomplish your goals. Incremental modification, with discussion on-wiki, is the way to succeed. Writing new articles on your own, and posting them, is the way to fail. If you will make incremental changes, and discuss them first with clear proposals, in non-inflammatory language, which amount to more than just deleting what you don't like, then sure, I'll work with you. If you start using words like "terrorist", "Hitler", and "rage", no, I won't work with you. Tb (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hitler", "terrorits" are not words used by me. Again I am sorry, if that had offended you. Am an Indian and "rage" is just another English word for me, i dont know, if it is offending for you or not. I am new to Wiki and I was of an impression , that every page is planned . And I never knew, that it had to be incremental in nature. If so, I am ready to do so. Thanks for your guidance. Fyodor7 (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Often new pages are written out before being added. But when there is an existing page, and especially when things are controversial or complicated, discussion and step-by-step incremental changes are far more successful. Tb (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see, that you have the slightest intention in helping? Someone has penned down the history of the Mar Thoma Church (which you clearly know) and has illustrated very clearly, why their shouldn’t be two titles …. We have sources to back… and that too third party source. Now most of the sources, of the Mar Thoma Church page is “Mathoma Sabha Chritram or History of Mar Thoma Church, written by someone from that Church. And I also do not see any discussion before these titles were added here???? These two titles were clearly not present when the page was created. Now who is the real offender here, the people who want to better the wiki page or the people who do not want this page to be bettered? I am sure you would want prefer to read better, understand and think better. And also think from our side rather than asking us to think from some others point of view. Fyodor7 (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who is the "real offender". And, whether you like it or not, I'm really quite neutral in this, and you all need to think from a neutral point of view. If you cannot do that, perhaps start with other pages on Wikipedia until you get more experience, and then come back here? Regardless, whether you think it's fair or not, you are free to do lots of work. Please do it, instead of complaining. I'm just saying, do it incrementally, and not by simply deleting what you don't like. So far, you've done a lot of arguing, and no improving. Tb (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You are askin us discuss and we are doing it. Okay am ready improve, we want to the two titles to be merged under one Title, called " 19Th century" . No deletion of contents just, the merging of two titles.Now are you willing to support? Fyodor7 (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No deletions yet? How about just adding all the jillions of wonderful facts you (plural) have said you want, complete with references? Just start adding them as they occur to you. As for any particular change, discuss it by creating a section on the talk page, and explaining (briefly! without accusations! without lots of extra blank lines! following simple formatting!) why you think the change should be made. Then, if nobody objects in a few days, or there is agreement, make it. That's a great way to proceed until you have a good understanding of what a neutral point of view is. And stop saying "we" if you mean only yourself. Tb (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. What I am planning to do is merge both the title under one title " 19th Century " . Right now am at work, further references will be provided, once I refer more books. Once again thanks for your support Fyodor7 (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, have made the change, without removing any content. It talk about the latest history , the setting up of the diocese in America, so it is apt to have these under timelines, rather than "title" which cause huge commotions. Once again thanks for your assistance Fyodor7 (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The name you added back, Cecil Cherian, I couldnt find who that is, googled and found one Cecil Cherian, Houston, Texas in Facebook :-D ... I persume, it is dont by some prankster, because I have never heard of such a name. "Cherian" is a syrian surname common only in India and I dont think, he could join a Bistish resident in summoning someone. Such a high profile person should have references on net. Fyodor7 (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD

I just deleted Machiavelli and The Mayflower as a G7 speedy and close the AFD. I saw that you had suggested that the AFD should be kept open regardless but I thought it best to comply with the original authors wishes as I could only see things escalating in a bad way otherwise. Indeed he was getting so distressed that Godwin's Law had already been proven on my talk! I'm as sure as I can be that he is not trying to game the system and (unfortunately) I don't think that he'll editing again on any article but especially not that one. Best regards, --Nancy ^talk 09:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough judgment call to make. Tb (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting my Error in Nancy Talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nasrani Evolution Chart

Hi... Their is a discussion going on related to this. Many People have clearly stated why this chart is misleading.. Already around a 100,000 have seen this chart in places where this is located. Please remove the chart until we get to a consensus. Fyodor7 (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That not how it works. You have been asked repeatedly to help work on a new chart. Please do so. Consensus has been to keep the chart, Wikipedia is always a work in progress. If you cannot bear with taking the time, and you insist on simply deleting what you don't like, then you need to work on things that are less important to you until you gain some experience. Consensus is to leave it, and wait for the discussion to continue. So why not engage in that conversation instead of simply deleting what you don't want? Tb (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

From Student7, came to know that someone is already working on a more accurate chart, which splits itself into equal halves. Until that gets implemented do you want to mislead people. Currently 100,000 do you wan to make that a 200,000 ?? Fyodor7 (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)