User talk:Lima

For consultation from time to time

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!
Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. -- Cat Whisperer 05:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed your vandalism reversion on Catholicism, and when I traced back to the user, I found the same user had vandalized several more pages which had gone undetected. Using warning tags can help to spot this kind of repeated vandalism. Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer 05:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No matter what objections of a theoretical nature anyone may raise, it is a fact that the Holy See is recognized as a subject of international law by other subjects. They hold diplomatic relations not with Vatican City State but with the Holy See. If the other subjects of international law recognize the Holy See as a subject of international law, then it is a subject of international law.

The Holy See's sovereignty has been recognized explicitly in many international agreements and is particularly emphasized in article 2 of the Lateran Treaty of 11 February 1929, in which "Italy recognizes the sovereignty of the Holy See in the international field as an inherent attribute of its nature, in conformity with its tradition and the requirements of its mission in the world."

The Holy See was recognized as a person in international law long before the signing of the Lateran Treaty, which first established the Vatican City State. The very fact that the Holy See (which then had no territorial base) was one of the two parties to the negotiating and signing of the Lateran Treaty was based on its capacity to act relevantly in the international domain.

Even when the Pope was sovereign of the Papal States in central Italy, he had a recognized spiritual sovereignty as well as a territorial sovereignty. It was not on account of the latter that he held precedence over the Emperor and the other rulers of nations, that his envoys were received with the highest honours, that the papal court was considered one of the most coveted diplomatic posts. And after the complete loss of temporal power in the nineteenth century, the Pope continued to exercise the active and passive right of legation, as well as being called upon as arbiter and mediator by states for the settlement of international conflicts.

It is thus false to say that the Holy See "has always had temporal sovereignty over at least some land, even if now it is rather small." You ask: "Should it not simply be regarded as a rather unusual form of state?" Perhaps indeed it (the Holy See or the Catholic Church, which are closely connected but not identical) should. Provided that this expression is not mistakenly understood to imply that its sovereignty and personality are in some way dependent on also possessing a 44-hectare statelet with which nobody would be interested in establishing diplomatic relations or giving it weight in international relations.

This is at least how I see the situation of the Holy See in international affairs.

203.57.68.13 and vandalism

I recently got this IP unblocked. Thought it was now exclusively assigned to me. But apparently not. (Who checks their own contribs when they haven't contrib'ed?) I've asked admin Stephen, who did the original block, to block it again. Assuming that doesn't screw up this login, we'll see how that turns out.--PaulxSA 03:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

All that talk

about consensus, working changes out in talk, pffft! You have certainly ceded any claim to the moral high ground in your latest unilateral Eucharist edits. But I won't just revert. Eschoir 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So you really don't like tables, or is there a problem with this table you'd like to share? Eschoir 16:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

Lima, could you possibly pop over to Edmund the Martyr, take a look over the article and talk page, and see what you reckon to the claim being pushed by one user that he still ranks as a patron of England. So far as I can see he certainly not regarded as such by the Church of England, and neither is he listed (at all) in the National Calendar for England and Wales of the Catholic Church. David Underdown 12:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Lima, I only wish I had thought of bringing this to your notice previously, and just maybe we would have avoided some of the fruitless wrangling of the past few months. Such is life. David Underdown 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I came to thank for your comments and I see David Underdown tipped you off to the dispute. Well done to both of you. --SECisek 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr is again under the attck of an single purpose account. Will you weigh in one more time with a Roman Catholic POV. He says the article is biased by an Anglican POV of Edmund (?!?), what ever that is. -- SECisek 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your oppinion. I will leave it alone for a day per your wise request. Believe me, I would LOVE to never comment on that article again. -- SECisek 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be flaring up again, could you possibly expand on why being a (secondary) patron would necessarily entail a listing on the current English calendar. The user is again claiming that canon law means that once a patron, always a patron, unless a specific declaration to the contrary is made (no to me dropping him from the calendar would seem to fit that), but I'm no expert even in Anglican canon law. David Underdown (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, seems reasonable to me, whether it will onvince all parties remains to be seen. David Underdown (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Again it seems reasonable, the idea of region appears to be intended to apply to a variety of ideas, nation states, sub areas such as perhaps Catalonia and so on. I don't see that as a problem. David Underdown (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I do sometimes wish I had never got invovled myself, I did think he was a little self contradictory on the calendar, since at the top of the webpage it says it received recognitio in 2000 and is published on an official webpage of the English and Welsh Bishops' Conference, and made that point (amongst others) in my latest reply. Fortunately many years as a field hokcey umpire have schooled me in keeping my counsel in the face of provocation. David Underdown (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

about catholicism

Dear friend, I will be honest with you. I know that Jesus will prevail one day, same as justice will. This means that sooner or later Catholic church together with a pope of Rome, anti-christ described in Bible will end up burning in hell forever. Thats the truth, you can hide, you can delete sections or the whole articles. But you cant hide the truth. The truth is that Jesus is Lord, and that Satan is looser. All who follow Satan, including pope of Rome will end up in hell. That is truth. I hope that sooner or later, you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. As well as that you quit this false worship system. May Lord Jesus bless you, and give you salvation.

User ipernar—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.130.158 (talk • contribs)

How nice and friendly. Pastordavid (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Saint Otteran

Hi there! I would like to expand your article on Saint Otteran of Iona based on two sources I found. One of them, however, gives his year of death as c. 563 instead of 548. Could you please tell me your source? Maybe we can get out which one seems more likely. Thanks. Daranios (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bacchae Back-off

I may havve a solution. I tracked down the original source of the Harris and bacchae quotoes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eucharist&diff=69929861&oldid=68499885 back in August 06. It is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.58.71.152

I left him a message to defend his edits, which you can see by going to his talk page. If he doesn't defend the quote, I surely won't. Give it a couple of days, then maybe it can be deleted entirely. Eschoir (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

cease fire

I have copied the areas of contentnion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eschoir/Sandbox

What say we work there for a couple of weeks on what is contested content and leave off public bickering?Eschoir (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What hope is there that private discussion would produce anything other than bickering? It is better to work towards an agreement where we know others are observing our attitudes and words. I continue to hope that, in that public forum, others will intervene and express their views on the questions we are discussing. Lima (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What is Cogden's thesis? Finding it is too difficult to consider intervening. Lima (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical critical Christian apologist

I have placed an article in my sandbox for a few days that I invite you to read - I think that you will not only like it, but mayagree that it is a starting place for an ending to the history of eucharist article.

It's "six eucharists" is at least good for another table.

Look quickly, it has copyright issues, and I will take it down soon.

Eschoir (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus eating with women

Thanks for the congratulations. I'm doing the "eating with women" thing from memory. I'll check my sources. In the mean time, please feel free to delete the reference to women. While you're at it, I'm afraid that this whole section doesn't give proper respect to the important place of food in Jesus' ministry. If you could add some more to give a non-NT-literate reader some context, that would be helpful. Leadwind (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the hostile-act scene. I'll delete the reference. If you could feed me any good information on the importance of meals and food in Jesus' ministry, I'd appreciate it. Leadwind (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Greek and italics

Sorry about the reverts; when looking at a diff it's hard to see the difference between "..." and ''...''. But it is true that italics aren't used with the Greek alphabet by professional typesetters. Computer fonts generally don't distinguish between true italics and so-called oblique type forms (true italics are based on different letter shapes derived from handwriting, while oblique forms are just slanted versions of the roman forms). Oblique forms of writing systems that don't historically have italics (like Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, etc.) just look silly and should really be avoided. Seeing anything other than the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets written in oblique is one of my pet peeves, I'm afraid. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bible version

Hi, Lima. I wanted to thank you for your recent revision of the article Good Friday Prayer. The streamlining and addition of references is a good improvement. I noticed that you removed the KJV switch from the bibleverse templates. I understand your reason for doing so: leaving the choice of which Bible version up to the reader. I just wanted to give you some imput as to my reason for putting it there. The way the template is setup now, if no specific version is indicated, the link brings the user to a long list of versions to chose from, in a number of different languages. To get to the actual verse referenced, she or he has to first read through the list and select a version. This adds an extra step, is time consuming, and some users who are not familiar with the different versions available may get discouraged and simply give up. However, if a version is specified, the user is brought directly to the verse(s) in question; then, if they prefer a different translation, they can select it from the pulldown menu. This way the user still has a choice, and the process of getting to a translation is faster and easier. It seems reasonable to me that more users will be satisfied with this simpler procedure. What do you think? MishaPan (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The sourcecode to get the bibleverse template to point to NRSV is "131" (where "KJV" was previously). Unfortunately, this points to a different Website which doesn't give the option of looking at different versions. MishaPan (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Lima, I've logged a Wikiquette alert regarding your altering my cited information on Baptism without comment. The alert also refers to other issues we've had between us as context. Wikiquette alerts are for getting outside opinions on difficulties between editors. I look forward to settling this with you cordially. Leadwind 03:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is Lima altering two cited sentences and leaving the citations in place. [1] He's implying that the RS says what it didn't say. He came in about an hour after I had added the citations and altered them. This is just the last, clearest example of his campaign of opposition against me. He apparently defends a pro-Catholic POV. Meanwhile, I'm consulting reliable sources on religious topics (purgatory, baptism, early Christianity, etc.). I've got a POV (who doesn't?), but I'm happy to use RSs and simply want Lima to do the same. I want to use several RSs to fashion a standard definition of purgatory; Lima wants to quote the catechism. I can sing a long song of grievances, but let's start with him altering cited information. This has got to be a faux pas, and I hope someone can tell him so, please. Leadwind 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Leadwind (talk · contribs) on this, given that Lima (talk · contribs) is misinterpreting the citations for a non-balanced viewpoint. Other editors seem to agree with this stance as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For what I did wrong, I apologize. When I edited that text, it seemed to me that the statements (which are not between inverted commas) attributed to the source could not have been exact. Does the source say simply: "Jesus did not baptize"? Surely the author of the source knew of John 4:1–2, which says it was reported that Jesus baptized (not personally, but his disciples did). In any case, I did not change what was attributed to the source, which is what Leadwind accuses me of: I, in a way that I recognize was wrong, gave an interpretation of the apparent contradiction between the 20th-century source and the 1st-century source to which I drew attention. I thought that infelicities in what I wrote would be ironed out by other editors. With regard to the second change from "doctrine about baptism" to "forms of baptism", I thought this was necessary, because the examples that followed were, I thought, only about the manner in which baptism was administered (the text itself uses the word "form"), unrelated to doctrine (what baptism is, what it does). Does the source really speak of the variable forms of early Christian baptism as variable doctrine? (In view of the touchiness shown, I have since then refrained from correcting a more obviously false attribution of incorrect information to a source.) These two changes, done perhaps rather too hurriedly, followed the other change that I made and that I thought was made necessary by Leadwind's insertion of the word "immerse" as if it were the only meaning of the word "βαπτίζω": the article itself states that the meaning of this word was broader, as Leadwind too indicated when he reported his source as saying that the usual early Christian method of baptism was by pouring water over the upper part of the body of someone standing in water. This is not baptism by immersion as usually understood. Now that I have explained myself, I will add that I hope the Wikipedia community will reprimand me for what I did. Certain people, who have now got together here and here, have been making me spend too much time on Wikipedia, and I would love a pretext to retire. Lima 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, you're creepin' people out. Eschoir (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started on Lima - he has reverted Eucharist 13 times without saying what he challenges among the new material, if anything, deletes sourced content and substitutes distorted paraphrase, constantly argues a position using primary sources, won't answer yes or no questions in Talk, defends a pro-Western Catholic POV, doesn't understand basic editing like usage of [sic] in text, has tried to have me banned first as a sockpuppet, then as a sockpuppeteer, tried outing my private Identity, and generally wastes a lot of time dealing with him. Eschoir 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who views the corresponding Talk page can see that I have indeed been pressing Eschoir to discuss our differences of opinion. Lima 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's any question as to whether Lima's errors were innocent, I'm happy to provide context to show that they weren't. But I don't want to jam this page with my litany of wrongs. I'll happily respond to direct questions. Leadwind (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadwind has asked me to comment here-- and I I can substantiate that Lima and I have very different points of view about what a NPOV, Verifiable article looks like. Our specific dispute has been over the article Purgatory. I made major rewrites to the article, but Lima reverted them wholesale. One two other occiasions, I've tried to make similar changes, only to find that my changes were wholesale reverted-- leading me to withdraw from the page until there's the edit-warring situation resolves itself.

I can't go so far as to say Lima's POV concerns are completely without merit, but the net effect of interacting with him led me to seek other places on the project where I could be more useful without having to fight so hard to improve things. Whether Lima's behavior is problematic or whether my changes were problematic is, of course, something neither he nor I can objectively comment on-- but if others have found him to be a little POV-pushy in other context, perhaps he should be looked at just a tad, so see if ya can help him stop. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that Alec's brough it up, let me jump in and say that Lima's repeated pattern on Purgatory is to make life unpleasant for editors that he disagrees with until they leave. That's what Alec did, twice. I've also seen it with other editors. He's been in mediation twice with me, and we've done at least 4 RfCs. The page has had the POV tag since February, and Lima has been the most active and unpleasant in attempts to keep others from fixing the page. Like I said, making cited information wrong is just the latest and clearest transgression of Lima's. I was hoping that a word from an objective third party would help straighten him out, so I set up this alert. Leadwind (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in original research. Please stop making uncivil and snarky comments, especially as editor notes in article space. Also, please do not make edits to prove a point. I implore you to deal with me politely and to work productively towards article improvement. If there's a content conflict we cannot resolve, we can take it to dispute resolution. However, the disruptive and rude attitude you've taken is not acceptable. Vassyana 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [Best not to respond to this objection to counter-arguments being inserted in "editor notes in article space" (<!-- ... -->) to balance the arguments inserted in the same editor notes by the objector. On alleged Original Research, see below.]

Original research is prohibited. You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible, to argue against secondary sources. You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. You must cite reliable sources to put forward such arguments and discussions. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Please take the time to read and understand our content policies. Vassyana 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir quoted Vassyana. Vassyana had been the mediator between Lima and me when we were in mediation. V has since taken a wikibreak and drastically limited their participation, partly because of obstructionist editors on WP. --Leadwind 70.102.136.132 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

With two editors on record trying to get Lima to stop using OR, and two on record trying to get him to stop being snarky, would we be well-served to bump this up to an RfC on Lima? Maybe we wait to see how this Wikiquette alert turns out first? Leadwind (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima got to be too much for me for a little while. I developed an aversion to Wiki in recent days because I might have to deal with him. He is an attention seeking missile who would be on "ignore" in a chat room. He has affirmed that he reverted edits even though he did not challenge the content, which he agreed with, to get me to "discuss" them with him, yet he won't respond to any questions put to him when the invitation to discuss is put to him. I've read his work and mine togeter and it sucks because it is the product of edit warring. His attitude is real drama queen, he is inconsistant, and can't just go about his work and entertain a neutral POV. HE is going to drive away more editors than he brings in. Just my opinion. Eschoir (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What now? It seems as though we've said our respective pieces. I hope that the Wikiquette alert leads to some experienced third party sharing their perspective on these conflicts for our benefit. Leadwind (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for third-party opinion: The respective involved parties have said their pieces. Could some uninvolved editors please review the comments below and offer their opinions? (And could someone please attach this request to the Work in Progress tag?) Leadwind (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Plese note the shambles that certain areas of History of the Eucharist are in because of Lima's persistant arguing with sources. He inserts to engage in war of attrition then argues with the source given. He has even demanded a source for a purely literary allusion, and provided a footnote. Eschoir (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have accepted as a welcome gift a decision approving this denunciation of me by Leadwind (whose accuracy in reporting his chosen "reliable sources" is illustrated here and here and whose absence, together with that of his chief opponent, from the article whose discussion seems to have turned him against me seems to have allowed peaceful agreement on its contents) and Eschoir, with whose views on what constitutes original research I disagree and whose edits I have decided to leave to others to attend to. (Fortunately, Leadwind has corrected several of them, and Eschoir has now concentrated his combative instincts on Free Republic, where he is already well known.) Lima (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

I've notice that you've made a number of edits to remove redirects in articles. May I call your attention to the editing guideline on that issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.42.61 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. Lima (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

English versions of the Nicene Creed

Hi, you have reverted my 1962 additions three times. This is in breach of wikipedia rules. Please undo your last change and we will discuss on the talk page. 217.171.129.71 (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Vatican City

For what it's worth, I am in the process of trying to update things for the new Vatican City work group of the European Microstates project. I personally agree that there is a real question whether documents issued by the Pope qualify as real Vatican City articles, but an official document by an official head of state generally does. Also, every article tagged so far has fallen within the Category:Vatican City or one of its subcategories. For the purposes of organization, the new work group should have some idea what articles are placed there. If the banner is not merited, then reasonably the categorization of the article or of the parent category should be changed. I believe that ultimately all the articles which clearly related to the Papal States, the Vatican's predecessor, should fall within a more focused group. The fact that the head of state of the Vatican, the Pope, was also head of state of some precursor states, helps support that belief as well, as those states were the predecssors of the existing Vatican City. In a sense, I do think that the Vatican work group maybe will become, in effect, a papacy work group. Given the rather huge scope of the existing Catholicism project, having a place for a bit more focused effort on the Papacy, its history, people, places, things, documents, etc., probably wouldn't be a bad thing. I do acknowledge that this is probably the only state on the planet that has had the person performing as its head of state exist in that position before the state itself did, which is why I personally think that the history of the papacy should also, in a sense, be included as a part of the city of Vatican City. Also, clearly, the "prehistory" of the buildings and locations in Vatican City before the foundation of same is also directly relevant to the Vatican City workgroup. I do acknowledge that I am still in the process of determining the tagging, however, and am more than willing to discuss it. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question, and one particularly relevant to the papal encyclicals and curia documents. I honestly don't have an answer to the question which is necessarily certain. My guess would be yes, considering that religion is, effectively, almost the sole real business of the state in question? Also, if, as I think might work best, the Vatican group becomes the papacy group as well, it would probably be useful to the Catholicism project to help focus some attention on that subject in particular. There's also a proposed Catholicism in the UK subproject at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page, and the Catholicism project might benefit from a bit more focused attention in some key areas. If it were to develop that the Vatican group also become the effective papal group, then the "official statements" of the pope would probably qualify for inclusion. I think it makes sense, but that is a point I am substantially less certain about. In the cases of documents, if you were to want to remove them, I don't know that anyone would necessarily notice. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You know more about the internal workings of the Vatican relative to the Holy See than I do, so I acknowledge that the two are probably separate in a real sense, although I'm not sure how technical the difference might be. Part of the reason for creating the new work group was to ensure that that state is covered by some group, because I'm in the process of making such groups for all countries and most major overseas territories which don't yet have dedicated groups for them. I do know that the two entities are generally not separated in the public perception, however, and actually hope in time to make the new work group a dual subproject between European Microstates and Catholicism. Once that's done, if it does happen, then the articles might getted tagged again, but unless the articles are specifically included in other subcats of the Vatican City category I don't think the banner will be added again. If they are, and I don't recognize that, the bot which might be doing the tagging for all the European Microstates goups when I'm done might replace it. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I was thinking from the "Vatican" perspective rather than the more neutral one. My apologies. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the currrent cause of dispute seems to be that Category:Holy See is currently a subcat of Category:Vatican City. As that seems to be at best dubioous, particularly regarding eras like the Avignon papacy, I'm taking the liberty of removing that category. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

History of early Christianity

This article was originally titled Origins of Christianity and, based on your Talk Page note from August 2007, I gather you were pretty frustrated and exasperated with some of the other editors of that page. Well, it's been 6 months and the article has changed significantly due to my having expanded and renamed it. Please take another look at it and tell me what you think. I would like to address the concerns that you raised back in August but I would need your help.

--Richard (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that I then resolved to let the article be, in view of difficulties I had encountered. I have by now forgotten those difficulties. Did I consider that, in the form the text had taken, it was at least minimally acceptable? I don't remember. There are ambiguous and potentially misleading statements in it, as a very rapid reading seems to show: "modern scholars have questioned" might be taken to mean that there is a negative consensus on the matter among modern scholars as a whole (is there? the footnote does not seem to say so). "The Essenes practiced baptism" - an initiation rite, as "baptism" is usually understood, or just a repeated purification ritual such as is practised by observant Jews and Moslems still today? And I do think that it is forcing things for the "Appellation" section to present the name "Christian" as (certainly) a more recent name than "Nazarene", on the basis of a mention of "Nazarene" in a part of the story of Saul/Paul that is in fact much later than the mention of the word "Christian", and on the basis also of mentions of Jesus (not of his followers) as connected with Nazareth. But such matters aren't enough to stir me to intervene; and I suppose I did believe I had good reason for resolving to stay aloof from the article. However, I will now put the article on my watchlist and see what you intend to do to improve it.

A further thought. Everything in the following is either repetition or ambiguous/misleading: "The disciples were first called 'Christians' (Greek Χριστιανός), meaning '"household" or "partisans" of Christ', in Antioch. Ignatius of Antioch was the first Christian to use the label in self-reference. The earliest recorded use of the term Christianity (Greek Χριστιανισμός) is also by Ignatius of Antioch, around 100 AD." Isn't the explanation "in essence meaning a 'Messianist'", given just before, sufficient (and better - where does the idea of "household" come from?)? Why suppose that only non-Christians used the word "Christian" in the sixty years of its existence before Ignatius unprecedently, as is here supposed, adopted it in self-reference? I wonder when (if ever) there was a first self-reference by early Christians to themselves as "Nazarenes". If "Christianity", the abstract noun, did not appear before the start of the second century, what does that prove about the use of "Christian"? After all, I think that, even at the start of the twenty-first century, "Nazarenity" has yet to appear. But this again is not enough to tempt me to edit the article. Lima (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Losar

Losar is currenting happening, how may I ensure that it is flagged as a current event? Is there a News Wiki article that this Wikipedia article can interwiki? How may I progress this? Is there anything else you recommend?
Blessings in the mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Baptism

On Baptism, was it you who added "according to," deleted a reference to Jesus not baptizing, and used the gospel of John to suggest that he did? I just fixed all that. Leadwind (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why, yes, indeed it was you who deleted sourced information. And after the Wikiquette alert and everything. I'm disappointed. Leadwind (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Merely quoting a statement made three times in the Gospel of John and adding "according to" to a contrary statement for which a modern writer is given as source is perhaps not such a serious crime as pictured here. Lima (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Lima, I was told you were a knowledgable person in the Roman Catholic area and I am contacting you to ask if you could go to this page and take a look at it to see if you think it meets FA criteria. Please leave your comments on the FA leave a message page. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain

Lima, could you possibly look at the discussions on Category talk:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain, User talk:Benkenobi18 and my talkpage on this subject. My (outisder's) understanding has been that to most intents and purposes England and Wales forms one national church, and scotland another. Benkenobi is arguing that Great Britain is the true level. David Underdown (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. It's posibly moot now, in so far as the other user seems (unfortunately) to have left Wikipedia over this. Anyway the main bone of contention was that the way he was trying to organise the categories (and articles) implied that there was a "real" British hierarchy, whereas, as I understand it England and Wales forms one hierarchy, and Scotland another (if nothing else they were restored at different times). Each has their own Bishops' Conference, and each deals separately with the Vatican, there is no combined British body for Catholicism, although the Nuncio is of course accredited at the UK level, since it is the United Kingdom which maintains diplomatic relations, not Scotland, England or Wales (and quite how that fits in with the all-Ireland organisation of the Church as against the Irish state, I don't know). On this basis he was categorising Dioceses at a British level, as well as at the Scottish and English & Welsh levels (which purely on the way Wikipedia organises categories was a nonsense). There are however two organisations, analogous to Dicoeses, the Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainians in Great Britain and the British Military Ordinariate (Bishopric of the Forces) which do have a jurisdiction at the Great Britain (or wider) level, though both are part fothe English and Welsh conference. Does that make the issue any clearer? David Underdown (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I want you to know that I copied and pasted your response to my request onto both the talk page of Roman Catholic Church and the leave comments section of the Featured Article tag on that page. I feel that another editor is being obstructionist and I wanted them to see that you have experienced the same thing. Something should be done so Wikipedia can have decent factual pages on Catholic subjects without this kind of harassment. NancyHeise (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana

Please do not alter text in such a way that it incorrectly represents the source or contradicts reliably sourced statements using unreliable sources, as you did at History of early Christianity.[2][3] Unreliable sources and your personal opinion do not trump reliable sources. As you can see by the revisions I made after reverting your changes, I am perfectly willing to accommodate your concerns. However, you have been advised repeatedly about altering and disputing sourced passages based on your personal opinion, primary sources and unreliable references. Please do not express your opinion through such disruptive and destructive changes, but rather use appropriate tags and raise your concerns on the talk page. As I mentioned, I'm flexible and perfectly willing to address your concerns, but please raise them in an appropriate manner. Vassyana (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to warn you about disruptive edits, particularly when you have been advised in the past by numerous editors about such actions. The warning was also accompanied by statements that I acknowledged your concerns and have attempted to address them, and indicating I am flexible in addressing concerns raised in an appropriate manner. Regardless, your sarcastically titled post to Talk:History of Christianity is utterly inappropriate.[4] Please refrain from such antagonism and dramatics, as they are disruptive and uncivil. Vassyana (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lima, are you messing around with sourced text again? Don't you remember the Wikiquette alert where people told you it was wrong to do that? Leadwind (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not insert references in such a way as to disrupt the sourcing of material, as you did at History of early Christianity.[5] I have noted the Bible verse in-text to prevent the "breaking" of citation. Vassyana (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am saddened that you continue with your disruptive approach to editing. You mention it is not original research to use early sources, when partially restoring a change.[6] The problem was your personal commentary placed in the footnote of the original change.[7] Part of the problem is also the disruption to the sourcing of the article. A problem which remains present in your second attempt to insert the information. I placed the biblical reference at the appropriate place in the text, without using a footnote that disrupts the sourcing of the article.[8] The problems with altering sourced text, disrupting citation and original research have been explained to you many times. You have continued to do so in that article, including immediately after being warned. You are leaving me with little choice but to seek community sanction against you for your disruptive practices. I implore you to reconsider and avoid such troublesome behavior. You can be an excellent editor (and I would encourage you to keep editing), but such problematic editing has to end. Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again you have inserted personal commentary and disrupted the referencing of the article.[9] Please stop. This disruption is not acceptable at all. Vassyana (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been trashed out publicly at Talk:History of early Christianity#Apologies to Vassyana, Talk:History of early Christianity#Vassyana's reversions, and Talk:History of early Christianity#removed claim. Lima (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

False Attribution?

your comment on an expanded reference today in Early Christianity said "has there been another false reference?" please assume good faith: "false reference" suggests malfeasance and not just mistake. but also i can't see any indication in your change that the original reference was false. all you seemed to do was to include quotations that back up the claims already made in the article. Tb (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the sharp expression in my edit summary, which I have already corrected; but are you sure there was no indication that the original reference was mistaken (I avoid the word "false")? The original reference said Irenaeus opposed infant baptism; the text of Irenaeus and the editor's comment on it seem (to me) to show him approving it. Am I perhaps wrong in my reading? I have left this comment here, not on Tb's page, in order to avoid prolonging the discussion. I should perhaps not have written it even for myself. Lima (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that perhaps there are simply divergent opinions about Irenaeus. IIRC he simply didn't address it directly. So the thing to do is to check the Oxford Dict. and its references, and then either discount it or whatnot. Thanks for catching it; I read that paragraph only yesterday and missed what should have jumped out at me as well. I do think that a long discussion of the point is out-of-place in that paragraph. I'll think more and see if I can tighten it after I check the dict. Tb (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is good to see that what was so surprisingly attributed to the Dictionary has now been removed. (I mean "attributed" only factually, making no judgement on whether the attribution is correct or not. At most I have implied the possibility of a mistake, but not bad faith. In the concrete case in question I presumed that "Tertullian", not "Irenaeus", must have been what was in the text that I thought might have been misquoted.) Lima (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have purchased the source to which the amazing statement was attributed. It says exactly what I expected to find in it. Of infant baptism it says: "Tertullian opposed the practice (incidentally witnessing to its existence)". It says: "Irenaeus speaks of Christ as 'giving salvation to those of every age' who are 'regenerated' through Him, and expressly includes 'infants and little children among them." It is quite clear that Irenaeus did not oppose infant baptism: he speaks of it as one of the marvels wrought by Christ. Again, I do not say that it was in bad faith that the editor said that Irenaeus opposed infant baptism. I see it as just another of his mistaken false attributions of statements to sources that he seems to read too hurriedly.

Having gone not only to the expense, but also (because of where I live) the trouble, of purchasing the book, I have set about correcting the editor's misattributions of statements to it, and his misunderstandings of phrases in it (for example, when he took the "standard text of the Gospels" to mean the "canonical gospel", or when he turned "the school in general tended to what might be called, in a rather loose sense, an Adoptionist Christology" into "the school promoted adoptionism"). I have come across one surprising case, in which the editor put between quotation marks a statement that, at least in that form, is not in the source to which he attributes it: "The term 'patriarch' was not assigned to these bishops until the 6th century, but they held patriarchal authority over nearby metropolitans" (Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005). What the source actually says is: Patriarch (ecclesiastical). A title dating from the 6th cent., for the bishops of the five chief sees of Christendom ... Their jurisdiction extended over the adjoining territories. I refuse to believe that he was trying to pass his statement off as an actual quotation. I prefer to think that he added the quotation marks at a moment in which he had forgotten that what he had written was not an exact quotation, but only his interpretation. Lima (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Epiousios

Hi! I have addressed to your concerns about epi and separation on the Lord's Prayer talkpage. L'omo del batocio (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Pentarchy

Hi Lima. one last thing about the pentarchy. When the council of trullo had taken place so to confirm the justinian rule about the rule of five, the calcedonian shism had already taken place 100 years ago. As such Justinian referred to the greek orthodox patriarchates which never lost their position through out the existence of byzantine empire, a position maintained under the ottomans through an unbreakable line of patriarchs to our days. This is a fact beyond any doubt. I will make an entry for this in the section of justinian and please tell me what you think. regardsMelathron (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No its fine. I have just included the Holy See as well. Melathron (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I have clarified as greek orthodox instead of othodox and with orthodox we can also refer to oriental orthodox ( pre chalcedonian) or Assyrian Orthodox ( nestorian) so to make it accurate as in trulo only the greek orthodox were present the rest claimants were nor recognisedMelathron (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lima. All the bestMelathron (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I will alter it then to Bishops of Rome. I think this is quite accurate and neutral Melathron (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Chevetogne Abbey & the Russian Catholic Church

vHelp. An idiot keeps removing Chevetogne Abbey from the list of communities of the Russian Catholic Church. See those two pages as well as User_talk:Albania_T#Russian_Orthodox_Cathedral_in_Nice.2C_France and my talk page. I'm at wits' end, almost. InfernoXV (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence and help! InfernoXV (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up

Once the current interest in the articles fades with the season, I plan to go over all the articles for Holy Week and for its days, and tighten things up. In particular, we need a "Western Christianity" section; we don't need every rubric from the Roman Rite (esp. not in the main Holy Week article), etc. But I see little point in doing this now while a thousand fingers are "fixing" things every ten minutes. Tb (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tridentine Mass

Thanks for the help! Any interest on helping me cleanup this article? I was going to start formatting refs and providing more refs.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a liturgy

"Transubstantiation is not a 'liturgy'"... no kidding! I knew that sentence was broken when I read it, and for some reason I had a blank on how to fix it. Thanks for the considerable improvement. Tb (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Lima, I am considering renomination of this article for FA. I would like to know if you see any obvious problems with the article before I resubmit. I am contacting you on the advice of Karanacs who suggested I ask previous commentors to take a look and see if previous FAC issues have been sufficiently addressed. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact katpa@cs.umn.edu or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarification. You need not have been a member of the Adopt-a-User program, I was just using that as a possible point of reference. All we ask is that you be interested in working with someone to help them learn about Wikipedia. If you're up for this, let me know via email. Thanks again. KatherinePanciera (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Sin

"humanity's state of sin resulting from" as per your undo leaving this quote is a "state". If I'm not mistaken everybody does not commune with each other, which I call 'alienation', that includes being born without self-evident relation to God, or do you assume babies are born Catholics? And our "state" is that each is in a state of death, as Scripture says our life on Earth is about as enduring as a vapor due to our death sentence handed down to each person thanks to the first man. Or is your state different that that? With 2000 years of theology, I would say many of these refinements have to be extrapolated from the teaching fathers throughout the centuries--which is in a state of quandry as Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the rest of us apparently are not recognized by each other as valid communities of Christian faith, as history shows various Popes, Kings, Queens, and common believers excommunicating each other's rites and orders with classic outcomes of hostilities wrapped up in ecclesiastical high-minded fights that aren't even understood unless you are versed in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek. Now my Jerusalem Bible has introductory notes that state Catholics have TWO words of God, one being Scripture, the other living teachings of the Church of Rome overseen by the Popes. That squares with Jewish idea of TWO authorities: Their Hebrew Bible and the Rabbis' teachings, including footnotes in scripture. The problem as I see it is that the various early counsels of A.D. 100-300 provided a filter to remove heretical teachings and consolidate a common faith delivered one and for all time to the saints. I buy that not zillions of theologies down through out time which have given rise to some of the most oppressive heresies that pretend to be the very oracles of God Almighty, but in fact are nothing but human inventions. As for me I'll stick with my Hebrew and Greek bibles and say no to a preponderance of mythologies and old wives tales. Wikipedia is suppose to NPV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwildasi (talk • contribs) 07:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't understand this message. The fallen state of humanity (i.e. Original Sin), death, and reproducing certain traits in descendants, can surely, all three, be considered effects of the action (the Fall, the First Sin) that brought them about. I hope that the modification I have just made of the article avoids whatever problems Bwildasi saw in it. Lima (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Canonised

1. If "canonized" is permitted in both styles, then it is certainly not permitted to change it to "canonised", ever, provided the article is consistent.
2. I think a more careful review of the article would be necessary to substantiate this; where did the American spellings predominate and why? It's that revision which should be checked. Note carefully that "Retaining the existing variety" does not permit looking at things from five years ago and trumping all since. The "first major contributor" rule applies "in the early stages of editing the article"; but that's not the case here. What applies here is the first sentence: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety." Tb (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You suggest, "If this rule has been violated, then the violation must be undone - or so I think." but this is exactly the problem. This leads to endless problems. The rule does not say anything about "undoing" anything. It says two things: if the article has been around a long time, and edits have been mostly one way, keep it that way, and, if the article is new, follow the lead of the first disambiguating major contributor. The article has been around a long time, and, AFAICT, has for nearly all that period used American usage. The point here is that Wikipedia stresses stability and not correcting every past mistake. The point of the policy is to discourage changes of spelling while preserving consistency. Tb (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Western Rite Orthodoxy

I read over the recent changes you made to the above referenced article, and have removed them because they are technically incorrect. While the Byzantine rite eventually became predominate, other rites continued to exist within Orthodoxy for a few more centuries after the Great Schism (by way of example, Balsom calls on all churches to use the rite of Constantinople, indicating that there was still some variety...at least enough to be noticed). It's not a major issue, but I thought you might like to know. -- jackturner3 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Crimen sollicitationis

Hello, I've noticed that you've done some work on this article, could you jump over to the article's talk page because I want to make a few changed to it. Thanks. GuyIncognito (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Invocante

I've left the user a message on their talk page. Please consider trying to communicate your concerns to the user (sometimes templated user warning messages could help). There are no administrator actions that can really be taken (except in extreme circumstances) without proper warning. Also, article talk pages are a good place to discuss content disputes. Try to engage the user so that they explain their actions better on the talk page. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lima

Who do you think you are? I [Invocante] do not accept that in the normal understanding of things I am violating the copyright of the ICEL. The very notion of copyright on translations of texts as ancient as the creed or the Gloria is dubious but in any case there is a more substantial point. The new translation when it comes out will affect millions of the Catholic laity and the attempt to hide behind copyright is simply disingenuous. The reason for this are well given by Father Zhulsdorf in his reply to the ICEL letter referred to by you [http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/04/letter-from-icel.html here Indeed if we take the example of the new translation Gloria the Church has already authorised a new musical stetting of those words which is readily available from the Word Youth day website, see http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/parishes_schools/wyd08_mass_setting. This availability on the WYD site tells us two things. One the text I provide was reliable and 2 the church is perfectly happy to have the text in the public domain. So on what basis do you laim the right to delete my entry? Lastly I might you arrogantly reedits my and everyone else's work but you make no effort to speak to me first. You seem to think you have a monopoly of wisdom about the catholic church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lima, I note you continue to talk past me not to me which to put it mildly is rude but seems to be typical of your style. I fail to see what harm I am doing in publishing these texts. I am committing no real violation of copyright, and these texts are already available online including the World Youth Day site. I suspect this is not about you protecting Wikipedia it is about you monopolising all entries on the Catholic Church in Wikipedia. Wikipedia entries are supposed to be a community efort not an individual monopoly. But I see you zealous delete others’ entries. My entry on the Gloria was up for months before you arrogantly took it down. I repeat my question if the text is available from an official Catholic Church website on what basis do you challenge either it reliability or the fact that is now clearly in the public domain? (with the full consent of the Church (no less than Cardinal Pell himself I imagine). Invocante (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire text of the Gloria (and of the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei as well) can be found in the WYD08 Mass Parish Setting - Keyboard on that web page. You seem to misunderstand how copyright works it is perfectly legitimate to quote passages. or any material one it is in the public domain and authorship is acknowledged. For example[le if I want to quote "Yesterday" by the Beatles or a passage from JK Rowling I am free to do so and they cannot stop me, you or Wikipedia. Anyway if I were to apply the same logic to on what basis do you quote the existing 1973 ICEL or other liturgical texts? Have you obtained permission? I doubt it so to be consistent I expect you to remove all the quotations of the creed in modern English translations. But there is no need to do and equally you are not entitled to demand that I remove teh new ICEL translation because to repeat once, material is public in can never be made private again. Copyright is not about restricting the freedom to quote (else there would be no scholarship about modern writings) about acknowledging authorship and, where appropriate making payments. But quoting in Wikipedia is not for profit and my quoting fall within legitimate fair dealing. 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs)

Lima you have entirely failed to answer any of the points I made above. However you did post the following on my talk page:

"I want to make this remark as quietly as possible, so I am posting it here only. You know that the article is about English translations in current liturgical use. There is no certainty whatever that the text as voted by the US bishops in 2006 will ever be in current liturgical use anywhere, even in that country. It is at least possible that all English-speaking countries will have a uniform text, and that the US preferences will have failed to get support in other countries, clearance from the Vox Clara commission, and confirmation from the Holy See. I suspect you know this already. Lima (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)"

I suspect I know at least as much about the ICEL, Vox Clara as you do and you know full well that it is very likely we will get these new translations. Admittedly there is a lot of opposition from liberal bishops especially in the US and it is they who are desperate to stop the, far superior, revised texts becoming current among the faithful. I have wondered since this sparing match began what was driving your opposition to something so innocuous as publishing draft translations but such is you zeal in opposing the new translation that I can only suspect that you to are part of that liberal group who opposed accurate and well written English translations of the missal. I have always made it clear that these are only drafts. I would have no objection to you admitting the caveat above to any text I post but I do feel you are simply engaged in a process of trying to stop the dissemination of any knowledge about the new translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs)

Once again I see you have suppresed the new ICEL translation. This translation is clearly something you must hate very much given the zeal with which you supress it. You are not the only Catholic contibutor to Wikkipedia but you see dettermined to purge any other person's contributions. Invocante (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is about versions "in current liturgical use", not about drafts for future use. Lima (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are now resting on a techicality. The article could just as easily include future use. I tried to esatblish an entry on future use but you supressed that too. You have entirely failed to answer the arguments I made above. Indeed the very concept of diadlogue seems to be alien to your nature.Invocante (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Invocante stopped making off-topic allegations about other editors' motives and actions. See here for the decision, in which I played no part, by which that article was deleted as a copyright violation. Lima (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverts of vandalism

Yes I know I should be more careful when looking at vandalism. Sorry and thanks for pointing it out. MillionaireMan (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

Hey there Lima, I've always been very impressed with the way you handle yourself and strive for NPOV articles on this project. Have you thought about running for Admin? The current attitude at RfA is looking for people like yourself---quality editors who can be trusted with the tools. That being said, I couldn't guarantee anything. Some may oppose you because of your lack of edits in 'adminly areas.' If you are interested let me know and I'll take a closer look at you. I'd also give you an honest assessment as to what I felt your chances were. If you are interested, you can see my past candidates at my talk page.Balloonman (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thought. There are two very good reasons why I prefer not to take up the matter. One is that I have until recently been attacked by two editors and have also been in a disagreement with a respected Administrator over interpretation of a point of policy. The other reason, and the more important for me, is that I find the Wikipedia project already takes up rather too much of my time. I was quite sincere when I wrote that I would be delighted if the attack on me drew support, since it would give me a pretext to abandon the project. I may just perhaps after about two more years be able to devote more time to it, but I would prefer not to take on any more responsibilities now. Lima (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I was surprised that you weren't an admin already, but if you ever decide that you want the buttons let me know. I think you do a great job around here (as does my wife.) I fully understand when people say no, it's not something everybody wants/needs.Balloonman (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Crucifixion

You might want to look at my talk page where the 2 editors pushing the Urantia book are rather unhappy with me. A bit above their posts you will find a 3RR warning from one of them -- a warning he gave me for 2 edits over a week apart (he reported me and was blocked as he had 4 reverts). This is a WP:COATRACK issue isn't it (I'm still learning). Thanks--Doug Weller (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicene Creed

I very much like your version [10]. Done there. --Observer99 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help with Antiochian Catholic Church in America article

I realize this article does not fall within your primary purview, but I would appreciate your help in protecting it from edits which are, at best, POV, and at worst, defamatory and/or vandalism, emanating from a suspended Deacon-Monk of this Church, of which, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a priest. Thanks in advance for your help in this matter, and if you have comments, questions, or concerns, please contact me via my talk page. --Midnite Critic (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I have full confidence in your good faith and your desire to keep Wikipedia NPOV. I suspected, when the user in question actually got a user name, that he was gearing up for an all-out edit war, instead of, as he has done over the past few months, randomly striking anonymously from time to time. I appear to be mistaken about that at the moment, but I am not convinced that he will not do so in the future. In any event, if you have not already done so, if you could simply add this article to your watchlist, I would appreciate it. --Midnite Critic (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

War of Heaven

Hello Lima, there is a mention in the Qur'an about a disobedient Iblis but not a war in heaven when the Seraph Lucifer led a third of the Angels in an open revolution against God and his loyal angels. Kabad (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you simply delete things you don't like? Kabad (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You can revise and improve articles without wiping out other editors' work. --Kabad (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. Please give me some time to compare versions and read more about the subject. The only reason I got involved was to do a minor correction. --Kabad (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If I might offer a suggestion. The title "War of Heaven" is too closely linked to "Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Regained" by Milton. Yet I see no "Satanic Logic" within the overly broad interpretations. Milton was 51 and blind when he dictated the story to his daughters to put to paper. There are no "The Mind is it's Own place..." or "'Tis better to rule in Hell, than Serve in Heaven" quotes, leaving me to believe that this topic is generic and not specific. Perhaps an "According to:" may eliminate unnessary debate and confusion.

If I may also compliment the voice of one who questioned Sherurcij's self perceived entitlement as owner of the article, you were not wrong in your assessment. He thinks he controls every article he comes across. He is manipulative, nasty, narcissitic, a megalomaniac, sociopathic and rude! Those are the nice qualities. I can't tell you what I really think here. If you are looking for co-operation from Sherurcij - be prepared to be the co-operator. He will revert without discussion, then yell when the same is done to him. Follow my history and you will see why. Oh, another thing, on another site he brags about how much money he makes at work per wikipedia edit. Nice job if you can get one like that. Be careful though, my suspicions are that he contributes enough money to keep Jimbo from banning him, others have tried, and been banned themselves. Just an observation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.200.179 (talk • contribs)

I did make a once-off attempt at a general revision of the article - once-off, because I immediately dropped it when I found it met opposition. Cúchullain did say that my version was an improvement, but I decided to limit myself to just improving the existing text. Kabad's earliest comment on the matter (the second above) suggests that at that time he thought I was fighting for reinstatement of my general revision. I felt that that would be too difficult. But I think that, in spite of the pessimism of 75.143.200.179, that it really is worthwhile trying to get the "owner" of the article to allow other editors to make their contributions by adding matter that is both sourced and apposite. Lima (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC) And, by the way, I did try "According to ..."; but Sherurcij reverted that effort also. Lima (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw you on a friends talk page so I took a look at your contribs:

• 06:33, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Pastordavid‎ (→Talk:War of Heaven#Appeal for intervention: new section)
• 06:31, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:MishaPan‎ (→Talk:War of Heaven#Appeal for intervention: new section) (top)
• 06:28, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richardshusr‎ (→Talk:War of Heaven#Appeal for intervention: new section) (top)
• 06:26, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:David Underdown‎ (→Talk:War of Heaven#Appeal for intervention: new section) (top)
• 06:25, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mike Searson‎ (→Talk:War of Heaven#Appeal for intervention: new section) (top)
• 06:22, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tb‎ (→Talk:War of Heaven#Appeal for intervention: new section) (top)
• 06:18, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Cuchullain‎ (→Talk:War of Heaven#Appeal for intervention: new section)
• 06:16, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Kabad‎ (→Talk:War_of_Heaven#Appeal_for_intervention: new section) (top)

You're not trying to canvas are you? Those entries are not quite enough to convince me you are, so forget it. However, I will let you know that I put an RfCreli on the talk page to drum up interest so we might want to step away from personally notifying other editors lest it look like canvasing. Padillah (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not trying to canvas. As you can see from the list you made, I began with the two editors who were already involved, one of whom (as you can see above) was until then quite hostile to me. To get more people involved, what could I do - since I did not know of the method that you have kindly used on the article's Talk page - but get some Talk links from my Talk page, starting from the bottom (the most recent). If you look at what they wrote, you will see that not all of them have always been in agreement with me; but I thought that, in this matter, the more, the better. I felt sure that scarcely anyone would support the claim of the "owner" of the article to control the gateway to editing it. If one of those I contacted is the editor who has since attacked Sherurcij anonymously, I was and am quite unaware of any previous conflict between him and Sherurcij. Lima (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Aww crap. Emotionles text strikes again. I was never under any impression you were trying to canvas. The requests you made were litterally "come and participate" with no leaning or bias I could discren. I was attempting levity in warning you that, now that I have the RfC on the page, any further attempts could be turned to look like canvasing. I never meant to impugn your intentions or attempts at gaining wider consensus. Sorry if I failed, text does not lend itself to subtlety. Padillah (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm afraid I am going to be either entirely off-wiki or very limited in my online time for about a month or so - so I can't really pitch in at this time. Pastordavid (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I wasn't interested enough to look up before now the contributions of 75.143.200.179; I think it is clear that he is not any of the people I contacted. Lima (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Crucifixion - Sourcing is for credibility

We source to establish credibility for claims. Using one Wikimedia project claim to source a claim on another Wikimedia project (that is not about wikimedia or its projects) does not provide credibility. Can you find a reliable published source for your latest claim at Crucifixion? If not, maybe it is not true. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Visio Tnugdali

I have reverted (except for the useful link) your changes here, which did not introduce "more usual terminology". It is very important to maintain the distinction between works actually used for the article and a general bibliography, as most editors recognise, and is no doubt stated in a policy somewhere - see for examples FAs. Most people use "further reading" for works not consulted. I hope you don't make a habit of making these changes. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "References" is the usual section title, as perhaps indicated also by the what-do-you-call-them, "Reflist" and "references", that you can insert by clicking on them at the foot of the editing page. But if Johnbod has such a strong liking for "Notes" instead of "References", I certainly don't want to cause him distress. Lima (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If the works are in a separate section, as here, "notes" for the citations and "references" for the works themselves is usual. When they are combined into single entries, "references" is correct. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Section_headings, although in my experience "Footnotes" is rarely used. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Summorum Pontificum

I don't know anything about this topic, but I tend to agree that Thompson's comments are getting too much airplay. But because Thompson is a journalist and publishing his blog under the auspices of the DT, I suspect it IS a reliable source, though you could always get other editors opinions at WP:RSN. The other difference is that the blog is not been used to make controversial claims about a living person (or at least I don't think it is, perhaps I am wrong). That's why I wouldn't suggest using this blog [11] or this one [12] for the Williamson article, though it is possible WP:RSN might give them the OK if you tried. But frankly I think there are enough clearly reliable sources that it is not necessary.--Slp1 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heraldic Arms

Thank you so much, I tried to change at once but it does not seem to make much difference, what am I missing? Thanks--Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Thank's, I changed the pic replacing it with the papal arms, but maybe there is another one which you have in mind? --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, thank you for the idea, its really much nicer now. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nativity section

Hi, after a few more web-clicks I think your point about nativity having to be in the article is valid, so I made a subsection for it. Could you please assist with that section now that you have started the thought process for it? It requires some text and most importantly some relevant (I would say at least 8) good images in the gallery.

Your suggestion and then John's comment made me go further, and I also created a subsection for Christ and Mary. I still have to do more thinking on that but it seems that there is art beyond the Maddona. Would you like to help by expanding that section? It also needs 7 more images of an adult Jesus with Mary as her mother.

Your help with the text and images for the Nativity and Christ and Mary subsections will be appreciated. Thanks History2007 (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your touch ups. I found a few more images, but if you have more images and text for those sections, please do add them, and/or comment. Cheers History2007 (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist Third Opinion

Regarding Talk:Theories about the origin of the Eucharist#Request_for_intervention:
Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for opting to use the dispute resolution process. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Lima, the reason your statement was taken down to what it was was because 3O requests have to be neutral and anonymous. Perhaps it didn't quite capture what you were asking for, but what you had originally put was not neutral. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that I understood, and did not protest, since I had no reason to; but I thought it simplest to withdraw what seemed a misrepresentation. Lima (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I edited the WP:3O request and left the above note here. Lima deleted the 3O request. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If I did wrong, I apologize, as I have already done on Colfer2's page. Lima (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's no big deal, I just wanted to make clear what happened to the WP:3O. Thanks! -Colfer2 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Please don't stop editing the article; we'll get to the bottom of this. I've asked someone from WikiProject Christianity for another opinion. One way you could help would be to look around for more people to help get consensus going. Just a thought. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry Chadwick

I've recently worked up the above article (he was one of the Anglican participants in ARCIC I and II), and was thinking of putting it up for GA. Could you give it the once over? David Underdown (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

eastern catholicism edits

On Eastern Catholic Churches I had a sandbox up for nine months, give or take. You did not contribute a single edit when it was in the sandbox and then when I take it out as unobjectionable, you do a pair of hefty edits that would have been much better done in the sandbox. Did you really mean to say that a papal document in 1743 is of the modern era? When did the modern era begin in your opinion? There are other significant problems with your edit, though I'll try to preserve what is useful. TMLutas (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If I ever knew of this sandbox work, I forgot about it. Sorry. Lima (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I do not think that a mention of the old rule that was altered in what I would call modern times is equivalent to calling the old rule a modern document. Besides, you do seem to have preserved all my edits, including the mention of the 1743 document. Thanks. Lima (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you ask about what when I think the modern era began, I could refer you to the Wikipedia article modern era. Perhaps you should do some editing on that article, since it considers 1743 to be within the modern era, even in the stricter sense of "modern era". However, in my non-expert opinion, I myself would put the start of the modern era in politics slightly later, namely at the French Revolution, and in Catholic Church matters at the loss of the Pope's temporal sovereignty. I am not one of those who think that anything earlier than the Second Vatican Council is antiquated. Lima (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tridentine Mass

That ref was weak, you got me all fired up, I was expecting something great! Find something better, it's a fringe position, but if you can find a decent print source...it would be great, I have faith in you. Also, that article has excessive links, the "See Also" section should have links not already in the body of the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox resize

Hi, thanks for fixing Leo Dupont's page. Someone put the infobox on his page and it is OK, but it seems too large, and full of empty space. Do you know how to make it smaller, now that you are fixig that page? Also why is he called a confessor? I am not sure of the best title for him. If you are, please fix it as well. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think he should be called a confessor. See below. Lima (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Infobox and attributes et al

First of all Lima, I want to say that I and my group really appreciate your efforts and writing regarding many of the Saints, and various aspects of the Roman Catholic Faith, particulary pre-Vatican II "stuff" and Traditional Roman Catholics in general.

With regards to the attributes section, as found in a typical Saints Portal infobox, I and many others would place terms such as Confessor, Bishop, etc., with internal links in that section so as to give the viewer of the page a link to find out more about a confessor, bishop, etc. To place that link within the Title portion of the Saints Portal never made sense to many of us.

With regards to Americanizations in terms of dates, no offense, but the majority of us on Wikipedia are Americans and prefer American usage in language and dating. I personally do not mind British usage.

Finally, there are aspects reflecting the traditional understanding of the Roman Catholic Faith that need to be better defined for the occasional viewer of this material here on Wikipedia. Aspects touching upon Traditional Roman Catholics need to be better explained. As an aside, many Traditionalist Catholics strongly prefer the term "Traditional Roman Catholics." Perhaps you yourself and our group (User:ProudPapa5, User:AidanP02, User:MamaGeri and myself) can get together and tweak these materials and make them better. What do you think? All the best... AMC0712 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AMC, for providing this opportunity for clarifying these matters. I reply here, so that your friends who form the same group with you can join in at this single point, if they wish.

1. First, "attributes". In saint symbology, "attributes" means the traditional symbols or iconic motifs associated with the saints' lives that are used to let people know who is the saint in question. A gridiron indicates Lawrence, a shamrock Patrick, a flowering staff Joseph etc. Terms such as "confessor", "martyr", "virgin", "doctor of the Church" are descriptions or, if you like, titles, but not "attributes" in the normal sense of the word in this context. Just Google for the two words "attributes" and "saints", and see what you get. It is precisely the change that I see is being imposed in the meaning of "attributes" that has got me going on restoring it to its original meaning in these pages. (I also do not really like seeing these descriptions placed in the "title" line, which I think should be reserved for titles given to single saints (like "Apostle of such-and-such a country or area") or at most for a very few saints. Otherwise, where do you stop? The same person can be called "confessor", "priest", "religious", "founder", "educator" ...)

2. "Traditionalist Catholic" is a confusing term in this field. "Traditional Catholic" would be even more confusing, since there are many Catholics who are certainly traditional but not traditionalist - unless you think that nothing after some arbitrary date is traditional, whether that date is 1969 or 1962 (Missal of John XXIII) or 1960 (his Code of Rubrics), 1955 (general alterations by Pius XII), early 1950s (his revision of Holy Week and Easter Vigil), 1913 (Pius X's reform of the Roman Breviary and general rubrics), 1634 (Urban VIII's radical revision of the hymns and his other changes), 1604 (Clement VIII's replacement of Pius V's 1570 Tridentine Missal), or even 1568 (Pius V's revision of the Roman Calendar and the Roman Breviary)? If you want to speak with clarity about Traditionalist Catholics in relation to calendars, you really must specify the calendar you mean. This year, statements have been inserted saying that Traditionalist Catholics do something or other, when in fact what I suppose to be the great majority of them (Summorum Pontificum followers, SSPX followers and others who accept the 1962 Missal and Breviary) do not do it. Those statements would have to be rephrased to say that those who follow pre-1960 calendars do something or other. If I remember right, I have even found the statement that traditionalist Catholics celebrate Saint Philomena liturgically. Unless those "traditionalist Catholics" live in the areas where such celebration was authorized before 1961, they are not traditionalists, but innovators.

3. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining the existing variety on Wikipedia rules about US/non-US spelling. It would be a long and tiresome work to undo all the Americanization that certain people have been forcing on these articles in total disregard of what was the established style of the articles, and so of the rules of Wikipedia, which professes to be international and to treat US and non-US editors on an equal footing. (If you dislike seeing on your screen the day-month-year order of dates, just click "my preferences" on the top of your Wikipedia page, then click "Date and time", and choose the way you want dates to appear for you. I have made my choice. You can make yours.)

By the way, what directed my attention to these matters a few weeks ago was the attempt on the "Antipope" page to present Antipope Felix II as certainly a recognized saint. Then these many other things came to light. Lima (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Baptism

Thank you for the reference to Canon 861 §2. I must confess that until now, I had never read that particular canon, and only had knowledge of the passage from the CCC... Pax85 (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. At the current moment, I am mostly into vandal fighting and copy-editing, but I was planing on taking a look at the article a bit later myself to see if there was anything else I could help with...

Sacraments Article

I just wanted to let you know not to panic too much when looking at the article. I am just doing a small bit of reorganizing and making proper references out of things. There are come citation needed tags, but I will have those cleared soon. It will be a couple of hours due to other things on my plate. I just figured I would pass this along, since I am pretty sure it is on your watchlist. Once the {{inuse}} tag disappears, I will let you know, and we can figure out how badly I damaged the article. :) Pax85 (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I am realizing that this will take more than just an afternoon. My ultimate goal, is mainly just provide references throughout the article, as it seems the list is a bit short right now. A couple of the paragraphs seem a bit unwieldy too, but I'll worry about that later. So over the next few days, I am going to do some research for the references and continue through the article. If you are up to it, any suggestions, comments, or collaboration would be much appreciated! I will keep an eye on the article's talk page... Pax85 (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Christianity Barnstar
		For all your hard work on Christianity-related topics! Organic Cabbage (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...

Say, have you ever heard of this site...

http://christianforums.com/