User talk:SW3 5DL

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is SW3 5DL's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 days

Fun with Wikipedia

This is actually an article on Wikipedia: [1]. And also notice that, with few exceptions, each item has its own article.

Vandal: [[2].

Landon Donovan

[3]

Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus

I saw that you built Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus. I reviewed the page and marked it as reviewed/ok. I actually think you did well there. There are a few minor things to point out:

It is certainly due to Liguori. That is correct.
But it is Redemptorist, rather than passionist. E.g. it does not need to be blessed by the Passionist priest before use.
I think in general it is called Little Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus, if you move it to the new title.

Then I think you will have a good page started. That chaplet is actualy referenced in "The complete works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori" by Saint Alfonso Maria de' Liguori and Eugene Grimm 1926, and that would be the best reference for it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chaplet isn't considered Redemptorist or Passionist. Neither order owns it. It was written by a Redemptorist and is promoted by the Passionists. The Passionist order promotes devotion to Christ in all things regarding Christ. If lowly parish priest Father Jack writes a new devotion on the sufferings of Christ, the Passionists would be the ones to promote it, although, any religious could promote it. The religious don't own these devotions. They create them and promote them. Orders have been founded just to promote a certain devotion. All the Marian orders, the Sacred Heart followers, etc,.Malke 2010 13:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Williams, David (2004). The Five Wounds of Christ. Gracewing Publishing. p. 28. ISBN 0852446209.

What are the words of the prayer used in this chaplet? History2007 (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you misunderstand the devotion. You are creating articles from original research. You seem to think that by dropping and adding new words, you've created a new devotion. As I explained exhaustively on the talk page of the now former Rosary of the Holy Wounds, there is only one devotion. Christ received five wounds, in one crucifixion. The devotion is to the Five Wounds. You cannot claim that the Redemptorists or the Passionists have different devotions. It doesn't work like that. And again, the Passionists are promoting the devotion that St. Alphonsus created.

You also don't seem to understand that there are long and short versions of prayers in devotions. Here's the reason: St. Alphonsus sitting around in the monastery has loads of time to meditate and become passionate about Christ's suffering and his Five Wounds. Alphonsus probably cried his eyes out writing it. But the rest of us have real life to deal with and while we might want to be devoted to the Five Wounds, we're afraid if we don't say it exactly right, it won't count, and then we've made a blasphemy and we're going straight to Hell. So better to not say the thing in the first place. The Church accounts for that fear by saying, it's okay if you've left off or forgotten something. It's your intentions that count. But the devotion is still the same. The same Five Wounds of Jesus.

And now, I don't see how I can be of any further information to you. You don't appear to accept anything I say, but instead want to engage in disagreement or circular arguments, or somehow prove the opposite. I don't know any other way to tell you that Indulgences are meaningless, Imprimatur's don't mean what you are interpreting them to mean, there are Five Wounds of Jesus from one crucifixion, and that My Sunday Visitor is not a reliable source. What I'm telling you is the truth. Trust me, this is 12 years of Catholic convent school talking.Malke 2010 15:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be easier if just go separate ways and try not to interact? History2007 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to me to have the energy to edit and source things, but I think the problem is your understanding of things you're finding. Other editors have taken note of some of the things you've claimed in articles but you've not heard them, and I think it's because you probably didn't get 12 years of education in a convent school, so you just don't understand their argument.

So my suggestion would be, if you want help on Catholic articles, I'm willing to help you. I'll be editing Catholic articles anyway, especially since I've noticed so many of them need work. You'll be there on some of them too, no doubt, so as far as I can see, better to make a friend than an enemy. I wouldn't be the only one correcting things, you'll still have other editors to deal with, and some Catholics I've seen on Wikipedia, especially the religious, never hesitate to correct. If you want the help, it's there for you, but my condition is, I'll not argue about things I've been soaking in for 28 years.Malke 2010 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. There is a rumor that Catholics are very good at forgiving and making peace. So we can just go forward and put this behind us. But I can not pay you any percentage of all the money Wikipedia pays me.... Just kidding on that. Now, when you mentioned convent and help, I asked myself what needs most help in Catholic pages and the answer was simple: Thérèse of Lisieux. It is a very long article that talks about all kinds of things except the one element that is perhaps most important: her spirituality. As I said there: if the mother sold lace or almonds is less important than the key items such as her motto and poems: "love can only be repaid by love", "to live by love" etc. And her focus on Eucharistic meditation which ties directly into her composition of "to live by love", her literary masterpiece, has been ignored. So if you want to help improve that article, that will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grapeseed vs rapeseed

Are you sure about changing rapeseed to grapeseed here? Grapeseeds are not typically grown as a crop, rather they're a byproduct of growing grapes. However rape is a common crop across Europe and is grown for oil. In North America we usually refer to it as canola - as in canola oil. Toddst1 (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that, Todd. I was actually going through counties looking at maps for comparison regarding questions being raised here [4] when I noticed it.Malke 2010 20:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did Norfolk become famous for it's wineproducing? Weakopedia (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to Farmers Magazine article about the uses of rapeseed in agriculture [5] :) Weakopedia (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that, Weak.Malke 2010 20:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgment and thanks

BTW, I should acknowledge all the good work you seem to be doing lately and constructive engagement with others. I'm glad you accepted MRG's offer and we still have you as an editor. Thanks for making the effort. Wikipedia is a better place for it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, thanks so much for the kind comments, and for following my progress. I very much appreciate it.Malke 2010 22:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Norton

What is the thing with Edward Norton not being in The Avengers? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]