User talk:Daniel the Monk

Welcome!

Hello, Daniel the Monk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits

You are not leaving edit summaries with most of your edits. Also you aren't providing any references for you edits. Your ones for Cowl seem to suggest you beleive it is only a religious item. It is not it is basically a hood without a jacket in medieval times is had should covering as well. The term is still in use today see [1] --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you pedantically insist on US spellings - especially in an article like White Ladies Priory that refers to a place in the UK. British users know the US spellings, but don't use them, and are apt to find them irritating in this sort of context - especially when they have been deliberately altered. Sjwells53 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's the auto-correct on my computer, for when I do editing.Daniel the Monk (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

?

Even the encyclopedia articles which you list as reference speak of the cowl ONLY as a monastic garb (with the possible exception of the very old edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia). Because there are monkeys which are called Capuchin, does that mean that the primary meaning of the term is not the friars of that name?

January 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Congregation of the Dominican Sisters of St. Catherine of Siena‎. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Seven Nations (Celtic)

The article Seven Nations (Celtic) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

neologism

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 08:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Mary's Abbey Sisters

The Sisters are not Trappistine's. [2]. Please go revert yourself. Thanks. Malke2010 04:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that the Trappistines are Cistercians, but not all Cistercian nuns are Trappistines?

Cistercian versus Trappistine

I sympathize with your desire to be exact, but in this case, this is how the Sisters at St. Mary's Abbey identify themselves. The Trappistine's (sorry for my spelling) are more closely identified with the male members of the order. The Cistercian's are derivative, and you could certainly say that in the line, but there must be no mistake that the Sisters identify themselves as Cistercian. You must also understand that replacing Cistercian with Trappistine is confusing when someone accesses the citation.Malke2010 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's not good to go back and revert again. You could end up running up against WP:REVERT 3 RR and you don't want that. What is better is to open a section on the article talk page, or go to the editor's talk page and ask them about it directly there.Malke2010 20:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by saying the Cistercians are derivate of the Trappists (which, by the way, is how the monks are called). If you mean historically, that is incorrect, and is the other way around. The term "Trappistine" refers only to the nuns of the Order. They have been known as Trappistine since their foundation, and still use the term themselves. See the link to their candy provided in the article.

Don't forget to sign your posts. The Sisters' website makes it clear what they identify as, and that is what we must go by. However, I did open a section on the talk page. The other editors will leave comments and the matter will be settled by consensus. Thanks. Malke2010 21:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. How does one sign one's posts here? The problem comes from the Sisters' dual identity. I would think that the hot link to the main article on Trappists (which does explain the connection to the Trappistines) does clarify the matter. Further, the abbey is listed internationally in the Trappist Order's own directory of their establishments: http://www.ocso.org/HTM/net/monwb-en.htm

About how to sign your post: Just take a look at the end of your welcome message above ;) . Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your other comments, please take a look at the talk page of the article in question.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When you get to the end of your sentence, after the period, place four tildes (four of these ~) at the end. Do you see that?Malke2010 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

St. John Neumann

Saw your edit on St. John Neumann. He's a favorite of mine.Malke2010 05:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the notice.Daniel the Monk (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sisters, IHM

Hi Daniel, About this article, [3], I've always been told the IHM was first established in Ireland. I know there are schools there run by IHM, because I went to one. Maybe they're the ones from Spain, originally. But it was Irish IHM who staffed schools in Philadelphia, too, as far as I was told. Is that correct?Malke2010 22:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, Malke, these Sisters were founded in Michigan. Many of the their latter members may have been from Ireland, but the congregation was founded here.Daniel the Monk (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bishop of Durham

You have just added:- "Except for a brief period of suppression during the Glorious Revolution under Oliver Cromwell, this temporal power of the office lasted until all such authorities were abolished in 1836". The Glorious Revolution was not under Oliver Cromwell, but later when William and Mary took over as monarch. Which do you mean? Could you also find a source for this? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The result of hurried writing while suffering physical pain.Daniel the Monk (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jackie Cooper

Thanks for raising the point about "skilled" nursing home - wasn't familiar that this was an industry term until now. However, this leads to another issue - the term seems to be strongly associated with United States usage based on the nursing home article. Therefore, since many in Wikipedia's international audience may not be familiar with the term, it may again be better to simply indicate "nursing home" in this case (with perhaps a link to the article). Dl2000 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation

My deepest apologies for posting to the wrong page, I was wearing the wrong glasses! Reposting/ — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See [[4]] OOPS! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation

Personal research is a violation of Original research. Please read. Pre Vatican II children were routinely confirmed in junior high in the U.S. My own OR, I was confirmed on November 22, 1960, in 8th grade. I can't use that either because a recognized citation needs to be found to confirm (pun intended) this. PTL — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I very politely said "("Personal Recollection" is a violation of "personal research" Besides that you are incorrect)"

I purposefully never said you were "wrong," a much harsher word. The Original research link is above and here again, so that you may read it; It is the documentation you asked for which I did indeed supply. "40 years ago" is Pre-Vatican II which opened in October 1962. I also recommend you read Good Faith.

Comments on articles belong on the article's discussion page, not on my personal talk page. You said "(Change age of reception prior to Vatican II from my own personal rellocation of the era) which has you re-locating rather than recollecting. Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with "consideration and respect". I suggest you read those also. Jesus said the same thing 2000 years ago. As a fellow Catholic, I am dismayed at the tone of your missive. Peace be with you... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stanislaus of Kazimierz

Hello. Just wanted you to know that I reversed your cut and paste move of Stanislaus of Kazimierz because that type of move loses the article's history and therefore doesn't meet GFDL requirements. There is more info at WP:COPYPASTE and WP:CWW. In order to suggest a name change that might possibly be controversial, there are instructions at WP:Requested moves. I noticed your request on the article's talk page and have taken the liberty of formatting it as a move request that will automatically show up as a listing at WP:Requested moves. If that is not what you intended, please feel free to just undo my edit. Best wishes - Station1 (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated.Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Franciscan comments

I noticed your edits in the Franciscan topics and I would like to get your feedback on a topic I brought up on the Talk:Franciscan page. Part of it revolves around the fact that I know many Catholic Franciscans don't consider any non-Catholic group really Franciscan due to the obedience to the Pope issue, but even in trying to keep things NPOV for WP I am not sure how we should be handling people adding new "non-denominational" Franciscan groups. It seems most of these groups except for the "official" Anglican ones are real small. We relegate all the official Catholic Third Order groups to the Third Order pages for notability reasons. What do you think we should be doing with these groups? The reason this came up is the recent addition of the "Companions of Jesus" to that section. Other then the fact I have never even heard of them (but I don't usually hear about UK groups) the added sections definitely seems improperly weighted but the big question is, should they be there at all? Thanks for any comments. Marauder40 (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Marauder. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I have good friends who are Brothers, in both in the Anglican Society of St. Francis and the Order of Ecumenical Franciscans.

Regarding the issue of inclusion of non-Roman Catholic groups, as far as I am concerned, they ARE Franciscans. They follow a way of life inspired by St. Francis, and thus merit the name and inclusion on that page. I have been a part of the Franciscan movement for over forty years, and I have never heard anyone challenge their inclusion in the wider Franciscan world.

The issue really revolves around the title of the page. It is simply "Franciscan." Were one to include them in the pages of any of the three Orders of Friars Minor, e.g., there would be grounds for disputing such an inclusion, but not for the most general form of description.Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was only mentioning the fact that many Catholic religious order members do not consider non-Catholic Franciscans as true religious Order as a side-line. Like I said, it is their view that in order to truly follow St. Francis you have to follow everything St. Francis did and part of that is being obedient to the Pope, Bishops, Church, etc. They do respect non-Catholic religious, but have "issues" with it. I realize WP isn't the place for taking up that "argument" so have no problem with Anglican groups and larger groups being mentioned on the Franciscan page. My problem is where do we draw the line? Both within the Catholic Franciscan world and the non-Catholic Franciscan world there are hundreds (if not thousands) of groups that claim to follow the teachings of St. Francis. It is easier to deal with the Catholic groups because either they are official and have an official status within the church or they don't. If they are Catholic and to small to have an official status they aren't notable enough to be on WP. If they do have a status, they can be relegated to their appropriate page. We don't have that luxury with the "non-denominational" groups. Any group can claim to be following some of the ideals of St. Francis and want their group included on the main Franciscan page. How should we determine which of the hundreds of groups that may want this are notable enough to be included there? My personal take after viewing the "Companions of Jesus" web page was that they are to small for notability reasons and definitely to small for the amount of weight given in the current article. Maybe having some requirement that the group be notable enough to have a WP article in the first place before they can be added to the Franciscan page or something like that will help, but it isn't that hard to just create a page and whether someone notices its creation to challenge notability or not is questionable. But figure since I am a Franciscan myself wanted other views.Marauder40 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Pax et bonum then. After all the negligible groups and pages I have seen on this site, I really don't see any way to set limits on what constitutes significant here. Solitary individuals as well as gropus get pages. This also allows pages on obscure saints, on the other hand. It's part of being an all-inclusive repository of data, I suppose. Sorry I'm not more helpful.Daniel the Monk (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Pax et bonum, thanks again for the comments. Based on that maybe I will trim down the "Companions of Jesus" section based on weight reasons and not worry about whether they are notable enough, until others do. Based on my interactions in the controversial pages, like abortion, politics, etc. I know that the secular side of WP will have issues with groups that have no mention outside of their own personal web-pages, I will leave it up to them to deal with it. Thanks again. Marauder40 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Link to Congo disambiguation page

When you edited the Minim (religious order) article, you added a link to Congo, which is a disambiguation page rather than an article. If you know from the source material whether it's referring to the Republic of the Congo or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, could you please edit your link to point to the appropriate page? Most common usage referring to the country simply as "Congo" is about Republic of the Congo, not the DRC, but I didn't want to assume that in this case since you're probably more familiar with the topic. Thanks! LarryJeff (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Larry! I appreciate the help. Daniel the Monk (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Royal Mint

The Bold page rename at Royal Mint is problematic.

• Any page move should be uncontroversial. Clearly, this is not the case, as the page name has been discussed on the article's talk page.

• The edit summary states “there were other royal mints besides the British one”. Please name them. Were they called “The Royal Mint”, as the British mint is known?

• How would a reader find the Royal Mint following this move?

• Also, the editor moving a page is responsible for repairing the redirects (found at 'What links here').

Please revert your moves and initiate a discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I had looked at the article "Mint" before I did the change. I have also looked at the discussion page on the article, and it seems that there is no discussion on there about this point, other than a complaint about a bias in emphasis on the American mint. So I don't see the controversy. Prior to my move, the article was the only one which would come up in a search for "Royal Mint." You will notice that there are three other "Royal Mints" listed in the article on "Mint", apart from the British one. Since it clearly is not the only one in the world, as can be seen from the article itself, I don't see the issue or any controversy. I did change the Redirect for "Royal Mint" to "Mint (coin)" and my move clarified that the article in question was the mint of only one nation. Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Tyldesley

Please desist from adding unnecessary links about Ambrose Barlow to an article about another person.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Desist?? I had never heard of him before today. The article I edited already had a link to him, which you would have seen in the history. And since when is there a limit on links? Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You appear to enjoy providing multiple links to the same thing, WP:Overlinking. Ambrose Barlow has his own article, that's where all the links about him belong. If I look up one person I don't expect a link farm on somebody else. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

While I won't argue some of the changes you made to my text, we have a disagreement about a number of things. Firstly, your change of the term "Mass" to be uncapitalized is offensive to members of my faith. Secondly, there are also a number of changes you have made which removed standard references made within religious communities, and thus are proper to the article. The different references to St. Ambrose give a context to someone who, like myself, had no idea who he was, and without that, might not be motivated to look further. As with Mother Clare Mary Ann, indication of one's religious Order is considered a standard part of one's name, like "Jr." Particularly as a fellow Benedictine, I question why you consider the standard use of the Order's initials for him as overkill. Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Since I now see that you created the article, I have to point out that you made a number of factual errors in it, which might have been avoided by actually checking the links in it. Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I usually decapitalise nouns that aren't proper nouns but if it is offensive, replace it. I might add you don't know my faith and I edit in as neutral a way as I can. I probably wouldn't have removed the abbreviations if had there not been serial overlinking throughout your edit. I reiterate strings of overlinking as you did for Ambrose Barlow belong in his article not this. The factual errors being?--J3Mrs (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I edit from a neutral point of view, you obviously have an axe to grind. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I regret that you are taking it that way, but I am trying to make the article as clear as possible, especially for those who, like myself, are not as conversant with terms common in the U.K, and respecting the ettiquete in use among us in Religious Orders. Since you ask, here are two of the factual errors in your original text. The article originally stated that Mary Ward entered the monastery with Elizabeth. Inaccurate by three years. It also stated that the women were received into Holy Orders. This was not possible then in the Roman Catholic Church, as remains true today. Links can help. Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're in religious orders then I'm a Chinese whore from Mars. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What a typically sad comment. On the bright side, you show an excellent grasp of the English language for someone in your profession and locale. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

But I'm not a Chinese whore from Mars. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? On this site, documentation is required. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain, as human life is not possible on Mars. And even if it were the speed of light would make it impossible for me to respond to your posting so quickly. But you claim to be a monk, or at least in religious orders. Are you really? Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glen Springs Sanitarium

The article Glen Springs Sanitarium has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Relies on one single source, does not signify importance. Please elaborate and include more sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Touch Of Light (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Some tips to help you out!

Hi Daniel the Monk, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:Daniel the Monk/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

How references work

Simple references

These require two parts;

a)

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>

b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";

== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Daniel the Monk/reftest and try it out.

Named references

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 

Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Something to make your life easier!

Hi there Daniel the Monk! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Pesky, thanks for the tip! Much appreciated. I don't quite follow all of it, as Wiki still leaves me feeling like I'm walking through a forest, but I just saw your examples, and they are a big help. From your profile, though, sounds like just your kind of habitat, lol. Great photo, btw, of you and the wolf. Cheers!Daniel the Monk (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:English Roman Catholic Religious Sisters

Category:English Roman Catholic Religious Sisters, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Occuli (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary

Re this edit summary: yes—Eastern or Roman Catholic. Which is why I did this: not all will be Eastern Catholics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

True, but Roman rite Ukrainian Sisters can be covered with other Roman Catholic Sisters, no?Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they could. I was referring to removing the parent category, which was Category:Eastern Catholics. If they are not all Eastern Catholics, then Category:Eastern Catholics should not be the parent category. I was just explaining why I changed the parent category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

So a nun is not a cleric? Please explain. (Also please note that it is important to look at all of what you revert.) LadyofShalott 14:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, she would not be, at least not a Catholic one. A cleric receives Holy Orders and in the Roman Catholic Church, that is taught to be possible only for males. In fact, as of last year, public support of women priests in the Catholic Church is grounds for excommunication. Thus nuns are automatically lay women, but ones who led a consecrated life. She would be termed a monastic, or, more generally, a religious, which applies to any member of a religious institute, male, female, lay or cleric. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. LadyofShalott 14:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Keynsham & Keynsham Abbey

Hi, On Keynsham you changed "Victorine order of Augustinian monks" to "Victorine congregation of canon regulars" while on Keynsham Abbey it says "Augustinian Canons Regular", based on this source. I'm not expert on Augustinian vs Victorine so could you check both articles are OK & say the same thing?— Rod ^talk 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rod. I had already looked, only because Augustinian and monk were not synonomous in that period. All canons regular are automatically Augustinians, as explained in the entry on them and in the more general one of Augustinians. The Victorines were an autonomous grouping within that Order. Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks.— Rod ^talk 21:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Post-nominal initials

Hi. I was interested in your edits at the article Dominic of Evesham. I note that you gave edit summaries of This is not a document of the time, he was a Benedictine and the postnominal initials of the Order to which he belonged are appropriate as such and this is a Benedictine article, use Benedictine practice. User:Ealdgyth has raised the question with me of whether this contradicts the precedent of not using the post-nominal pbuh on our Muhammad article. At this stage, without taking sides in your dispute, I want to ask you this. Was your opinion one that was formed by consensus, or were you merely exercising individual editorial discretion? If the former, can you point me to where the consensus was formed? If the latter, would you mind if I raised the issue centrally so that such a consensus can be fairly formed? Thanks in advance, --John (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, John. This was my on own discretion, based on centuries-old practice. The example Ealdgyth brings up might be apples and oranges. Post-nominal initials for a member of a religious institute are not an honorific. Its use is considered equivalent to "Jr." or "IV", while that term seems to be a religious blessing. In the West, we have an equivalent term used for venerated deceased people, "of blessed memory". So personally I don't see the connection. Hope this helps. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I intend to help resolve this disagreement by posting centrally. I will let you know when I do so. --John (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's here. --John (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for joining the discussion. --John (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Archbishop Sanchez

Many thanks for expanding the article about Archbishop Robert Sanchez. I prefer to start with stubs in writing articles and let others expand the articles. Also I have no problems about the change in the style of dating. Thank you again=RFD (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Frédéric Janssoone

Hi Daniel. This article doesn't need Category:Beatified people because it already has Category:Franciscan beatified people, which is a subcategory of Beatified people. Pburka (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there. I understand your point, but the issue to me is whether someone looking at the wider category would necessarily look in the subcategories unless they already had specific information on a person, knowing, e.g., that he or she was a Franciscan or Dominican or Benedictine. That's why I feel the duplication is better. Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. That's contrary to the guidelines at WP:Categorization. (Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.) Additionally, I'm concerned that your recent expansion of the article isn't supported by reliable sources. An archbishop's blog isn't a reliable source. For such a large addition, I would also strongly advise the addition of footnotes supporting each individual claim. Pburka (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Pburka. To my mind, this falls into the area of a non-diffusing category, which the guideline points out can be an exception to the general rule. This categorization allows for a quick reference to someone looking for people in that specific category, rather than having to go through a whole list of, in this case, beatified people, trying to find the beati of a particular movement.

I am not clear why you say that the archbishop's blog is not a reliable source. In what way? In this case it is another secondary source, which is also being requested of the article, so excluding it is a kind of Catch 22. It certainly adds to the notability of the subject of the article.

It also has the advantage of giving an image of the subject of the entry. I just wish I could figure out how to add it to the article, if that were allowed. Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Michael Rua, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Religious Sisters v nuns

You created categories for religious sisters of various nationalities, but left the original categories (nuns) as well. They should have been merged, unless they are not the same thing, which I suspect they are. If you are going to create all sorts of new categories you should dispose of the existing ones which they are replacing. Now there are essentially duplicate categories and a mess to be sorted out. Quis separabit? 03:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel. Please disregard the above. I discussed the matter with Good Olfactory and I was operating under a misconception. Again, please disregard. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library

Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch. Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227). Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time) The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited St. John the Baptist Church (Manhattan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capuchins (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) 10:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

St. John the Baptist Church (Manhattan)

Hi. Regarding your edit to this article, the source cited does indeed say that "Both German churches had lay trustees that were so overbearing that they drove out several pastors," but it says nothing whatsoever about why they did it. To describe what they did as being the result of their "rebellious spirit" is a conclusion, and like any pit of analysis or interpretation of facts, it needs to be specifically sourced to be included in the article - which is why I have removed it. If you have a source which says this, specifically, please use it, but without such a source, the statement cannot be included in the article, so please do not restore it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Lupus Servatus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bavarian, Battle of Toulouse, Germigny and Frankish

Nazarena of Jesus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Carmel and Anchoress

Pietro Parenzo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bishopric

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Baroness of Douglas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baroness of Douglas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baroness of Douglas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

from LUCIOBLUES to Daniel the Monk. May, 30 2012

Thanks for your 'correct the English and grammar' to my Traversari's page. Sorry for my english. Can you do something about french Traversari's page ? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LUCIOBLUES (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)