User talk:Lima

For consultation from time to time

Vandalism templates. Lima (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

Having the word "Pope" in the title of the whole series of alleged predecessors of Benedict XVI has clear advantages that make it unlikely that a proposal to change the practice would be accepted by the Wikipedia community. It is a practice that concerns not only the Popes: I think there is only one Elizabeth II who merits an article, yet the article on her is headed "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", in line with the heading of the articles on her predecessors. Only in the sixth century did the title "Pope" begin to mean exclusively the Bishop of Rome (see Pope#The title Pope); it is simpler to keep the title for all members of the alleged series, rather than to pick some arbitrary point at which to begin to use the designation.

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]. 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)

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 [2] or this one [3] 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)

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)

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...

Barnstar

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

Traditionalist Catholic

I just wanted to thank you for your work on Traditionalist Catholic. I know it was "only" a paragraph, but when I was trying to wikify the article as part of WikiProject Wikify (shameless plug) the paragraph had my brain running in circles trying to follow the terminology. So long story short, I just wanted to thank you for your effort! Bvlax2005 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

List of unrecognized countries

Just to let you know, I added this reference to the article List of unrecognized countries when I made my edit earlier on. That source, the BBC, says:

President Dmitry Medvedev has declared that Russia formally recognises the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Last updated ten minutes ago, though there was a page there when I added it at noon UTC. Pfainuk talk 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Pentarchy

Lima, I was wondering if you could look at the changes that an IP editor made today at Pentarchy. Some of the assertions look suspicious. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Majoreditor (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Second Enoch

Lima, I've seen your edit on Melkisedek. Thank you for the edit. Please take note that Britannica is a little old. Nowadays most scholars support the Jewish (of course not pharisaic/rabbinic) origin. For a Jewish origin we have: Charles, Bonwetsch, Bousset, Harnack, Schurer, Szekely, Riessler, Schimtd, Eisfeld, Scholem, Pines, Delcor, Denis, Kamlah, Mascerskij, Philomenko, Stichel, De Santos Otero, Rowley, Sacchi. For a later Christian work resting upon a Jewish work have only Mikil, Danielou, Rubinstein and of course Vaillant (1952). I suggest to move information about the origin from Melchizedek / Virgin birth of Jesus‎ into the main Article Second Book of Enoch. In Melchizedek / Virgin birth of Jesus‎ we could say nothing about the origin of Second Book of Enoch. If you prefer also datation and the issue of chapters 69-72 (a slighly complex issue) can be placed only in the Article Second Book of Enoch, where, who is interested in, shall find all the details and the different theories. A ntv (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no trouble with what you suggest doing. My only problem was with the seeming over-simplification of the question in the two articles that I retouched, and the presentation of the Melchizedek tale as undoubtedly part of the Second Book of Enoch. Do the writers whom you favour believe that the Melchizedek story has from the start been part of the book that they believe a Jew wrote some time before the year 70, perhaps even in the preceding century? Of the sources that I found on the Internet, the really serious ones exclude the story from the genuine book. The old Jewish Encyclopedia, for instance, takes it that the 68-chapter version of the book is the correct one. And if the Melchizedek part is not authentic, its date may bear no relation to that of 2 Enoch. Virgin birth of Jesus presented the Melchizedek tale as (certainly) part of 2 Enoch and thus (certainly) written before the year 70; I felt that each of these two statements, but even more the two taken together, had a very shaky foundation. Note that I am in no position whatever to question your judgement on this matter.

Your idea of uptodatedness is very strict, classifying the online Encyclopaedia Britannica as "a little old" :-) Still, I suppose that what it says is enough to indicate that the matter is not 100% clear. Lima (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are right that date, origin and manuscript tradition cannot be summarized in a few words and that the (propably before the 70) could be misleading. But also the present little summary in each of the two Article cannot be taken as proved. So perhaps it is better to have date, origin and text in the main Article, leaving in the two articles only the link to Second Book of Enoch and a few other information about the specific issue. These Apocryphal texts were edited at the early XX century (Charles etc.) but later scholars lost interest on them. Only after the 1975 very early datation of the Qumran 1E papyrus it was understood the importance of such texts to study the forgotten Judaisms at about Jesus time. So we have a litterature quite old usually considered in many on-line, and lots of modern studies.

Many encyclopedias dont consider 2HM (=Melkisedek section) mainly because Charles (the great editor of OT Apocrypha) left it out in 1913(?) edition, even if he himself published it in the 1896 edition. Some recent manuscripts leave 2HM out, but it is probably because 2HM was a problem for Christians copyists. The more reliable manuscripts have it. 2HM is anyway an addition to 2E (the style is slightly different), but it was a very early addition by someone of the same sect that wrote 2E (it uses the same language and same typical names as Azuchan for the Temple). Moreover a Melchisedek controversy is now proved by Qumran 11Q13. So 2HM is usually now considered part of 2E, even if written slightly later, anyway before or about the Letter to the Hebrew A ntv (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objection to your proposed move: what you have written above would add very useful and interesting information to the article on the book, and I am confident you would source properly the statement that 2HM is a later addition to the original 2E. On the question of the date of 2HM, could you really go beyond "Recent scholars put the date of this addition to before or about Heb" to "The addition was made before or about Heb"? As I said, I am in no position to question your judgement on this matter. But I think that, unless the stronger statement is by Wikipedia standards verifiable, it should not be presented as certain in the references to the question of date in the two article I retouched. Nor, of course, should those articles present as certain any other date of 2HM: what I wrote was a non-expert opinion based merely on some sources easily available on the Internet. By the way, I could have added that the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2005 edition), which deals with the 2HM issue only by saying that the shorter recension "is undoubtedly the earlier", gives as extreme views on the date of 2E the view of Charles (more than just a little old), which puts it about the beginning of the Christian era, and the view that puts it between the 12th and 15th centuries, and it mentions as an intermediate view a probable date in the 2nd or early 3rd century. But I suppose that this source too (the first edition was in 1957) is "a little old". Again by the way, Charles did publish 2HM in his 1896 edition, but, if I remember right, he treated it as non-authentic. A further comment, this time not by the way, is that I think that any reference to 2HM in the Virgin birth of Jesus article should provide a link to the actual text (in English translation). Lima (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the shorter/longer recension is a different matter than 2HM. It is about the whole text. We have 2HM also in shorter recension manuscripts. Now most scholars agree that the shorter is older. When I have time I'll edit (with ref) the main Article and later the 2 Articles. thanks. A ntv (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lima, I kindly ask you to check my edits in Virgin birth of Jesus and in Melchizedek in the Second Book of Enoch. Please check also my new sections in Second Book of Enoch (Content and Exaltation of Melchizedek) and my edits on introduction and Manuscript Tradition. If something is wrong dont hesitate to edit them. Thanks A ntv (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please consider making a change yourself? I don't see how it can be maintained that "the similarities of 2EM with Letter to the Hebrews are remarkable". Heb is merely an application to Jesus of phrases in the canonical scriptures (Gn and Ps) about Melchizedek, about whom it tells no new story. 2EM is a totally independent fantastic story about a strangely conceived child who by his own power comes out of his dead mother and is found, already quite developed, sitting beside her corpse, clothed, speaking and praising God and bearing some visible mark of priesthood, and who then is transferred to Eden by an archangel so as to escape the Flood. (To draw a parallel with "the Son", Heb does remark about the absence in Gn of any mention of Melchizedek's father and mother, his ancestors, his birth and death; but it does not go so far as to say he actually had none of these, while 2EM gives Melchizedek a mother but apparently no father, seemingly gives him ancestors, certainly gives him a beginning, and does not say that he never died.) The only similarities between 2EM and Heb are Melchizedek's name and priesthood, both of which are already in the Genesis account, and so are not inventions of 2EM and Heb. Everything else is dissimilar, not similar. Lima (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it because the few authors, like Andersen (obviously chosen by Britannica you quoted before as majority author), that think the 2EM is an early Christian work base their theory on the similarities of 2EM with Heb, while actually most authors now disagree for the same reasons you gave (so I wrote differences (for Hebrews Melchisedek is primarly a heavenly figure while 2EM depicts him as an earthly one) don’t allow to prove the dependence of 2EM from Hebrews. 2EM is considered to be a midway between the fully earthly (with parents and died) M.=Shem found in Targum and the out-of-age M. found in Heb. This ancient feature anyway dont allow us to say that Heb depends directly from 2EM, but simply say that both texts, even with different solutions, shall be placed in the M. controversy in the 1 century. Sacchi suggests that Heb speaks to former priests of the 2EM sect (actually Heb dont need to prove the existence of a M. priesthood or the lack of parents of M.). I'll edit it. I shall edit also section theology that is a bad summary of Orlov theory that lacks of consensus. Thanks. A ntv (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosian Rite

Could you be so kind to check and edit these two sections of me Ambrosian Rite#Differences with the Roman Rite and Ambrosian Rite#Recent History that I'm not sure if are readable?. Thanks. A ntv (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! A ntv (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the copyedit. Please check Talk:Ambrosian Rite#New Lectionary et alia. Would you please consider making a change yourself? Thank a lot. A ntv (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I again dare to ask you please to check and copyedit an edit of me. Here I refer to Apocalypse of Zephaniah that I expanded from stub. I know that there is Wikipedia:Editor review but I dont think it is for a single Article nor I dare to use it. If you have no time, don't worry. Thanks A ntv (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit. A ntv (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lima, I propose to modify your last edit in Summorum pontificum as follow: ...the existing rules given on 31 July 1985, which had not given rise to rifts within the Church, continued in force, under which are regularly celebrated Masses according to the earlier form of the Ambrosian Rite (that of the 1954 Ambrosian Missal) as detailed in Traditional Ambrosian Rite. The Legnano Mass is not due to the Summorum Pontificum but expressly authorized by Milan Curia (and only for one year up to now). Please take note that when the Summorum pontificum was officially published on the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (i.e. when it entered in force), the subtitle De usu extraordinario antiquae formae Ritus Romani was added, so now there are no doubt it is in force only for the Roman Rite. Anyway of course Milan Church loves to follow pope's wishes. I've already edited Traditional Ambrosian Rite to add Legnano Mass reference. Thanks again. A ntv (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Torniello, who I suppose is Milanese, has declared that the concession for Legnano was at the request of "un gruppo di fedeli animati dal 'Movimento Liturgico Benedettiano', che si propone di portare avanti la 'via ambrosiana' al motu proprio Summorum Pontificum." That is an explicit statement of a connection with Summorum Pontificum. Would it be best to omit entirely from the Wikipedia article the mention of the Ambrosian Rite? If we were to enter into the question, we would have to consider whether article 2 of the motu proprio applies, for Masses celebrated privately, even to Ambrosian-Rite priests: "In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970 ..." Clergy who use the Ambrosian liturgical rite are not of the Roman Rite (Roman liturgical rite), but they belong to the Latin Rite (the Latin Church). Are they therefore authorized to use the 1962 Roman Missal and the 1970 Roman Missal (the older and the newer form of the Roman Rite)? Back in 1570, did Pope Pius V's Quo primum give the right to all Latin-Rite priests, including the Ambrosian, to use his Missal as an alternative to any local rite of more than 200 years' antiquity that they might also be authorized to use? There may well be opposing views on these questions. That is why I wonder whether it would be best to omit the topic entirely. To present any view on the matter, we would need to quote a source of a certain importance that upholds that view. We certainly cannot present any opinion about whether Summorum Pontificum does or does not apply also to Ambrosian clergy, if that opinion is based merely on our own personal interpretation of the documents. Lima (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Torniello is a journalist, and the expression la via ...sana al.. means to get the same result with a different way. The official press release I referenced before and the addition of the specification 'Roman Rite' in the publishing of the s.p. in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis clear any doubt. About Legnano Mass, in the site of who organized it [4] is clearly written it was possible because of an authorization of the Archbishop. If you read down there you find Tornielli's article that says Com’è noto, il documento di Benedetto XVI riguarda soltanto il rito romano, non quello ambrosiano (As it is known, the document of Benedict XVI concerns only the Roman rite, not the Ambrosian). Of course an Ambrosian priest could celebrate privately in Roman Rite, but we are speaking of Ambrosian rite. There are been same cases of this solution (Roman Extraordianry Rite) in Milan. There is not a Ambrosian Missal issued by Pope John XXIII in 1962. I think that a simply sentence about the not Roman Rites in Article Summorum Pontificum should be keept, perhaps we can stay very (too much) cautious and say something like The application of the s.p. to not Roman Rites is not immediate. Anyway I dont think that the reference to Legnano Mass should be placed in Article about s.p.: it dont worth in a general Article. A single line for not Roman rites is enough. Traditional Ambrosian Rite is the right place. Thanks again for you copyedit. A ntv (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If I read you correctly, you do agree that Summorum Pontificum applies also to Ambrosian priests, since they are members of the Latin Rite (i.e. Church). The motu proprio gives rules about use of the Roman Rite, not about use of the Ambrosian Rite: "il documento riguarda soltanto il rito (i.e. liturgico) romano, non quello (i.e. liturgico) ambrosiano". But the Legnano authorization to use the last Ambrosian Missal issued before the Second Vatican Council can certainly be seen as analogous to and inspired by the motu proprio's authorization to use the last pre-Vatican-II Roman Missal. As such, it deserves a mention in the Summorum Pontificum article more than an earlier (and apparently now superseded) statement that there was no need to make any such analogous move with regard to the Ambrosian Rite. If we were to include in the article the phrase, "The motu proprio concerns use of an earlier form of the Roman Rite; it does not apply directly to use of earlier forms of other Latin liturgical rites", we would have to add: "Nevertheless, a similar decision was made in 2008 with regard to the Ambrosian Rite." Lima talk) 04:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue is not if the Milanese clergy can say a private Mass with Roman rite, but if they can do it with Amborosian rite. Further the s.m. allows also a priest to say a public Mass (public/private here means scheduled/not scheduled) with Traditional Roman Rite without (and this is the point of the s.p.) the explicit authorization of the bishop. Legnano Mass (a public Mass) had to be explicitly authorized by the bishop, because it falls under the previous (Ambrosian) regulation. There was already an other Mass authorized in Traditional Ambrosian Rite in the Diocese, so the Legnano Mass dont bring new regulation. To say ..a similar decision was made in 2008 with regard to the Ambrosian Rite is technically wrong, because it looks like that from 2008 onward it is allowed to say private Masses or public Masses (with a stable gruop), in traditional Ambrosian rite, without the explicit authorization of the bishop, that is not at all true. After the indultus of pope John Paul II (Quattuor abhinc annos 10.03.84 that required the explicit bishop authorization), the Archbishop of Milan issued a similar decree for the Ambrosian rite in 1985. The s.m. abolished the previous Roman rule (no explicit bishop authorization is now required), while for Milan the 1985 rule still applies: private and public Mass in Trad. Ambr. rite shall be explicitly authorized by the Ambrosian Head Rite (the bishop of Milan), while private Masses can of course be said in extraord. Roman rite. A ntv (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the conditions laid down in the motu proprio about public Masses do not apply to public celebrations in the Ambrosian Rite, and I do not dispute that what Summorum Pontificum says about Masses celebrated without the people (what until 1960 were called "Missae privatae") does apply to Ambrosian priests, enabling them, if they wish, to use freely in those Masses not only the present form of Mass in the Roman Rite but also that of 1962 in place of the Ambrosian-Rite Mass. Summorum Pontificum is generally understood to favour wider use of the older (1962) form of the Roman Rite at the expense of the later (1970) form. Only in this general interpretation of the motu proprio, not in the specific conditions that it lays down, do I see it as influencing the Legnano decision. It seems to me that Torniello has good grounds for seeing an influence of the papal motu proprio ("se il documento papale (i.e. the motu proprio) non viene brandito come una rivincita-rivendicazione, e i fedeli attaccati all'antico rito si muovono nell'ottica della comunione ecclesiale, è possibile ottenere ciò che si chiede") in the change of mind of the Capo Rito of the Ambrosian Rite, who only a short time ago declared that there was no need to change the pre-motu-proprio regulations that allowed the older form of the Ambrosian Rite to be celebrated in only one church under his jurisdiction. A spokesman of the group that made the request also linked it with Summorum Pontificum: "La messa in latino è peraltro indicata (he was referring to the motu proprio) come forma straordinaria dallo stesso papa Benedetto XVI." That is all I meant by "analogy". Would "influence" be a better word? And when I wrote "a similar decision" (not the best possible expression), I intended that the nature of the similarity should be spelled out, preventing anyone thinking that the Ambrosian Capo Rito had adopted the same regulations as in the motu proprio. Lima (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree that the s.p. has created a favorable mood also for the Ambrosian Traditional Rite, and with Tornielli who says that Legnano Mass was obtained by the Archbishop because of the change in the attitude of the traditionalist gruop now no more in direct opposition to the Archbishop, but these are journalistic POV. Anyway in such Article, in section Conditions for use of the 1962 Missal we cuold say The motu proprio concerns use of an earlier form of the Roman Rite; it does not apply directly to use of earlier forms of other Latin liturgical rites, nevertheless it created a fabourable mood (climate?) for the re-discovery and utilization for istance of the Traditional Ambrosian Rite. I'm sure you will find better English expression than me, so for me it is ok whatever you decide. A ntv (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know what you think of the revised version of the paragraph in Summorum Pontificum that we are discussing. Perhaps we don't need the part that begins with "However, ..."

By the way, does your article "Traditional Ambrosian Rite" need to be moved to something like "Traditional form of the Ambrosian Rite"? What Summorum Pontificum says of two forms of the one Roman Rite, not two rites, seems to apply also to the Ambrosian Rite. Lima (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well done. Yes, we could deleted from However onward mainly because these are not interesting details for the 99% people who read the Article. We could simply place a link: It concerns only the Roman Rite and does not deal with use of older forms of other Latin liturgical rites (as the Traditional Ambrosian Rite), which.... Who is interested follows the link. About the name, I agree definitely with you. I checked it on the official web site of the diocese [5] and it uses Messa Latina Ambrosiana Antica (Latin Ancient Ambrosian Mass), but I've no a clear idea of how this ancient sounds in English. So the title you proposed is to prefer. A ntv (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed the rather complicated remark beginning with "However, ..." With all due respect to the see of Milan, I think it best to have in the paragraph only one mention of the Ambrosian Rite. Lima (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC) :::::::: Well done ! A ntv (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Life of Adam and Eve

Cosa è il caso di fare con le ultime modifiche nell'articolo sul cambio della sostanza? Iniziare una guerra di modifiche? Le chiedo cortesemente inoltre, se ha voglia e tempo, di dare un'occhiata col suo forbito inglese a Life of Adam and Eve. Grazie mille. A ntv (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Non so come ringraziarLa. Grazie ancora per il copyedit. A ntv (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

East-West Schism

Per your request [6]. Now if you could email me for clarification please. You can do so off of my User Page at the bottom left. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

3rr on East-West Schism

I added the Weasel tag into the article to get you to source more of your comments. Since the sourcing has been added to the article both of us editors Gubernatoria and LoveMonkey have agreed on the article talkpage to remove the tag and you have restore it repeatedly. You have edit warred and restored or removed out allot of other collaborative additions from both of us editors , you have done so including committing WP:3RR without addressing either of the comments made by us editors on the article talkpage. A 3 revert rule violation [7] has been posted against you. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Clement

Could you have a look at the discussion of labeling Clement's martyrdom as "Legendary": Talk:Pope_Clement_I#.22legendary_martyrdom.22. This seems to be clearly POV to me, but I'd appreciate your input as well. Maybe I'm completely off base. Thanks. Dgf32 (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit to Catholicism

Just FYI, my last edit was about "official", which is ambiguous at best, not about whether "Catholic Church" is used only by the RCC or by others also. (As an example that RCC is not "incorrect" I offer St Patrick's{?) in Washington DC, which has, in stone, above the door, "St Patrick's Roman Catholic Church". Not certain if it's Patrick, alas, but it's near dupont circle AIR.) I have no disagreement with your refinement, but it's not really a reversion! Tb (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I should have specified that I wasn't reverting just your edit, but was instead going back two steps. I apologize for giving the wrong impression. I agree fully with you on the question of the alleged "official" name. Unfortunately the issue-evading tactics of a couple of editors who act as if they own the article Roman Catholic Church are repeatedly driving to despair those who question their claim that the Church has a single "official" name. There is much weightier evidence than an inscription above the door of a church building that "Roman Catholic Church" is not "incorrect". Popes have used it. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity uses it repeatedly. It is used on the websites of bishops conferences and dioceses throughout the English-speaking world. Lima (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dec 2008

Merry Christmas

History2007 (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

East-West Schism

Hi Lima,

Please read my proposal on Talk:East-West Schism#Theological issues. I think that LoveMonkey is putting a bit too much of the Orthodox POV into the article and, in general, making the article too heavy on the theological discussion. The theological discussion is a bit hard to follow, partly due to the "back and forth" style discussing first the Orthodox POV and then the Catholic POV and then back to the Orthodox view again. A concise summary of the issues would be better than the arguing back-and-forth style that is there now.

I'm also interested in getting your take on the article in general. It seems you are in a tussle with LoveMonkey and Leadwind. I can't tell from the edit summaries just what the underlying issues are.

--Richard (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On the article in general, I think it has seriously deteriorated since a hyperactive editor added, especially since last November, so many anti-Western comments. There would be no trouble if these comnments were presented as those of certain Eastern writers, which is all that the citations show them to be. (Some of these writers show their hostility even by their terminology, referring to all the Latins as "Franks", a term used pejoratively at least in Greece.) But, when statements are falsely presented as Western teaching, what can I do but add quotations to show what the West actually does hold?

On your idea of an article on "Theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church", I think it would in practice have to be lopsided. It would be difficult to find serious Catholic writers who attack doctrines, theology and practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Catholic theologians generally define their faith by what they believe (what the Church teaches), not in sectarian fashion by what they don't believe (their disagreements with others). Lima (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey will hate this comment (he is watching this Talk Page) but I agree with you that the article "seriously deteriorated" since he added so much text. I agree that part of the problem is differentiating between a factual description of the two sides and a one-sided description of the two sides. But moreover the article just got too long for the average reader to read. The way I can tell is when it gets too long for me to read and I'm an above average reader. I am trying to get closer to the original article without simply deleting all of LoveMonkey's contributions which are valuable. That is why I created Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. I understand your point about this article being lopsided in practice. That is a different problem that has to be grappled with. For now, I want to work on making East-West Schism an article that can be read by average readers who want to know something about the schism without getting caught up in a deep theological discourse. --Richard (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

And a happy new year too you too. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

East-West Schism

Could you explain what you were doing with your last edit to "Extant disputes" which you described as correcting a misquotation? Looks like you left a misformed Fact tag but I didn't understand what the rest of the text was trying to do. Also, what are you trying to say with the Fact tag? --Richard (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the misformat. The misquotation I think I had in mind was "from himself (i.e. the Pope) and not from the consensus of the church" instead of from "of themselves (the definitions), and not by the consent of the Church"; but the omission of "to be held by the whole Church" was more important: the Council did not teach that all statements about faith or morals made even solemnly (as by a bull or encyclical etc.) by the Pope are infallible, but only those by which he defines a doctrine to be held by the whole Church. Misrepresenting the Pope's authority to appoint bishops as if it applied also within the patriarchates - the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states the opposite - might also be called a misquotation, but for the fact that no source was given for it. As no source was given for other affirmations about which I have doubts, but do not have certainty that they are wrong. Lima (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

History of the Papacy

Please read my comment on Talk:History of the Papacy#Spiritual vs. Temporal Power of the Papacy. The comment is addressed to you but I place it on the article talk page so as to provide a central point of discussion for other editors to provide their input.

--Richard (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Lima, thank you for drawing this to my attention. Honestly, I've lost interest. This is a debate without resolution, since there is little room for compromise. I had thought a reasonable compromise had been made through the creative use of both names - but I see that the dissatisfaction of those who absolutely refuse to give or yield any quarter continues apace. The arguments I have had to make I have already made, and are on record. Essentially, "Catholic Church" is an ambiguous term, and one claimed by a number of disparate groups. There is only one "Roman Catholic Church," however. If you would find it helpful to reproduce this response in the discussion, you have my permission. fishhead64 (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Rules for ambassadors

The diplomatic norms make a distinction between politically supporting a controversial topic and actually acting on what was deemed illicit. For instance, I gave examples of diplomats who were refused not because they had an abortion but because they supported it politically. The French ambassador was not refused because he was gay, but because he was a gay activist. [8] As for divorce, which is sometimes related to adultery, I suppose it only applies for Catholic diplomats, but then again in this particular case the Holy See has historically had a privileged relationship with Argentina, and can only interpret the nomination of such ambassadors as a sign of deteriorating relations. By the way, the phrase "gospel diplomacy" is from a 2006 speech by Secretary Dominique Mamberti. [9] ADM (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Message sent to "via airmail to Lima from Boston": This Bright Week seems like an appropriate occasion to thank you for improving Wikipedia through your valuable contributions to articles about Christianity in general and about Roman Catholicism in particular. Keep up the good work and may the gentle hands of angels guide your actions on Wikipedia and off. -- Boston (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope

[10] Quite right! (It is worth noting) :) Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You removed a reference to a site that could be taken to suggest that it is only the oldest extant manuscript (singular) that (once) had "chrestianos". I take it that your reference to "the earliest and most reliable manuscripts" (plural) is correct, though I have no access to Theissen & Merz, the source that you kept in the article. Do you think it would be worth your while checking and perhaps revising Tacitus on Christ, which deals with the same question and cites the source you have eliminated (no doubt quite justifiably as insignificant in comparison to the other)? I am not competent to deal with it. The reference also appears in The Beast (Bible) and maybe elsewhere. Lima (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If I ever alter anything per a source or add a source that you do not have access to, please ask and I will gladly provide some quotations. (In this case, the additional "s" was an error on my part. The source states the singular.) I'll take a look over the other articles. If I don't edit those articles or make some talk page comments on them by Monday, please leave me a bright orange bar reminder by posting on my talk page. --Vassyana (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost reverted you

I see you're working on Issa in Islam, I was about to revert a mass delete of yours, until I saw your edit history, good fortune on wikipedia, in sh'allah! Ronabop (talk)

Thanks. To say I am working on Issa in Islam is attributing too much to me. I don't know enough about that field to dare to set about doing that. All I did was to replace, in that one section of one article, some long quotations of texts from the Qur'an with links to the texts, as was/is done with texts from the Christian or Jewish Scriptures. Although I thought the rest of the text of the section was somewhat repetitious, I left it unaltered except for some grammar corrections and a more logical order of two of the paragraphs. السلام عليكم Lima (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Church lead

Thanks for restoring that text to the lead of Christian Church. I was also bothered by the recent change. But also, the lead is now huge. I think the lead should be smaller, and certainly is not a good place for a list of different theological positions on such a complex issue. (Though the recent change made it seem as if there was a Protestant view, and then Catholic/Orthodox objections to that view, and nothing else; entirely unsatisfactory - hence my delight that you have made your own recent edit.) What would make a good lead here?! Tb (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucifer edit

Hi, Lima. I think you may be wrong to change the reference to Lucifer in Ovid from the masculine "he" to "it." Personification is the point of the passage; otherwise the military metaphor is nonsensical. All the celestial bodies in the Phaethon passage are anthropomorphic, including and especially the Sun, who is Phaethon's "biological" father (if gods are biological). I can find no published translations of this passage that refer to Lucifer as "it." Rolfe Humphries' often jocular translation doesn't use a pronoun for Lucifer, but refers to the stellae as "who". The Penguin prose translation, which used prose for the express purpose of keeping close to the literal meaning, translates "leaving his post in heaven last of all." The poetic translation of Melville in Oxford UP's World Classics series goes "The stars took flight, in marshalled order set/By Lucifer who left his station last." The Loeb Classical Library translation (in the 1977 printing), also in prose, has "The stars all flee away, and the morning star closes their ranks as, last of all, he departs from his watch-tower in the sky." (What strikes me as odd from the Loeb is that, although the translation preserves the personification with an abundance of pronouns, "morning star" is lowercase.) The passage in Ovid is a locus classicus for the question of Lucifer precisely because it shows Lucifer at the head of an "army." If Lucifer were conceived of as an "it" in Latin, a neuter noun could be used; the noun is explicitly masculine, as is emphasized by its modifier novissimus. This requires distinguishing between grammatical gender and personal gender; it might be, but wouldn't always be, appropriate to translate references to heavenly bodies in Lucretius with a rationalistic or scientific "it," as is the case in the astronomical passages cited from Pliny et al. on Lucifer. But to refer to a heavenly body as an "it" in the Metamorphoses, especially in the Phaethon passage, doesn't accurately represent what's happening in terms of the poetry and myth, when read in context. Moreover, there is a later tradition (not necessary to go into for the article) that seems to suggest that Phaethon was Lucifer, or at least a "Luciferian" figure as a mythic type — this was a notion particularly beloved by the Romantics, I think, and probably at least attributed to the "Gnostics." Cynwolfe (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Latin word "Lucifer" (Day Star) is grammatically masculine and is accompanied by grammatically masculine adjectives, without thereby necessarily personifying the object that it refers too, any more than the masculine grammatical gender of "liber" (book), "gladius" (sword), "nasus" (nose) personified these objects. That aside, you are probably correct about the personification in this case. I must see what I can do to correct the article. Unfortunately, I must rush out now, and don't have time to look at the article immediately. Lima (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What you say about grammatical gender in general is true; it is not true of the heavenly bodies as they are personified in the Phaethon episode of Ovid's Metamorphoses, which is all about the sky as a populated place that mirrors earth. My point is mainly that published translations from scholarly sources (Oxford UP and the LCL, among others) provide verification that in this passage Lucifer and his star-legions, along with the other celestial phenomena, are anthropomorphic and hence "gendered." (As in the post-coital Aurora passage from Statius that's also excerpted in the article.) I find no verification that Lucifer in Ovid's passage is ever seen as an impersonal "it"; to argue for Lucifer as an "it" would constitute original research that's contradicted by multiple published sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am back, and I find you are of course right about the personification. I think it best to avoid adding interpretation to Ovid's text. (That is also what Wikipedia rules demand.) So I am just giving Ovid's text, with the context of the appearance of Dawn, to explain the disappearance of the stars. To this I am adding an English translation, as in the other quotations from Latin writers in the article. I have chosen a modern prose translation rather than the slightly older Brookes More translation: "The vigilant Aurora opened forth her purple portals from the ruddy east, disclosing halls replete with roses. All the stars took flight, while Lucifer, the last to quit his vigil, gathered that great host and disappeared from his celestial watch." You may prefer to replace it with a different and more poetic English translation. Lima (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Williamson, msg

Hello, why don't you go to school and learn something before writing stupidities in this encyclopedia ?

Your dear friend, David Thalberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.140.196 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Two Witnesses

I think there this Article (Two Witnesses) that need some attention, because it includes statements like some claim that the notion of a yet future 70th Week of Daniel is a Catholic (Jesuit) conspiracy. Could you please have a look on it? I don't know where to start. Thanks A ntv (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't feel like doing anything to this article, which is full of curious ideas. Among those curious ideas is the one you mention. If the cited source does make the claim or report on its existence, let it be. If it does not, mark it with {{Verification failed|date=...}}. Lima (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RC Term

Hi, Again, thank you for your careful improvements to the RC term article. You did make a positive impact, and I did learn more theology. It seems that I am gradually completing an online course in religion as I work on these articles, so one of these decades you should email me a degree. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very kind words, more than I deserve. I admire your openness. Lima (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

apostolic see

Please source the change? Thanks so much! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Lima (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Octaves and weeks

Thank you for correcting me on octaves and weeks. You are of course quite right that an octave is not really an 8-day week, though I do think the connection needs to be made. I notice you were worried about the eighth day page, which is certainly a bit odd; I did wonder about suggesting merging it with Octave (liturgical) since there is a lot of potential overlap between them. But I don't really have the technical knowledge; I only got into this because I was trying to stop One World Week being claimed exclusively by some student shenanigans in Warwick, and it struck me that it was really an octave rather than a week. But that's encyclopaedias for you. seglea (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Lima (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Baptism

Hello Lima,

why do you insist on taking the baptism of Jesus picture from the introduction? It is a perfectly sufficient image.

Flash 16:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's best to discuss the question on the article's Talk page. Lima (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Transubstantiation

How is An Oak Tree not an example of transubstantiation in art?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't fit the article's definition of transubstantiation, given in the first lines. Lima (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving Articles

It is WP practice to discuss article moves on talk pages before moving them. Why have you moved Personal Ordinariate without discussing it first? --EastmeetsWest (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, that is not the practice when the move seems to be clearly non-controversial. Afterwriting had already removed the capitalization from "Personal Ordinariate" and similar phrases in the body of the article, an evident indication of his view. And, as far as I know, all canonical structures similar to the personal ordinariate are in Wikipedia written without capitalization: military ordinariate, personal prelature, apostolic vicariate, mission sui iuris, ... , an equally evident indication of general consensus on the matter. In fact I am surprised that you object to writing "personal ordinariate" instead of "Personal Ordinariate". Even "diocese", which is of higher rank, is written without capitalization. Shall we take the question to the Talk page? If my belief that the move was non-controversial proves mistaken, I will humbly apologize. Lima (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cardinal John Doe

Just to let you know I've answered your comment about "Cardinal John Doe" on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy). -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Lima (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Saints

Lima, would appreciate your assistance. I've posted a concern at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Saints: move requests from St. Peter->>Peter the Apostle and St. Andrew->>Andrew but no answer. The Wiki policy on Saint honoraries seems very clear, yet a negative user consensus apparently can block changes, for example, from Saint Andrew to Andrew the Apostle. Therefore, most apostles have been renamed per policy, with maybe 3 or 4 holdouts. Seems to me that policy is policy, and either all affected articles follow it, or none should need to. What, if anything, can be done about these "holdouts"? Afaprof01 (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no strong feelings, one way or the other, on this matter. The relevant Wikipedia policy is, I think, not altogether rigid and admits exceptions. What is the usage in other encyclopedias? Certainly, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church puts the headings in the form, "Peter, St" etc. Lima (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of the account Platia

Because of your editing with the account Platia and Soidi in the same topic area, and because you denied that the Platia account was not yours here (which was proved false at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lima), I have blocked the Platia account indefinitely. Please regard this as a firm warning to abide by the sockpuppetry policy. NW (Talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I deny it? And was watching one editor's campaign to change all mentions of cardinals to the "John Cardinal Smith" form the same area? The anwer to both questions is No. Never mind. I am happily letting the matter drop. The editor whose one-man campaign of altering the form of referring to cardinals the Platia account served to watch seems to have eased off his effort. Lima (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On Sock Puppetry

Thank you for bringing this [11] bit of silliness to my attention. I would probably not have noticed it otherwise.

If someone creates a new account solely for the purpose of anonymously accusing someone else of being a sock puppet, isn't this also a case of sock puppetry? Would it not be reasonable in such a case to describe this as the sock calling the kettle black (or something like that)? Harmakheru ✍ 00:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting unanswered question on User_talk:JPBHarris. Lima (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicene Creed Armenian to English

Lima, please see my explanation on the Creed's Talk Page. Let me know if any questions arise. In searching for an Armenian to English version, I noted that most of them do not capitalize the "one, holy,...." Also, I saw more translated "catholic" than "universal." It's not an area of expertise for me, so if the other link comes back up, you're welcome to RV. Regards, Afaprof01 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the new text conforms to the source that is now given, it is perfectly OK. Lima (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cardinals

Lima, I'm writing because I think I support your recommendation. Please conclude your Cardinals recommendation with (a) a clear statement of the policy as you want it approved; (b) a short list of illustrative examples of what you want approved. You've done great research, but it doesn't all agree. I think you're saying Cardinal John Doe the first time only, but I'm not sure. Is it limited to cardinals, or include bishops, popes? I think a final sentence that clearly states the proposed policy will be good. If approved, then that is what should become the statement of policy. Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Lima (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Lima. Very clear now (even to me). Afaprof01 (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Lima, you're an experienced editor who knows his way around a conflict. Do you think you might be able to help NancyHeise follow the WP rules in regards to the Catholic Church article? Leadwind (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Leadwind, I have no hope of being able to help. I have tried and failed to get a hearing. I admire Nancy's dedication, but her strong tendency, shared by Xandar and a few others, to read their own ideas into sources that do not at all say what they attribute to them has, over the last year or so, altered the article so much that I believe it no longer deserves to be classified as a Good Article, still less to be considered a candidate for a Featured Article. The constant criticism that other editors have been directing at aspects of the article suggests that they are of the same mind. I agree with some of your observations, though not with all your ideas, and was thinking of sending you good wishes for better success than I have had. For my part, I no longer dare to stir up the ire of the owners of the article by doing anything more than making very rarely some slight adjustment. While I do wish you luck, I regret that I have to be so discouraging. Lima (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pagemoves

Hmh. I'll admit that a detailed reading made my eyes glaze, but I thought that I had properly grasped the basics of the subject matter and the connotations of the terminology. I'll grant you that 'historic' doesn't necessarily connote that the argument continues even to this day.

And re: "crucifix" - oops.

That said, surely "disputes" would be more appropriate than "dispute" - for one thing, note that the article's second paragraph already describes four potential shapes (X T I t). Also, I'd hesitate to qualify all of the I-proponents as part of the same dispute.

How about "Disputes about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus" ? DS (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, fine. "Dispute", then? DS (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI case

Hi there. This is abuse of multiple accounts. I've blocked Decahill (talk · contribs), and if you continue to edit in the same topic areas with multiple accounts, all your accounts will be blocked. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

When I opened that account to keep watch on a very specific area, I indicated that I would accept whatever decision would be made about it. I do accept Jake Wartenberg's decision. But I deny that, from the moment I opened that account, I edited its area with any other account.

In view of these misunderstandings, it will perhaps be best to close this account too. I'll decide within a few days. Lima (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Why wait? I am closing now. Lima (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)