User talk:Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

• /Archive 1 to Nov 08
• /Archive 2 to Sept 09

Renaming SBC resurge/takeover article

The article currently titled "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An early straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at: Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover#Straw poll 2 (once this thread is archived, see here.)

If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Saint Peter ==> Peter the Apostle

1. 1 It seems to me that Saint Peter should become Peter the Apostle for the same reason as the move that just took place on Saint Paul. I'd appreciate your opinion, and also guidance on how to recommend it.

1. 2 Why was Paul moved to ...of Tarsus rather than Paul the Apostle? Thanks.Afaprof01 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• 2. It is disputed by some-- scholars, etc.-- that Paul only "claimed" to be an apostle. I think he may be known more as the "Apostle Paul" than as "Paul of Tarsus" ...but I am sure which you hear more depends on who you are.

• 1. I proposed Saint Paul ==> Paul of Tarsus mainly because it has been that for a long time and than someone, a newbee I think, changed it to Saint Paul. Saint Peter, however, has been "Saint Peter" for a long time. It may be a harder sell, but I would support it if you want to propose it a move to Peter the Apostle. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see latest zap @ Talk:Saint Peter. I'm becoming more...popular? Your approach worked well on Saint Andrew→Andrew the Apostle. Is now the time for your support comment? Afaprof01 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice, please. I'd like to move it, but can't say there is clear consensus. Tnx, Afaprof01 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I was out of town for two days.

Had I read your question then I would have said not to move it-- mainly because the idea is for a neutral 3rd party (not you) to assess the consensus to move or not.

As you can see now that was done by user:Skomorokh and he found it to be a case of no consensus to move.

Now my advice is to work on other things for 2 or 3 months-- and then consult with me on how we can make a better proposal-- and at that time we can resubmit. I think we will greatly reduce odds of success if we resubmit a like proposal right away. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 02:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Owain Glyndŵr

Hi Carlaude, please advise the purpose of this edit; deleting the category 15th-century rulers (which does exist) from Owain Glyndŵr and replacing it with the category 15th-century monarchs in Europe (which does not)? I'm sure there is a reason, but it beats me. :) Daicaregos (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The categories of this sort, e.g. Category:15th-century rulers, become much too large and unweildly to not have further divided up. For example, by the 8th-century history records and Wikipedia has articles over 340 monarchs in Europe alone. And Europe even in the 21st-century still has 57 monarchs (most not yet added).

Have also created Category:15th-century monarchs in Europe. Sorry for the delay there.

Category:10th-century rulers is an example is how it should and will look someday. Would you like to help?^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, September 26

The 8th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, September 26, starting at 6 p.m. The event will be at Burma Restaurant (740 6th St, NW near the Gallery Place-Chinatown Metro station). For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 8. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.) --EdwardsBot (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Q response

• Have responded to your query here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Resp'd again. Thx, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Western film...

Uhh, no, I thought I was pretty clear that I supported the rename back to Category:Western films. What I meant was that the parent Category:Western (genre) needs to be disambiguated, but with "Western films" the disambiguation is a) not needed and b) not used in article names. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

What was this edit about? Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton is already in Category:American suffragists, so her article is removed from the parent-Category:American women's rights activists; articles are not put in a category and its parent-category. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see where I went wrong. I was thinking that Stanton was both a suffragist and a promoter of women's rights, in that she worked to gain women the right to vote and also worked to gain women other rights such as property rights, the right to divorce, taxation equality, equal pay, religious freedom, etc. As such, I consider her suffragist activities to be a subset of her women's rights activities, yet the category "American suffragists" does not do her justice. She was more than just a suffragist. Perhaps the categories need to be shuffled 'round until suffragism is not the only choice for a woman who was engaged in the larger scheme of women's rights.

A lot of other suffragists will fall into this same conundrum. Most of them were also pushing for property rights, etc. The category "Suffragists" will rarely by the only thing an activist woman will be known for. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not putting articles in a category and its parent-category is fairly basic to the Wikipedia category system. If people want to find American women's rights activists they have to look in Category:American women's rights activists and its subcategories. If you don't think the Category:American suffragists fits the system then that is another matter. Personly, I consider this category quite usefull as it informs us of the time period in the history of American women rights that these women's rights activists were from, even if they all worked toward promoting various other rights. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous rivers

You're gonna have to help me out on how some of these river names are ambiguous. Specifically, Tiber, Mekong and Euphrates have no other possible meaning that I can come up with. Seine has other meanings, including 2 rivers in Canada, so on the strict logic you've adopted, should it be Category:River Seine (France)? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tiber oilfield
• Tiber Island
• Tiber Reservoir, Montana
• Mekong Airlines
• Mekong Wagtail
• Mekong Auto
• Mekong giant catfish
• Euphrates Jerboa
• Euphrates College
• Euphrates the Stoic
• Euphrates Dam
• Euphrates Softshell Turtle
• HMS Euphrates (various)

Also-- if one Seine River is much better known and much more often referanced than others, it does not need a disambiguator-- and I assume this to be the case since the article in not named River Seine (France). ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, so if the name appears anywhere in the name of another thing, it renders the word alone ambiguous, even though the only thing that would likely be referred to by the single name in each case is the river? I'm not convinced we should take such an extreme view, but it does have the benefit of being easy to decide what to do. But then if we have more than one identical objects (rivers) given the same name, we don't have a disambiguation problem? This final burp doesn't seem very principled in terms of consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that "if the name appears anywhere in the name of another thing, it renders the word alone ambiguous." Some things are judgement calls.

And don't really feel like getting into a long disscution about it but one factor to be is that "Foo" (without the disambiguator "river") instead of "Foo river" seem like a shortcut name in the first place that should not be used except in limited cases-- were as "Tamar River (Tasmania)," with the disambiguator (Tasmania)-- is the one that seem out of place not to be used except in limited cases. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it applies to dams, turtles, catfish, companies, and oilfields, I would like to hear what circumstance it wouldn't apply. As for the using "Foo" without "River"—yes, it's only generally done in rivers that are very well known and ones that are almost never referred to with the word "river"—the Ganges, the Tiber, the Tigris, the Euprhrates, the Mekong, the Danube, etc. These aren't po-dunk streams. We do already have Category:Danube and Category:Ganges, among others—these match the main articles too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It?

You seemed to want some examples and I gave you some. If you want to make whatever argument that you think you are making a lot more clearly, then maybe I will respond. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't mean to upset you. You sound somewhat annoyed; I was just trying to have an informal discussion about an issue. I regret that we couldn't. ("It" was referring to your judgment call in deciding that a name alone was ambiguous.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anglicans as Protesants?

Your insistence that Anglicans somehow practice a protestant faith seems to have taken a death blow.

I told you this would happen by year end: "They will even be allowed their own church within a church, called something like the Anglican Ordinariate but which would be subject to the discipline of Rome."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-big-question-why-is-the-catholic-church-offering-a-home-to-congregations-of-anglicans-1806781.html

Soon, there are going to be more practicing Anglicans who will be card-carrying Roman Catholics than there will be who practice in the Church of England. And those "converts" will remain Anglicans within the Roman Catholic Church. The pope's acceptance of the rites and liturgy of the Anglican tradition completely vindicates the long standing Anglican position that they are in fact a Catholic Church and in no way a Protestant one.

I have gotten so busy with work that I have again retired from Wikipedia, but I did come back to gloat over you. Best wishes. -- Secisek (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Went to your talk archive and found my prediction, "No matter, I have conceded the point for the time and I will revisit it later this year After we see just how many more Anglicans get readmitted as full Roman Catholics in good standing. It is my hope you will stay in cat-space."

Sweet! --Secisek (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the best you can do for gloating? I hope you have done something useful in all this time.

So if the Pope lets Lutherans or Baptists convert in groups to the Roman Catholic Church-- will you then protest that no Lutherans can be Protestants-- or that Baptists are no longer Protestant? That would be a neat trick if the pope can now change what the faith is of people not following the pope.

Roman Catholic practices do not change history nor linguistics. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sibling trios

Rephrased. I think it's silly that we can have "sibling musical trios" but not "sibling trios," since there are so many non-musical sibling trios. It'd be like having "American country singers" but not "American singers." Also, it's "per se" not "per say." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New external link for Joan of Arc

I think it might be good to had this link in "External Links" of Joan of Arc page. French site containing pictures and descriptions of Medallions devoted to Joan of Arc.Médailles Jeanne d’Arc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.170.174.89 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A parallel harmony presentation

Salt and Light Matt 5:13-16 Mark 9:50,4:21 Luke 14:34-35,8:16,11:33 - Thom 32-33 The Defendant Matt 5:25-26 - Luke 12:58-59 - (Thom 91) The Birds of Heaven Matt 6:26 - Luke 12:24 - Thom 36 Lilies of the Field Matt 6:28-30 - Luke 12:27-28 - - The Mote and the Beam Matt 7:1-5 - - - - The Test of a Good Person Matt 7:15-20 - Luke 6:43-45 - Thom 45 The Wise and the Foolish Builders Matt 7:24-27 - Luke 6:47-49 - - The Patch and the Wineskins Matt 9:16-17 Mark 2:21-22 Luke 5:36-39 - Thom 47 The Strong Man Bound Matt 12:29 Mark 3:27 Luke 11:21-22 - Thom 35 Jesus' True Relatives Matt 12:46-50 Mark 3:31-35 Luke 8:19-21 - Thom 99 The Teacher of the Law Matt 13:52 - - - The Little Children Matt 18:1-10 Mark 9:33-37,9:42-50 Luke 9:46-50 - Thom 22 Render unto Caesar... Matt 22:15-22 Mark 12:13-17 Luke 20:20-26 - Thom 100 The Leafing Fig Tree Matt 24:32 Mark 13:28 Luke 21:29-30 - - The Barren Fig Tree - - Luke 13:6-9 - - The Good Shepherd* - - - John 10:11-18 - The Vine* - - - John 15:1-8 -

John parables

The parables table includes The Grain of Wheat. I think most people do not consider it a parable, and anyway, please see Template talk:Parables of Jesus about what John items should be in the page. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

John Newton's conversion

Main article: John Newton

How industrious is Satan served. I was formerly one of his active undertemptors and had my influence been equal to my wishes I would have carried all the human race with me. A common drunkard or profligate is a petty sinner to what I was.

John Newton, 1778

Early life

The Dictionary of American Hymnology states that "Amazing Grace" is John Newton's autobiography in verse. In 1725 Newton was born in Wapping, a district with a connection to sailors and seagoing trades in London near the Thames. He was the only child of a shipping merchant who was brought up Catholic but had Protestant sympathies, and a mother who was a devout Independent unaffiliated with the Anglican Church. She had intended him to go into clergy, but she died of tuberculosis when Newton was six years old while his father was at sea. For the next few years, Newton was raised by his distant stepmother while his father was absent, and spent some time at a boarding school where he was mistreated. At the age of eleven, he joined his father on a ship as was the custom for adolescent males to begin an apprenticeship in a career; his would be marked by headstrong disobedience.

As a youth, Newton began a pattern of coming very close to death, examining his relationship with God, then relapsing into bad habits. When he was twelve he was thrown from a horse and nearly impaled on stakes nearby; two years later, a friend drowned on an outing in a small boat when Newton was scheduled to join him. Newton was a reader from an early age and enjoyed it as he grew older. He claimed later that Characteristics, a book by the Third Earl of Shaftesbury, influenced his activities for the next several years. In it Shaftesbury argues that doubting religion is not akin to atheism and each man must form his own truth as it is relative to his experience. In 1742 Newton's father arranged to have him sail to Jamaica to be a slave overseer after hearing that Newton would not be a successful sea captain. On the way to meet the ship, Newton stopped at the home of the family who took him in when he was six so he would not witness his mother's death. He fell in love with the thirteen-year-old daughter, Mary "Polly" Catlett.

Press-ganged

After deliberately staying too long with the Catletts, Newton missed the ship he was to take to Jamaica. On it, he would have had protection from being forced to join the Royal Navy, or being press-ganged, as Britain was on the verge of war with France, and sailors had license to take any able-bodied man into the service against his will. In London, several sailors found him and forced him into the Navy, where he started without rank. Aboard the HMS Harwich, Newton resented the military discipline, but rose to midshipman. At some point in 1744, after discussing Shaftesbury's philosophy with another shipmate, Newton denounced all his faith, later writing "Like an unwary sailor who quits his port just before a rising storm, I renounced the hopes and comforts of the gospel at the very time when every other comfort was about to fail me."

Newton consistently overstayed his shore leave to visit Polly. He escaped severe punishment until he deserted completely after learning his ship was to sail for India and he would be gone for four or five years, only to be recaptured within days. Stripped of his rank, whipped in public, and subjected to the abuses directed to prisoners and other press-ganged men in the Navy, he demonstrated insolence and rebellion during his service for the next few months, remarking that the only reason he did not murder the captain or commit suicide was because he did not want Polly to think badly of him. By remarkable coincidence Newton was offered and jumped at a chance to be traded from the Royal Navy to a ship with the Royal African Company bound for Guinea. His captain was only too obliging to be rid of him. Aboard his new ship, Newton later noted, connections to his father's name and reputation did not exist: "I now might be as abandoned as I pleased, without any control".

Slave trader

John Newton in his later years

Newton kept a series of detailed journals as a slave trader and was perhaps the first primary source of the Atlantic slave trade from the perspective of a merchant. He described how the slaves brought aboard from the west coast of Africa, exhausted from their ordeals after being kidnapped and held in conditions very similar to prisons, were bound in iron chains and packed as tightly as possible. Women, naked or nearly so, upon their arrival on ship were claimed by the sailors, and Newton alluded to sexual misbehavior in his writings that have since been interpreted by historians to mean that he, along with other sailors, took whomever he chose. His obedience to authority still absent, he often openly mocked the captain by creating obscene poems and songs about him that took on so the crew began to join in. Newton entered into disagreements with several colleagues which resulted in his being nearly starved to death, imprisoned while at sea and chained like the slaves they carried, then outright enslaved and forced to work on a plantation in Sierra Leone near the Sherbro River. After several months he came to think of Sierra Leone as his home, but his father intervened, a ship found him by another remarkable coincidence, and Newton claimed the only reason he left was because of Polly.

While aboard the ship Greyhound, Newton gained notoriety for being one of the most profane men the captain had ever met. In a culture where sailors commonly used oaths and swore, Newton was admonished several times for not only using the worst words the captain had ever heard, but creating new ones to exceed the limits of verbal debauchery. In March 1748, while the Greyhound was in the North Atlantic carrying livestock, wood, and beeswax from the coast of Africa, a violent storm came upon the ship that was so rough it swept overboard a crew member who had been standing where Newton was moments before. After hours of the crew emptying water from the ship and expecting to be capsized, he offered a desperate suggestion to the captain, who ordered it so. Newton turned and said, "If this will not do, then Lord have mercy upon us!" He returned to the pump where he and another mate tied themselves to it to keep from being washed over. After an hour's rest, an exhausted Newton returned to the deck to steer for the next eleven hours where he pondered what he had said.

About two weeks later, the battered ship and starving crew landed in Lough Swilly, Ireland. For several weeks before the storm, Newton had been reading The Christian’s Pattern, a summary of the 15th century The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis. The memory of the uttered phrase in a moment of desperation did not leave him; he began to ask if he was worthy of God's mercy or in any way redeemable as he had not only neglected his faith but directly opposed it, mocking others who showed theirs, deriding and denouncing God as a myth. He came to beieve that God had sent him a profound message and had begun to work through him.

Newton's conversion was not immediate, but he contacted Polly's family and announced his intentions to marry her. Her parents were hesitant as he was known to be inconsistent, unreliable, and impetuous. They knew he was profane, but they allowed him to write to Polly, and he set to begin to submit to authority for her sake. He sought a place on a slave ship bound for Africa, and Newton and his crewmates participated in most of the same activities he had written about before; the only action he was able to free himself from was profanity. After a severe illness his resolve was renewed yet he retained the same attitude about slavery as his contemporaries and continued in the trade through several voyages where he sailed up rivers in Africa—now as a captain—procured slaves being offered and sold them in larger ports to be sent to North or South America. In between voyages, he married Polly in 1750 and he found it more difficult to leave her at the beginning of each trip. After three shipping experiences in the slave trade, Newton was promised a position as a captain on a ship with cargo unrelated to slavery, when at thirty years old, he collapsed and never sailed again.

Category rename

Hi, I have requested a rename of Category:Evangelical Church in Germany dioceses; see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 15#Category:Evangelical Church in Germany dioceses. Thanks! +Angr 17:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

History of Christianity

I have been dividing the overlong article into three: I would have made notes at the end of the first article pointing forward, etc.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

History of Christianity

I will now leave the articles alone and have a look again at a later time.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

links

Obviously, I am in the midst of development... I was just doing the first harmony and did not look carefully enough, obviously... I will try to fix them today or tomorow.. Cheers History2007 (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, take a look now. I am not sure what to do about Minas that has no page, will add later.

I think all this upper/lower case situation in that page needs to get cleaned up later, but for now let us focus on the harmony then figure out a convention. History2007 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rough, rough 1st harmony version is there, and you will probably find some errors. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here? -- Talk:Gospel harmony/MarkBased

The parable of the minas is a parallel to the parable of the talents and I think they should be just discussed in the same article-- in fact they are discussed in the same article. The article could be renamed, to something like Parable of the talents or minas.

I have been meaning to point out to you that there will have to be some difference between the main Gospel harmony and the harmony type chart in the parables of Jesus article. Many parables were told more than once by Jesus (an obvious example is the parable of the Lamp under a bushel, told in both in Luke 8:16–18 and Luke 11:33–36) and different gospels show him telling a version at different times. Thus a straight harmony includes some parables at more than one place. Maybe you know this already.^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let us rename that article. And I did not know about the repetition issue, that explains a few things. I will give this maybe a rest for 1 or 2 days, then rework it. There are still many things to do. History2007 (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Move

I should have moved it, instead of the redirect... sorry.... now it can not be moved by anyone unless the new page gets deleted. We can try the other direction of conjunction. And something strange seems to have happened in that the database at Wiki seems ot of sync. May need to try in an hour or two. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

intitle

All pages with titles containing Gospel

History of Christianity, contd

Re: How about moving History of early Christianity to Early history of Christianity, and then recreating Medieval history of Christianity and Modern history of Christianity , but sure leave this page intact (except you are more than welcome to help cut its lenghth and add links to the new article.) It would seem best to me to let the Modern history of Christianity cover the time after that covered by the Reformation/Counter-Reformation articles.

The most useful one would probably be the Modern history of Christianty from the Enlightenment till the present time. The Middle Ages are perhaps not so good a way of describing ecclesiastical history and the overlaps might be hard to manage. Concern has been expressed by others that the Christianity by centuries articles are not a good idea but eliminating them would also be a considerable task. I will not do anything immediately and hope to consider it later. Your slimmer version of the main article is certainly a move in the right direction.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I hoped to respond earlier since the suggestion from User:Monsieurdl while understandable from a historian would not cope very well with the 2000 year period of the whole of Christian history or the theological and cultural differences between the branches of the church. That way of doing it would be a huge task and then there would probably be less consensus than exists at present. I am sure I will come back and see how it is going but other matters are occupying me this week.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion from User:Monsieurdl? On which page? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This on History of Christianity\Talk: I have a suggestion as a third party 'outside' observer: I would find distinct periods of the history of Christianity and divide them by more than three, as we have done in History of the Eastern Roman Empire. I know it will take time and a lot of hard work, but in the end it will be an awesome thing to behold. I created the template in that article based off of the "History of" template, which works well. Good luck! Monsieurdl mon talk 14:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC) --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Still working

I am still working on the harmony generation.... so it will come along in a few more days. History2007 (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Former Catholic dioceses

A separate category for 11th century establishments is a silly category. I'm trying to merge all of them into one larger bin, of former dioceses. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't remove categories because you don't like the categories. Take them to WP:CfD and leave any valid category tags in place. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already moved it. Sorry. I politely asked if you could fill it, and you were unable to do so. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But you didn't nominate it for, or get it approved for, deletion. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 09:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Give me a good reason why we need a specific category for Catholic dioceses founded in the 11th century which are no longer Catholic dioceses. I'm trying to rationalise the structure of defunct Catholic dioceses to put them in one place rather then where they are now which is scattered. I'm more then willing to accommodate you, but all you've thrown in my face is policy. You want the CFD, then go ahead and start one. Otherwise, I'll keep doing what I'm doing. Remember, 'be bold!'.

As for "Roman Catholic titular dioceses, can you explain to me why we need a separate category apart from Titular sees?Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes.

1. There are also Category:‎Titular Sees of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

2. So that it can be placed within Category:Catholic dioceses.

3. You didn't take it to a take them to WP:CfD.

4. Deletion wasn't approved by a WP:CfD. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 09:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, then have "Titular Sees" and "Titular Sees of the Coptic Orthodox" as a subset, oh, you've got your CFD, and I'll CFD the other. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please reverse any category emptying you have done also, so that the CfD can take place with the category contents in place. Thank you. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 09:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As soon as you provide a rationale, I'll be happy to do so. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm puzzled why you care about either category. I'd love to hear your explanation as to why you believe they are necessary. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The rationale is that you have continued to clear (it seems - I haven't followed the whole process) categories after it was clear this was disputed. If you can't resolve it yourselves, the matter should now go to CFD, & they need to see what the Carlaude structure looked like. I'm not taking any position on the issue myself yet. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Biblical manuscripts

Categories are only supposed to help Reader find what they are seeking. Consider a research student using Wikipedia to gather sources for their project, they want to find some biblical manuscript but instead of a simple Category for biblical manuscripts we have zillions of them. Research student now has to click on "fourth century biblical manuscripts" or "tenth century biblical manuscripts", etc. I think the category system is - too categorized : ) However, I'm not the Wikipedia category expert so feel free to educate me on how I am incorrect if you wish. NancyHeise ^talk 04:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the research student knows the name of the Biblical manuscript, then they don't need and wouldn't even use the category system. They would just type in the name of the Biblical manuscript.

If they don't know the name but know other information about a manuscript, then it would be easier to just look at the articles in the one (or two) category(ies) that fit what they know-- (such as the type, e.g. Category:‎Greek New Testament minuscules, or the century, e.g. Category:2nd-century biblical manuscripts) than to look in one category with many hundreds or even thousands of articles, one by one.

Dividing the Biblical manuscripts by such categories also lets the research student look for and find manuscripts of a sort he or she hopes exist, based on the same criteria of type and/or century. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Biblical dress

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Palestinian_clothing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish dress

Hello!

You left me a message ~one month ago, and I apologize for not answering sooner... Unfortunately, I have not been on Wikipedia that much lately, except for writing for the Wikipedia Signpost and few other things. Only my user name is "Aude" -it's French, means "bold" which goes with the idea of be bold on Wikipedia.

Since you are somewhat near DC, you should know that a group of DC area Wikipedians are organizing a meetup event on January 9th - see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 9. We will be touring the Library of Congress, have some informal discussions, and have dinner. I know you are not that close to DC, but still if it interests you, we would be glad to have you join us. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Protestant Denominations

Hi - I've reverted your reversion, because it is internally inconsistent to list "Calvinism" under Protestant denominations, regardless of the level of "importance" assigned to the article. It is extremely rare to find a church with "Calvinist" in its name, yet "Reformed" and "Presbyterian" are both common denominational names. The template is severely flawed if it cannot handle having these included. Ἀλήθεια 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to "break all rules"-- find a way to include all of and only the top-importance articles in the template, dispite some of them not being "denominations" in the same way. -- Or you can try to change the list of top-importance articles. WP:IAR does not mean doing what ever you think is best.

You cannot just change a template because you find it "severely flawed." Nearly every well used template came about via disscussion and you need to enter into disscussion when making major changes. See also WP:BB#Non-article namespaces

Even if you disagree with the above, you still need to stop reverting now and follow WP:BRD (on that page). ^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The rule states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Improving Wikipedia includes having templates with appropriate links. Links that purport to be to a denomination called "Reformed" but are actually to a theological system called "Calvinism" should be fixed. It shouldn't require a long discussion over what is or is not a "top-level" important article. I only reverted once, and then I chose another path. I'm glad to discuss the edits, but maintenance of the template was my first priority. Ἀλήθεια 15:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

1."break all rules" does not mean ignore procedures, and consensus building-- witch you are-- it means the mainspace can ignore standards such as MOS, if it means making the mainspace better.

2. You are not making the mainspace better, but worse.

3. Neither you, me, or any other one person gets to decide on their own what is "better"-- and then do anything they want. There are still guidlines we don't ignore in the process of gattering consensus of what is "better." ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BB#Non-article_namespaces

“ Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces. Such pages are identified by a namespace prefix. For example, this page, Wikipedia:Be bold, has the "Wikipedia:" prefix; if it were called simply Be bold (with no prefix) it would be an article. ”

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Again ww2censor (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, History2007 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the talk page

So you want to be able to remove comments of other Wikipedians from your talk page, but you don't want other people to be able to do the same.^{Carlaude:Talk} 11:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

At the top of my talk page, it says, "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it." I think I already explained this to you. Is there a reason we cannot communicate? Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see now leaving certain messages on the top of user talk pages gives those users the right to delete comments-- but not if they don't. You should include the new insight you have on the Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments page so that everyone maybe come as enlighted as you are. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a RFC because I said so, and it cannot be anything else

Carl, please stop disrupting an ongoing RFC. If you continue, I will file a noticeboard complaint.

O, I wish you had. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The message you keep adding has nothing to do with this RFC, and was a courtesy pointer to an old, deprecated discussion. Your continued addition of this deprecated pointer is totally disruptive and serves no useful or constructive purpose. Please stop. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Carl, these edits[2][3] serve no useful or constructive purpose. You are adding a deprecated link to an old discussion that has evolved into an RFC. That link was originally added by History2007 to two articles (and as favor to him, by myself to a third and fourth article he forgot). Your response to those pointers was neither warranted or required. Links pointing to discussions are there to help inform editors. There is no need to comment on them. Please stop trying to disrupt an RFC and try to actually participate in it in a useful manner. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see Carlaudes actions as disruptive and I see no need to call this a warning on the other pages. Carlaude did the right things I think. This is really not a major issue, and just needs a simple discussion, no warnings or other things. History2007 (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The right thing would be for him to participate constructively in the RFC. The wrong thing would be for him to leave petty comments in response to courtesy discussion notices and keep adding them even after they have been deprecated. Courtesy discussion notices do not require responses of any kind, and old courtesy discussion notices are routinely deleted. Carlaude's repeated addition of these old notices and replies is disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a good thing that you are here to "inform" us of the right topic and correct approach for every issue on every page-- that way we may someday learn on our own what comments are allowed to stay on pages-- and can be deemed "unpetty." Can I expect you will also inform us of the right opinions to have on those approved topics? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Carlaude, instead of trying to disrupt an RFC, could you be so kind as to actually participate in it instead? That involves offering your opinion about the RFC in the appropriate section. You can see a list of related topics at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy to get some ideas. For the last time, please participate. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do have such of h.o. over getting me to participate? What gave you the idea I even have an opinion on this issue of yours. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is important to the development of the article, and since you are the one who responded to my initial requests for help on the project page, and since you were the one who involved yourself in the issue related to the proposed merge, as well as the one who implemented the page move, then you must of course admit that you yourself have made it very clear that you have an opinion, and that you wished to share it. I am therefore confused as to how you could possibly write "What gave you the idea I even have an opinion on this issue"? I will assume that you are joking and you were not being serious. Or, perhaps you were unaware that Wikipedia is a collaborative project? In any case, I came here to remind you that when you file a noticeboard issue of any kind, you are supposed to notify the users involved. The Wikiquette alert board explains this process in detail. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are saying my "opinion" is important to the article, because I involved myself in a related issue? Discussing one issue does not mean I even care about another issue-- even if they are "related." -- oh I see-- you must be joking!
• And no I didn't implement the page move either. Look again.
• So a "collaborative project" as in I have to do what ever you say? Or "collaborative project" as in I must weigh in on every discussion?
• I really don't want to fight with you over such dross all day long but you seem to think you are explaning yourself and your views a whole lot more clearly than you do (and always seem to consider yourself right). ^{Carlaude:Talk} 13:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Carl, I believe there is a serious communication problem, and it seems to be solely on your end. You simply do not seem to understand what it is being said. For example: 1) You involved yourself in this dispute at every level, implying your opinion was of the utmost importance and should be considered. 2) You own user log shows that you moved the article to a new name at 04:32, 30 December 2009.[4] There is even a diff for it.[5] 3) A collaborative project involves working on improving articles with editors from all backgrounds, and using the talk page constructively to achieve this goal. 4) I have explained myself many times, Carl, and everything I have told you is supported. You and History2007 seem to be fighting an imaginary battle against imaginary opponents. I suggest you take a breather, slow down, and read what is actually being said. Viriditas (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please don't confuse my issue(s)-- that you hated to look at or let other do the same-- with your issue under discussion-- that I never expressed an opinion on in any edit.
• I thought you meant the page move under discussion that you desperately tried to get me to share an opinion on (the suitablity of merging the two articles on two similar miracles)-- a logistics/content issue we where talking about right then-- and did not realize the meant the spelling and vocabulary corrections that you have never objected to or even commented on before now. How could I ever have misunderstood you. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of Rome

St. Peter's Basilica, believed to be the burial site of St. Peter, seen from the River Tiber. The iconic dome dominates the skyline of Rome.

Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, believed to be the burial site of St. Paul.

See also: Early centers of Christianity § Rome

The See of Rome is traditionally said to be founded by Peter and Paul. While the New Testament says nothing directly about Peter's connection with Rome, indirectly Romans 15:20–22 may indicate that when Paul wrote it, another Apostle was already in Rome, and it is highly probable that the "Babylon" mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13, a letter attributed to Peter, is Rome. The tradition that links Peter with Rome is "early and unrivalled". Irenaeus of Lyons, also in the 2nd century, believed that Peter and Paul had been the founders of the Church in Rome and had appointed Linus as bishop. Dionysius of Corinth also serves as a witness to the tradition, and Ignatius of Antioch implies that Peter and Paul had special authority over the Roman church.

The New Testament offers no proof that Jesus established the papacy nor that he established Peter as the first bishop of Rome. and some historians have challenged this traditional view of Peter's role in the early Roman Church.

While most scholars agree that Peter died in Rome, it is generally accepted that there was a Christian community in Rome before either Peter or Paul arrived there.

Today, New Testament scholars agree that there is a special position to Peter among the Twelve. The official Catholic Church position is that Jesus had essentially appointed Peter as the first pope, with universal primacy as bishop of Rome. This is derived from his seeming primacy among the Twelve in New Testament texts on Peter, namely Matthew 16:17–19, Luke 22:32, and John 21:15–17, but both the diocese of of Antioch and of Rome are claimed to have have been founded by the apostle Peter.

The Christian Church built its identity on the Apostles as witnesses to Christ, and responsibility for pastoral leadership was not restricted to Peter. The New Testament also does not contain any record of the transmission of Peter's leadership, nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general very clear. As a result, the New Testament texts on Peter have been subjected to differing interpretations from the time of the Church Fathers on.

Footnotes

The Catholic Church draws an analogy between Peter's seeming primacy among the Twelve in New Testament texts such as Matthew 16:17–19, Luke 22:32, and John 21:15–17 and the position of the Pope among the Church's bishops.

Quotes Pope Gregory I, not Nica.

Death

Portal and project are now running - and I was wondering if you would be so kind to show me the correct ways of adding these at locations such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_executions - where it would seem fitting to add death as an equal with the others - although I dont knw if we have a B&w image of a skull yet :) SatuSuro 13:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

wow thatll get the sassenachs sorted out - the best of the new year to y' SatuSuro 14:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - cheers SatuSuro 05:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I agree with most of your proposals. I will be free from next week (I have exams) to work on Roman Catholicism templates. I will be happy to edit with someone (it is easier, more interesting and give better results). For templates Roman Catholic theology and History of the Roman Catholic Church i completly agree with your proposal. Do you think that we need ask more members when make changes like this?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Christianity in Ireland

Hi Carlaude. Thanks for this edit. Maybe your alternative way of putting the matter will make our IP editor see the error of his math. By the way, your edit seemed to have “burped” and added two occurrences of the word proportion. So, with this edit I took out the second occurence and added a (cheeky?) comment regarding the arithmetic. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 07:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Creation according to Genesis

Hello Carlaude. Talk:Creation according to Genesis has an active WP:RfC "Request for comments" that may interest you. It concerns the dispute over calling Genesis 1-2 a "creation myth." Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian theology work group

Hi, I am itnerested to cooperate in writing and editing Christian theology articles and I have joined in Christian theology work group. Would you like to cooperate with me in this area?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC) We also can do something about Roman Catholicism templates.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for now at least. I have not thought much of writting much in that area only because POV concerns make it cumbersome, but I am knowledgeable in the subject.

What did you have in mind-- or what are you working on?

Did you want to both areas at once or what? I work nights (in the US) so do nearly all my editing then (not much to do here for long stretchs).

Also, mind if I ask you if you are Roman Catholic? You did have an template saying you were Eastern Orthodox but now it says RC; are you Eastern Catholic now? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf. You have new messages at Outback the koala's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Answer to your comment

Hello, Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf. You have new messages at PanchoS's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 04:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:20th-century men

I have nominated Category:20th-century men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:20th-century women

I have nominated Category:20th-century women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:21st-century women

I have nominated Category:21st-century women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Censorship and competence

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Titanomachy. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.--Wetman (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

More

More Wetman comments on Carlaude

Wikipedia's rather naive article War in Heaven also takes Carlaude's narrowly Christianist pov, and is not a desirable model of competent discourse, but it does have a brief section that Carlaude will surely want to blank:

Similar motif outside Judeo-Christian faiths

The fall of superhuman beings punished for opposing gods is also found outside of the Abrahamic faiths. Homer's Iliad says Hephaestus was cast down from the heavenly threshold by Zeus and landed on the island of Lemnos nearly dead. Hesiod 's Theogony recounts that the gods, after defeating the Titans, hurled them down to Tartarus (the Titanomachy) as far beneath the earth as earth is beneath the sky.

I don't think we need to put up with bullying over something as familiar as this.Wetman (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to blank this. The text is seems fine to me; it is only the footnote that both fails to be found the cited chapter and is missleading (at best). If you think it has any bearing on your Titanomachy statement, thou, I don't see it. Please be more clear on that or take it to that page. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Paradise Lost vs. proto-apocalyptic literature

I suppose we can't cite Satan's speech in the first book of Paradise Lost? You can always try Jan Bremmer, "Remember the Titans!" in The Fall of the Angels (Brill 2004). A draft is here, I'm not sure if it's the final text. The first couple of sentences establish Wetman's point quite well. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

“ not to mention the Judeo-Christian rebellion-in-heaven tradition of the lapsed member of the celestial council, the fallen angel. ”

There isn't any one "Judeo-Christian rebellion-in-heaven tradition," as you imply with the term. If you read the chapter in Neil Forsyth's "The Old Enemy," that you cite, you will see his total failure to agree with this text. My issue-- as before-- is not if the fallen angel(s) were successful or not, but what (if anything) considers it a rebellion of "another generation."

It is generally in the Pentateuch that scholars see any evidence of Israely theology being of a council of gods, with Yahweh at the head. Apocalyptic literature is typically thought to begun much later, like a 100 or 200 years BC. The texts Israely/Jewish text that Forsyth discusses are between these to times. On the last page of his chapter (p.146) he calls these texts (such as Isaiah 12) "proto-apocalyptic texts" when Forsyth states "we should not make the mistake of reading into these texts the full cosmology that was to be invented by Christianity, though that was precisly what the church fathers were to do." In fact, this contrast with Christian cosmology is the only mention of Christianity in the whole chapter.

Genesis creation myth

Carlaude, could you take a look at this page? The old umbrella article "Creation according to Genesis" was turned into a more limited subject matter that, while encyclopedic, shouldn't be the default. I don't know whether there needs to be a new umbrella or not. There are currently articles covering Genesis as allegory, framework, fact, and now myth. I think "literature" is left out, and an umbrella article could point to all of them. But I could be too close to the article, so I'd like another opinion. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What links these articles together besides Genesis? (What articles are they?) What would the article be an umbrella of? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carlaude -- the ones I have in mind are Allegorical interpretations of Genesis, Creationism, Genesis creation myth, and Framework interpretation (Genesis). What's missing is an umbrella article such as Genesis Creation Account and something like Genesis Creation Literary Analysis (this last could be based on Alter to begin with). The umbrella article could link to and summarize all of the views and show how creation in Genesis is interpreted in a literary context, in its relation to or repudiation of ancient Near East myths, a structural analysis, allegorical methods, and the history of those who have taken it most literally. That's basically a need for one article Genesis Creation Literary Analysis and a summary umbrella article Genesis Creation Account. At least, that's my thinking. Does this make sense to you? I think what I'm asking for is a sanity check and maybe some help. You've always seemed to have a level head.EGMichaels (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the article should be something like Interpretations of the Genesis 1-2 or Genesis creation account. It would be best to have the Genesis creation myth named one of these. Redoing the article around the a list of interpretations of the Genesis 1-2, would be a good place to start.^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Carlaude -- we'd welcome any help you can give. We need a fresh set of eyeballs (and fingertips) to keep us all honest.EGMichaels (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalking

An off-line wiki-stalking incident caused me to to retire the old account. I was gone from here since last May due to work, but decided to get a new account this week. I had my history moved to this account and I will be putting up my old barnstars if I get a chance - so it isn't supposed to be a big secret I am back - I just don't want it widely known going forward. I am pleased to be working with you again.-- User:Ptolemy Caesarion (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Assirian Church of East / Chaldean Church

Dear Carlaude, I'm appreciating the edits you are doing on the Article about the ACOE and the Chaldean Church. To be NPOV I suggest to move all common history on the article Church of the East, and leaving in the Articles Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Church a short summary and the details relavant only to the portion not/in communion with Rome. The point is that the Chaldean Church do not accept the adjective Assyrian (which by the way is a use of the 19th century and formalizied only in the 1970's as formal name of the ACOE). In other words, both churches claim to be the true continuation of the Church of the East, but one reject the adjective chaldean and the other reject the adjective assyrian. As Wiki we cannot take a stand on which adjective of those is to be applied on the ancient Church of the East, not even in the title of the Articles. We can discuss of this issue on Talk:Church of the East with also User:Djwilms (who is the most famous world scholar on this subject).A ntv (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Early Christianity too long?

This article should be about "Early Christianity", or the title changed to whatever it's supposed to be about. There is plenty of stuff that is largely irrelevant to "Early Christianity" currently in the article, such as the overly large section on "Religious Writing". That would be a good spot to trim if you feel the article is "too large". Such an article will always be big, as the topic is big. Many books have been written on the topic. 75.0.11.35 (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree (it is better to cut in areas that already have there own articles, such as History, Baptism, etc) but...

As I said elsewhere, if want it done, then go split it up. I have done much to split out things on this article already. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Talk:Apostle (disambiguation)

blanked page

Hi Carlaude, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Apostle (disambiguation). You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 10:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Life of Jesus succession boxes

I believe that you're responsible for the "Life of Jesus" succession boxes, like this:

I cut this from Parable of the unforgiving servant because it was so spectacularly wrong (this parable is #75.5 on Gospel harmony, so should come between #75 and #76). Previously (in Annunciation to the shepherds) I've tried to work within the system, but after fixing several errors in multiple articles, I gave up.

I can't help but think that:

1. It should have been a template of some kind, perhaps a bit like the one in 12 (number). That would also have given a centralised talk page to the discuss the system.
2. It's too hard to use when following the Life of Jesus, particularly since there are often multiple "before" and "after" links, which means that it doesn't form a sequence.
3. It's too complex and too hard to maintain, and currently a great many of the boxes are wrong, which means they are worse than useless.

I'm not sure where to go from here. I like the idea, but it doesn't seem to be working in it's current form.

I would suggest systematically replacing it by something simpler, which involves one or more templates, and with clear guidelines on which articles will have them, and what they are supposed to be doing.

What do you think? Please reply on my talk page. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carlaude,

Please see the talk section of History of late ancient Christianity. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf. You have new messages at Mobius Clock's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again (no point redoing the template). - Mobius Clock 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Schism of 1552

Schism of 1552 is very nice. You should nominate it for a DYK. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 10:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Carlaude,

Thanks for the compliment. I've also just been complimented by email by a member of the mutran family of Shemsdin, so if the article has got past a well-placed and knowledgeable member of the ACOE, despite the less than flattering portrait it paints of Shemon VII Ishoyahb, it must be along the right lines. It definitely needs some stricter citations, particularly one for the long quote from Abdisho IV Maron, but I've got all the materials to hand at home, so it shouldn't take me too long to knock it into shape.

Djwilms (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Gregg Zegarelli

Hi, what do you think of Zegarelli? I started to look at harmony again and his book and much of his index is online via Google books. As a fun project I am starting to look at how it differs from the harmony of David A. Reed. Zegarelli seems very confident that his version is the best, but time will tell. I will let you know. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Break

I changed the portal box template to a maximum width of 175 px, so longer portals such as professional wrestling will break automatically. This number could be reduced if it is felt that the width should be restrained more. While the break parameter should work as before, it seems to me that consistency would be good and is best achieved in that way. I do agree that there is something to be said for breaking the text, also for centring it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC).

Episodes

Please see Talk:Gospel harmony/Gospel episodes. I think this is the best way to set the base for harmonies. It was generated from the tables and seems surprisingly complete. The best way will be to fill in any gaps that exist in each Gospel, and that is easy to do now, given the numbering system. History2007 (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool.

You need to change the link "Biblical Magi?" to "Biblical Magi". Mark 1:1-11 are John 1:19-51 are John the Baptist episodes. Matthew 1:1 is part of the Genealogy of Jesus episode. John 1:1-18 and Luke 1:1-4 are an intro "episodes".

Is there anything else you need help with? ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 02:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a starting "error list". Thanks. What I would like to have is to reach an agreement that the list in Talk:Gospel harmony/Gospel episodes is a good representation of the Gospels. I have not been through it to compare it to the Gospels, my program just picked it up from two sources and merged them:

• The list of miracles and parables from their wikipages.
• The table you had built long ago.

But there are inconsistencies, e.g. the table in Gospel harmony lists the The Rich Fool as ministry, but I think it is a parable, and the classification for The Grain of Wheat remains unclear etc. I think it may make sense to break the Chronology of Jesus to about 9 classes, 2 of which are parables and miracles and the other 7 are time ordered, ending with appearances after resurrection. That would separate early ministry from late ministry etc. and will have a "center" around the time the Beatitudes were.

But first, the challenge is to agree that we have a good representation of the Gospels, and if necessary add a few pericopes to complete these. If we agree on what the missing pericopes are, I can build pages for them pretty quickly. Thanks.History2007 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

CfD

I've been approved to run a further trial, after tweaking the way the bot adds templates to sidestep the date issue, so feel free to start another CfD whenever you're ready (the date will now always line up, no matter when I run the task). - Mobius Clock 12:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)