User talk:Anglicanus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sydney[edit]

I cannot believe that people with names like "Anglicanus" and "StAnselm" are still trying to interfere with the Sydney Diocese! Don't tell me that there is some sort of imagined affinity! I can assure you that there is not! My advice is, avoid them! If they ever find out that you wear an alb, genuflect, or light candles, you will have your name taken down in a big black book. They have my name, and those of all my relatives, right back to the witch-hunts of the 17th-century.

I had a friend (ordained) who was once found chained to the altar rails of St John's, Darlinghurst, wearing nothing but a leather thong, a black lace corset, mascara and a large silver crucifix. He disappeared, shortly after, and was never seen again. When I asked, I was told that he had gone abroad. Further enquiry provoked the response that they had sent him as a missionary and he had been eaten by a cassowary, but I never believed it. They could probably have turned a blind eye to the corset, (given that it was Darlinghurst) but that crucifix brought him under grave suspicion. Amandajm (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Bwaaaaaa haaa haaa! Adamm (talkcontribs) 07:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you been smoking those herbal cigarettes again? Anglicanus (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Anglicanus, when I write "nominating" him and "appointing" her, then that is exactly what is meant, otherwise I wouldn't bother. One needs to draw these nice distinctions. Adamm, you see, plainly knows Sydney.... Amandajm (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and Request[edit]

Thank you for your St. Augustine’s College edits. You made decisions about which I was ambivalent, e.g., whether to use British or American spelling and whether to use as many capitalized words as did old sources. Two things. (a) Should not the lack of citations tag be removed? (b) I have found some interesting photos online, but inserting them is beyond my Wiki-capacity.

I have fond memories of 1956-57 academic year that I spent at St. Augustine’s College, when it served as the Central College of the Anglican Communion. That was before the heavy motor traffic. We could safely bicycle in town and out to surrounding villages. Now to my request.

Would you be so kind as to review my draft at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vejlefjord as a possible replacement for the current article on “St. Augustine’s Abbey” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Augustine%27s_Abbey). I intended to expand and add inline citations to the current article. But I found that much of the present article is word-for-word the same as other web sites without citations. E.g. the whole first paragraph is the same as http://www.touristlink.com/england/st-augustine-s-abbey.html and www.barnesandnoble.com/w/churches-in-kent-books-llc/1103418568?ean=9781157087199. That and the present article’s headings and lack of sources cited led me to write a possible replacement draft. Please give me your thinking about its possibilities and what needs to be done? Vejlefjord (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't too sure about some of the capitalisations as some seemed like they might have been proper names for things. I try not to change capitalisations unless I'm very confident of whether they should be treated as proper nouns or generic ones. Older publications as well as "inhouse" ones tend to capitalise many nouns which shouldn't be in contemporary English. Spelling is also often a problem as some English organisations still prefer the "Oxford" spellings with "z" instead of "s" as in American English.
Anything which plagiarises already published sources will need to be either removed or radically rewritten. I'll have a look at your draft as soon as I can. I've never uploaded a photo to Wikipedia but I can probably work out how to do it without too much difficulty.
I don't think I've ever been to St Augustine's even though I know Canterbury quite well from when I was a curate in the Diocese of Rochester in the mid-1980s and subsequent visits. All the best. Anglicanus (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

For contribution to articles about churches[edit]

St Michaels Anglican Cathedral Wollongong.jpg The St Michael's and All Angel's 'Gong
You surely deserve one of these. Amandajm (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Go 'head[edit]

On Catholic church, myself and ScitDe prefer your second proposal. Hilo48 also expresed support for a similar proposal by scittdei. So i hink its safe to make your addition. Thanks. Pass a Method talk 11:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

St James'[edit]

Thanks for your improvements.

About "St James' has been considered to be one of Greenway's finest works" as against "St James' is one of Greenway's finest works."

We are dealing with an architect who left ten buildings or part thereof: several churches, the barracks, a rectory, a courthouse, a porch, a small obelisk. There is no question that St James' is one of Greenway's finest works. There are only two contenders for the "finest" as St James' and St Matthew's have the edge on Hyde Park Barracks. No claim is being made that St James' is "the finest". And if we insist on "has been considered to be", then the question arises, "who has considered it to be?". It is one of those convoluted Wikimedia expressions with which I have no patience.

Please don't take this as a general grouch! I'm very happy with your improvements! Amandajm (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. the altar thing is bloody ridiculous, but we don't call it anything so popish in Sydney. (I don't think even St James' would do that! I'll ask. Amandajm (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

On the basis of your information I will accept the "one of the finest" wording. But please don't call my attempt to improve the wording in accordance with MOS principles as "nonsense". It wasn't "nonsense" in any way at all. The "who" question is answered by the reference(s).

As for "altar", I would be extremely surprised if St James' doesn't commonly use this word. Why should it follow the prevailing Sydney custom on this term when it doesn't do so on other theological and liturgical matters? "Altar" is nearly always the customary term used in Anglican churches such as St James' and the article's terminology should reflect that fact ~ not that of the majority of the diocese. Anglicanus (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think people generally call it the altar and all the Eucharists are written and referred to as Eucharist - either "Holy Eucharist" or "Choral Eucharist" or similar. Thank you for your corrections. They produce in me the response that seems to be known as "face-palm". I regard each one as a helpful lesson that hopefully, I can apply in my Wikipedia career. I am beginning to rely on them but my goal is not to need them. If I can reduce my error rate, it will be good. Beyond improving the article, they are teaching me a lot about the MOS. Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg It's time for tea! Amandajm (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks ~ I think I will have a cup of tea before I go to Benediction. Anglicanus (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I am shaking my head in despair. You have changed the word "preachers" to "bishops". Understand this, "preachers" is the issue here, not "bishops". The notion of women bishops promotes eye-rolling, and nothing more. It has never been discussed, except when it was considered at the Lambeth Conference. I seem to remember that WE didn't attend.
I had a friend, recently deceased, who was licensed to preach by Harry Goodhew. Exceptional woman with a PhD and a huge commitment. Wasn't permitted to preach in our local church. She received regular invitations from the Uniting Church and the Congregational Church. Couldn't preach at St Michael's. Basically, she didn't have the balls.
It is possible for a woman to preach in conservative, Jesenite Sydney, if she has the right connections.
It is also possible if the woman already holds a license to preach and has the permission of a sympathetic local priest. This was the case with Sue Pain at St James'. She was invited by Bishop Richard Hurford as soon as he took up the position of rector there.
The church that I attended for twenty odd years, where I was verger, carillonist, a trustee of the historic Camperdown Cemetery and prime mover behind the restoration, was another oasis. We had an unusual congregation of people that came from all over Sydney, drawn by the fact that the preaching was excellent and the atmosphere generally accepting of diversity. We were a bastion for the Movement for the Ordination of Women, with Patricia Brennan, Eileen Baldry, Sue Pain etc as members of the congregation. In the 1990s our church sent three candidates out of the diocese for ordination: two women and a gay man who was already a deacon. Dear John, on the day he left, with the laying on of hands from the whole congregation, made a very telling comment "When I arrived at St Stephen's, I was one of the walking wounded." The majority of the congregation knew from experience what he meant.
In 1994, when women had been ordained in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne, I organised a big celebratory service at St Stephen's. It was hugely successful. Every ordained woman who could possible get there came, from all over Australia. Moreover twenty (20!) male priests from the Sydney Diocese attended and showed their support. (I am sure that the observers of such things took a list of their names). The table was laid with the Communion vessels, and the service proceeded as if Holy Communion was about to take place, but when that point was reached, the lights were dimmed, the vessels ceremoniously removed, and two schoolgirls carried the bread and wine in a pottery jug and basket (women's business, as the Indigenous people say) over to the church hall, where Sue Pain ordained the sacraments. We followed the Communion with a Agape Feast, complete with everything that one eats with bread and wine. Fortunately, no-one seemed to have told the rector (who was fairly new to the parish and not entirely on top of such things) that there was a bylaw that no alcohol could be consumed in the church hall. A great time was had by all. Now, I am proud to say, my sister left Sydney Diocese for greener pastures, and was ordained in Canberra Goulburn.
A couple of other Sydney matters. Women are ordained as deacons. Sydney has always had a fairly large number of deaconesses assisting in parishes. Ordaining women as deacons did not in practice mean much more than dropping the "ess" off the end. However, Harry Goodhew used this to advantage, and, promptly upon becoming archbishop, made one of the women deacons an archdeacon. Ha!
Women deacons are allowed to conduct services, particularly in rural parishes with several churches, but there must always be a male head to direct her.
The notion of lay precedence at Communion (let's not call it "Eucharist") is that it downplays the priestly role and removes the requirement that a male is essential. Since only men can be priests, it means that when there is a shortage of priests, the formal necessity can be bipassed. The sacraments are not really that significant anyway. Not in a faith that denies the experiential. It's something nice that you do to remember Jesus. But, like the crucifixion, we don't put too much emphasis on it.
Then there is confirmation. We still do confirmation, because it's good for young people. However, Sydney has dispensed with the requirement (or tradition) that this laying on of hands should be done by a bishop. This is now done by the rector. (We went for a long time not calling the priest a "priest" but somehow, when Peter Jensen became bishop, he took to referring to himself as a priest, and to wearing the red robes that synod had previously discussed dispensing with.) Anyway, Sydney has four regional bishops, who have in times past done all the running around to parishes. And of course, the regional bishop has always been most welcome. Suddenly, the regional bishop has a purely administrative job, may be associated with the church that functions as regional cathedral, but no longer gets parish invitations. The regional bishops disappeared from the sight of the laity. But we did all know who our archbishop was, of course, because we saw him interviewed in the media, pretty often.
Young Moore College men have their headship role reinforced in their psych. Women have a role, doing what they do, ministering to other women, and teaching the children. Arrogance abounds. The teachings of Paul take precedence over those of Jesus, because they are all so much more clearly defined. Jesus spoke in parables, and led by example, but Paul explained matters and laid down rules. The Lord's Prayer has dropped from use at informal services. There is no presumption that Christians might be able to repeat it by heart. Young Sydney Christians have argued that Jesus only gave it as an example of how to pray. That doesn't mean we ought to actually use it. I have argued back that more than anything else, the Lord's Prayer unites Christians. That at any huge gathering (in St Peter's Square, for example) the sound of the Lord's Prayer being offered simultaneously be the languages of the globe is a moving and uniting experience that speaks powerfully of the "Church" (one holy catholic apostolic etc) as nothing else does. However, arrogance replaces the words of Christ with the words of whatever young man has been chosen to stand at the lectern. (i'm not denying the place of intercession here. ("Does this mean that you actually prayed at St Peter's?")
You might find this interesting: A guide to Anglican Liturgy for young Sydney Anglicans.
Amandajm (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A Nudge[edit]

Please refer back to “77 Thanks and Request.” Is my request still on your “to do” list? While you are thinking about St. Augustine’s Abbey, you might be interested in reading Canon W. F. France’s booklet that I uploaded to http://archive.org/details/StAugustinesCanterburyAStoryOfEnduringLife, especially the addendum. Peace, Vejlefjord (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Complaint[edit]

I have complained about User:Eric Corbett's behaviour on the Wells Cathedral talk page. [1]

Watch your back. Amandajm (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. And good luck in trying to get an administrator to do anything sensible or appropriate about Eric's appalling behaviour. There is so much bullshit and hypocrisy going on with some of the administrators regarding Eric that it has become absurd and farcical. You may instead, like myself, find yourself receiving a rebuke from an administrator instead of Eric. One administrator has been ignoring Eric's repeated incivility to me and other editors while, in a bullying manner, blaming me and demanding that I withdraw a comment in response to his incivility to me. There is, of course, no way that I am going to withdraw my comment in such circumstances. That really would be hypocritical on my part and rewarding bullies such as Eric. The administrator simply doesn't "get it" and is continuing to make disingenous comments about me whenever s/he has the opportunity. Eric, meanwhile, seeks pity from other editors over my comment and has been suggesting, falsely and without any evidence whatsoever, that I'm pretending to be a priest and also of being a sockpuppet of some former administrator. The whole situation is very bizarre. Wasn't there once a wise person who said something about seeing a speck in someone else's eye whilst ignoring the beam in your own? All the best. Anglicanus (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wells[edit]

Thank you for your useful tweaks.

Re "considered", as I have said before, I don't go there if I can avoid it. If a thing is "considered famous", then it is famous.

This is about finest rather than "famous". There are good reasons why it is the finest, and you know them quite well. Almost every original statue at Salisbury was smashed. And the group at Exeter are mostly badly deteriorated and set into a peculiar layered facade, built piecemeal. Exeter claims they have the finest sculptured screen, outside France, of the 14th century.... or words to that effect. Well's facade is about 80-100 years earlier, so it is not a competitor in that round. Since this is about the combination of both architecture and sculpture, there is really no question.

Fletcher, Harvey, Swaan and Clifton-Taylor all make a very positive statement, then we have the opinion of five experts. (I might add that the architectural solutions on the facade at Salisbury are very simple, compared with those at Wells, though the end product is quite lovely.

Amandajm (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day Rev![edit]

I see that you are still trying to improve upon Peter Jensen. How can you possibly imagine that there is room for improvement? Why don't you check out the new Bishop of Grafton instead. [2] There have been some very nasty things said. Don't believe them. Amandajm (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the office, one of four ''[[Marian antiphon]]s'' is sung. These songs, ''[[Alma Redemptoris Mater]]]], ''[[Ave Regina caelorum]]'', ''[[Regina caeli]]'', and ''[[Salve Regina]]'', have been described

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

John Storrs[edit]

Hi, In changing the inscription to mixed case you lost the accents in the Greek. Not being a hellenophone I have no idea if they are important - do you, or should we seek help from a suitable linguist? Would you prefer the inscription to be in a quotation box, similar to those under Richard_Watts_Charities#Six_Poor_Travellers_House? I'll happily reformat and cut/paste from the source this evening if you think it would look better. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the accents are important or not in modern Greek. It seems you know how to include them. A quotation box sounds like it could be a good idea. I'll leave all this up to you ~ but I greatly dislike quotations in another language without an English translation included. Cheers, Anglicanus (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll have a poke around next Sunday when I'm next up the tower to see if there is a translation provided on the founder's documentation. I suspect though that it will be NT rather than modern Greek given the date and Storr's background. Due to H&S it's a pain to get up to the bell chamber itself so that may be out for a while. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, Koine Greek, I should have thought of that! My Greek is now almost evaporated but I can possibly work out the meaning. It's probably a New Testament verse. Cheers, Anglicanus (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I found it. It's the end of 1 Corinthians 15:54 ~ "Death has been swallowed up in victory." It's a bit odd that the inscription is apparently in transliteration rather than the original Greek alphabet. Anglicanus (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The source I was using was Love's Guide. After a bit more digging, including the picture of the tenor that is now linked to the citation, the inscription is in Greek letters. Last night I was hunting for a way to display small caps properly, the English part of the inscription is not set in titling but in small caps. I'll work on the quotebox shortly, but life is a bit hetic at the moment with my Father-in-Law in hospital and my Mother's funeral at the end of the week. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Still haven't got small caps, but I think I've rendered the Greek correctly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reinstated the use of Rural Dean. It appears (see Rural Dean) that the term was even then archaic and perversely had nothing to do with the countryside, however it was the correct term at the time! Storr served as Rural Dean at St George’s and Westminster whilst he was actually Vicar at St. Peter's. I've added a footnote to (I hope) clarify this. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what confused source you are relying on but the position of a "rural dean" or "area dean" refers to a ministry position in a deanery ~ not in a specific church or parish. So if there a deanery called the "Deanery of St George" then he can be called the "Rural Dean of St George" for instance ~ but not the "Rural Dean of St George's Church, Wherever". If a source is suggesting otherwise then it is mistaken. Anglicanus (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just realised that my edit summary comment about his curacies and incumbencies wasn't entirely correct. Anglicanus (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The confused source is the University of Cambridge, see [3] as per the citation. I've recently had a chat with a friendly cannon and DD who doesn't see the problem, deaneries were often named after the principal church within the deanery. I'll continue to investigate. As I'm sure you are aware Westminster is an area, not the eponymous abbey. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Consecration St james[edit]

You removed the dedication from the consecration arguing that a church is consecrated to God. I am not familiar with the Anglican Church but it is my understanding that a church is consecrated to the divine worship of God, not to God per se. Churches are designated for divine worship by a dedication or a blessing usually by a bishop. Saying that a church is consecrated to a given Saint is imho therefore correct. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Very few Anglicans, if any, regardless of their theological views, would say that a church is "consecrated" to a saint. Most would, however, say that a church's dedication is to a a certain saint. So I don't understand why you think your use of terminology can be correct. Anglicanus (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal ordinariate[edit]

Congratulations on the work you have done on this article. I see that, at least in the geographical sense, which is the sense you mean, Scotland is included. When I changed "United Kingdom" to "England and Wales", I was thinking of the canonical rather than the geographical sense. The ordinariate was set up for the territory of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. Its FAQ, even in its latest version, says that, "no matter where a member of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham lives, within the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales, they will in the first instance be under the ordinary ecclesial jurisdiction of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and not the diocese where they are territorially based". (The emphasis has been added by me, and I see that an older version of the FAQ, preserved here, has no comma breaking up the phrase "no matter where a member of the Ordinariate lives within England and Wales".) So, has the territory of the ordinariate been extended to cover Scotland? Or do its Scotland-based members come in the first instance, indeed totally, under the local bishops, as they would if they lived in France? Does the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham have a formal deanery in Scotland? Is the ordinary a member also of the Bishops' Conference of Scotland? The ordinariate's website has a page headed "The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in Scotland", and another website that calls itself scotlandordinariate says on its page about clergy that "the oversight of The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham here in Scotland" is one of the responsibilities of Monsignor John Broadhurst. Does he live in Scotland?

I leave it to you to decide whether to privilege the geographical sense, perhaps removing "Wales" or writing "England and Wales, Scotland". The clearly geographical/political expression "United Kingdom" would not do, since Northern Ireland is excluded canonically (with only one episcopal conference for the whole island) and perhaps, if the ordinariate has no member living there, also geographically. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there is a formal deanery in Scotland but this may not be correct. In any case it seems clear enough that the OLW ordinariate extends to Scotland in some official or semi-official way. John Broadhurst doesn't live in Scotland. I don't know what relationship the ordinary has with the Scottish bishops conference. The situation with Scotland seems similar to that of Canada and I think it probably should be included in the geographical listing. Anglicanus (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I wonder now if there is a problem with saying that the ordinariate "exists" in Scotland rather than that it has members or affiliates or something else in Scotland. But I think it best to let things rest for some time in the hope that a solution will appear. And you, from your geographical viewpoint, may well think the canonical distinction too subtle. Esoglou (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Anglicanus, some of those citations you're removing are not blogs. Anglocatholichinge (talk) 27 December 2013 (UTC)

But most of them are. I am tired of trying to clean up your messy editing. Do something about it yourself! Anglicanus (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
St Andrews Cathedral Sydney Magi 01.JPG Happy New Year, 2014
Many Happy Collaborations! Amandajm (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Epiphany Window, St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney, by John Hardman & Co. of Birmingham

Trevor Huddleston[edit]

Anglicanus, You deleted every single change I made to this article saying I had violated many copyrights. I accept that I am new to this lark and had assumed that the requirement to cite evidence meant quoting. If I now understand that is not possible then I will leave out direct quotes in future.

However, the article as printed needs several alterations to correct factual errors.

1. To say TH "never married" in the introduction is incorrect. He was not free to marry as he was a member of a religious order. Would you say about a Pope "he never married"?

It is unbalanced to say he was best known for writing the Prayer for Africa, when it was his book "Naught for Your Comfort" which was undoubtedly his main claim to fame.

2. Early Life - he went to St Mark's Swindon for three years from 1936-1939 after attending Wells Theological College. He then went to Mirfield where he served a two year noviciate (1939-1941) followed by another two years as a professed brother before he was asked to go to South Africa in 1943. It is therefore not true to say he was asked to do this while still a novice. (Ref: Trevor Huddleston by Piers McGrandle Continuum 2004)

3. CR's work in South Africa under Raymond Raynes had developed well beyond anything that can be said to be covered by the words "Mission station". The Provincial House in South Africa was in Rossentville but he was asked to serve as the parish priest for Sophiatown and Orlando initially. In six years in Sophiatown CR had built three churches, seven schools and three nursery schools catering for over 6,000 children, as well as the gigantic church of Christ the King which seated 1,000, and in nearby Orlando they had built four primary schools which with nursery schools catered for another 3,000 children. This was the job TH was asked to do. The article as it stands gives no idea of the scale of this. (Ref: The Community of the Resurrection by Alan Wilkinson)

4. I inserted Nelson Mandela's description of Apartheid as developed under the National Government voted in by the white electorate in 1948 as many people looking at this encyclopaedia nowadays will have no clear idea what is meant by the term and why it was so abhorrent to those who lived and worked in places like Sophiatown. (Ref: Long Walk to Freedom by Nelson Mandela)

5. Huddleston was the main force behind the Anti Apartheid Movement from its foundation in 1960 until it folded with the General Election in 1994, being its Vice President 1961-81 and its President from 1981-1994. Throughout his life, and not just after his retirement as stated in the article, he worked for the eradication of apartheid. He was instrumental in organising the sports boycott, the trade embargoes and later in focusing attention on Mandela and his release. (Ref: ACTSA - Action for South Africa) The article as printed makes none of this clear. Mandela said, "No white person has done more for South Africa than Trevor Huddleston" (Ref: ACTSA)

I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was that corrections could be made by people who were able to back them by quoting from original sources. I therefore cannot understand why my whole article was deleted.

EcSocTeach

I appreciate your concerns but when there are problematic policy-related edits it is expecting too much of other editors that they go through every detail of them to try and work out what is acceptable and what isn't. Apparently, according to your own edit summary, you included a significant amount of information directly from a copyright published source without making it clear which parts of your edits were from this source. Any copyright information must be immediately removed from articles and it was impossible to know which parts of your edits were apparently from this copyright source. Therefore it was appropriate to completely revert your edit. It is not an issue of whether the information you included is factually true or notable. Small details, such as the obvious reason for him never marrying, can be attended to later. Also, while articles can include short and cited quotations from already published sources, articles should avoid being significantly based on any single published source. They should, instead, be original articles but also able to reference a number of reliable published sources. I hope this helps. When I'm able I will post some relevant Wikipedia policy links. One relevant WP article is WP:BRD and I'm glad you are doing this. Regards, Anglicanus (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
PS ~ there were also numerous formatting problems in your edit (you can check this yourself by comparing your edit with the one before) which made it necessary to revert. Anglicanus (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Diarmaid MacCulloch[edit]

Thank you, I of course meant "honoured before ordination" or "ordained following the honour" and can only plead under the strain of a cold and lack of sleep I typed the opposite of what I wanted to say! I was quite sure that MacCulloch was right about "Sir" not obtaining in a case like his (in contrast with, say Derek Pattinson), because I just had this conversation with the Anglican Centre in Rome. They posted a release online announcing a knighthood for "the Most Revd Sir" David Moxon. I had recently seen the QI episode with Richard Coles where the subject came up, so I was confident in pointing out to them that that wasn't the style, and they crisply replied "We are advised that the Commonwealth usage differs." I couldn't help wondering what other usage would be relevant when discussing a knighthood within the Commonwealth, but perhaps it was an anglocentric reflex ("commonwealth" = "the commonwealth outside Britain"). I note that the archbishop holds a prior knighthood in the realm of NZ honour system and so perhaps they did mean a difference of usage between dominions. (We Canadians, of course, haven't had to entertain the question, since the feasibility of granting honours to our citizens in the name of the British sovereign very much depends on how inclined the government of the day is to advise her to heed the Nickle Resolution). Carolynparrishfan (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the UK custom doesn't apply everywhere else in the Commonwealth any more. Here in Australia there have been a number of instances in the past of clergy being knighted and commonly being known with the title ~ such as Frank Woods, an Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, and Frank Little who was the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne for much of the same time (sometimes called the "Two Sir Franks"). Then there was Norman Gilroy, a Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney who was commonly called "Cardinal Sir Norman Gilroy". I believe that the custom in the UK of clergy not using the title began with Queen Elizabeth I for reasons which I cannot recall. New Zealand restored the imperial honours system a few years ago. I expect that the current Australian government would like to do the same. Cheers, Anglicanus (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

bots do job better than people can[edit]

There is a really helpful bot which cleans us broken links far better than a person can - and especially with such an unwieldy page in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops -- Frze now told about what bots do better than people <g>. Sorry about that. Collect (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Schereschewsky[edit]

I've admired your work on Joseph Schereschewsky, but I've wondered about the move to JS from SIJS. I've put some thoughts at Talk Page#Move back to SIJ Schereschewksy? . Cheers ch (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Book of Concord[edit]

Seems like the anon that keeps adding the non-neutral and spam to the Book of Concord article is back, again. I'm thinking of opening a thread at WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. Which do you think would be a better choice? Let me know at my talk page.oknazevad (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BISHOP discussion: format[edit]

Hi Anglicanus. I propose to have a discussion on revising the WP:BISHOP guidelines. I have created a page suggesting a format for that discussion: User talk:Danbarnesdavies/WP:BISHOP; please would you comment on the format? Dan BD 16:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandy Millar[edit]

Could you have a look please? It reads to me a little bit fawning/advertising – I wonder what you think? Dan BD 20:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BISHOP revision[edit]

Hi. I've started a discussion about revising the WP:BISHOP guidelines HERE. Please add your comments and invite everyone you think would be interested. Thanks! Dan BD 16:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Worshipful Company of Haberdashers may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |academy]], open to girls and boys; other schools are situated elsewhere in the United Kingdom]]: ''[[eg]]'' [[William Adams (haberdasher)|William Adams]], a haberdasher by trade, founded in 1656

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Anglicanus incorrect reversions[edit]

I am beginning to wonder what you know about the Anglican church its offices & customs - a classic was making lady chapel with a small "L". Shall we go straight to the dispute page? However from my point of view it would be better to work in collaboration rather than against each other - what do you think? M

You have no understanding of correct capitalising style. Your editing repeatedly ignores Wikipedia's MOS principles. I have been a priest for 35 years. Does that answer your question? For your information it can be either "Lady chapel" or "lady chapel" regardless of the association with the BVM. Anglicanus (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I have advised you in the past to study the MOS and to edit accordingly. But you just keep on editing in whatever unproductive way that you feel like and ignore factual information about editing principles when you are informed of it. And yet you have the nerve to make yourself seem superior over "Lady chapel" versus "lady chapel" when you are constantly making blatant and obvious mistakes. Anglicanus (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Anglicanus, however vociferously you made your point. I agree Lady chapel or lady chapel are both correct from time to time, but in this case it is Lady chapel. Likewise I accept your point about Christian Church vs. Christian church - égalité! Hopefully you will find the info I add to Wiki not only of help but of interest too? talk Mabelina (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
PS. you mention being ordained - are you RC?
Ok - bad joke!

Father irascible[edit]

Padre Anglicanus - I'm looking forward to your reply to my last, and btw I presume you're an AM?

I have reported you on the dispute page about edit warring in view of your reckless and unfounded assertion of "unproductive" editing.

As a point of order & since you pay such close attention to my contributions, let me comment on the veracity of your last three interventions (all of which have faults):

- Worshipful Company of Haberdashers: the Master Haberdasher is a so-styled & the offices of Master, Wardens, Assistants, Clerk and Beadle etc are all capitalized in accordance with their letters of appointment. A master haberdasher could be anybody, not specifically Master of the Haberdashers' Company, as too with the Worshipful Company's other positions you have a bee in your bonnet about.

- Sir Edward Leigh: born at or in is interchangeable, so your point is debatable at best but people I know still use in common parlance born at... In any event, strictly speaking "born at" is more accurate...

- Rahere: I accept your point that prior should not be capitalized in that context, but it should perhaps be linked, in order to make Wiki easily comprehensible to all readers.

So we both have helpful points to make & I thank you for yours, but let's co-operate rather than obstruct.

Now here's a poser for you: why did the Aussies continually insist that a former Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne was styled "Sir" until I intervened providing mucho references to support the fact that he personally never used, indeed positively forbade use of, that style?(Of course "Sir" as a prefix is otherwise acceptable form for Knights in the Anglican Church of Australia & by the way in the Church of England "Sir" as a prefix is also acceptable when used by baronets.)

Please refrain from being irascible with my edits from now on unless you have substantive reversions to make & why not improve Wiki's content by contributing new info too? M

Joe Williams (jazz singer)[edit]

A page you previously contributed to, Joe Williams (jazz singer), had many prior revisions deleted due to copyright issues. For details please see Talk:Joe Williams (jazz singer). Your prior version may be temporarily restored upon request if you need it for reference to re-incorporate constructive edits that do not make use of the copyright infringing material. Please feel free to leave me a talk message if you need this done. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You![edit]

BoNM - Australia.png The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
For creating and contributing to countless Australian related articles as noted by Adamm (talkcontribs) 22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Anglicanus by Adamm (talkcontribs) 22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Adamm (talkcontribs) 22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's have a chat[edit]

Hi Anglicanus: clearly you and I are on the same page on most things, but a little bit of pedantry is getting in the way here, I think. Most of the amendments I have made are a vast improvement on what was there before, so I don't understand why you persist with wholescale reversions & additional patronising comments too? Please advise. M Mabelina (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. you could always have made your own amendments to these articles prior to my intervention had you felt so inclined....
Unfortunately it is your attitude and your editing which are the real problems. I have already explained to you ~ time after time after time ~ why many of your edits are in contravention of Wikipedia's own Manual of Style but you just keep on persisting with making the same problematic edits over and over again. You won't take the advice of numerous other editors ~ not just myself ~ who have also explained to you why so much of your editing is contrary to Wikipedia's editing principles. Many of your edits are not improvements at all ~ many, for instance, make the articles ridiculously verbose and your understanding of contemporary capitalisation principles appears non-existent. You still frequently capitalise words which clearly shouldn't be. And as for "patronising comments" I seriously suggest that you take a long look in the mirror before you ever accuse anyone else of such things. Anglicanus (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe that you make little effort to improve articles which you could easily add to if only you so wished. Since you have made an issue out of reverting my (correct) edits and I refer to matters of style (rather than manual of style) I should very, very much like to know why you are attempting to change established styles of address. In particular your lack knowledge about heraldry is a cause for concern as too your lack of comprehension as to the official title of the Most Venerable Order of St John, to name just one MOS. M Mabelina (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
PS. is it Wikipedia's wish to rewrite established and official protocol (at least in the English language - despite it not being so evident in others)?
My attitude is fine - I improve umpteen articles - how about you?
Just by way of example: Peniston Booth (leaving aside the fact that his name was spelled Penyston): according to your rules, how would anyone - maybe even you - be aware that he was known as The Very Revd Dr Penyston Booth? Previously there were very good formats to follow, which I appreciate need updating; so, where do you fit in Very Revd (not to mention that he was also DD - which I hope you also find of significance) into this article? M Mabelina (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
qv. Gentleman's Magazine - this of course is by absolutely no means the only source of historical info, but the way you are carrying on it is almost impossible to get anything correct before it is reverted - please reply as to how in your view Dr Penyston Booth should be styled on Wikipedia - many thanks - awaiting yours. M Mabelina (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
How about this: you edit P Booth (dean of Windsor!) & let me give you a critique of whether it makes rhyme or reason?! M Mabelina (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC) RSVP
Your comments only serve to again highlight just how seriously ignorant you actually are about Wikipedia editing. Have you even ever bothered to study the Manual of Style? You really don't seem to have any clue about what it contains. Wikipedia is not edited according to what you personally think should be correct. Anglicanus (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Far from what I think should be correct - I base my info on sources - you seem to want to cause a ruck & waste one heck of a lot of time arguing about minutiae. Could you please stop being so cantankerous (at least where I am concerned)? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
PS. do you think that the Dr Penyston Booth article is OK? If not, why don't YOU have a go at it (or have a pop at whoever edited it and anyone else in your radar?)
All you can list is Manual of Style, whereas looking at your interjections I should most definitely prefer to make Wiki articles represent the actuality. This seems to me to be about your obsession with MOS (in contravention of facts). Right or wrong?
Why didn't you answer this? M 11:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

Yikes! Thanks for fixing my grammar. Good American English would also avoid the wording that I used! :) --dave-- 16:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage[edit]

I write here simply because you have put one of those lights at the top of the page saying Talk - presumably you mean here? I really can't fathom your cat and mouse game, but what I do know is that Burke's Peerage can provide you with a lot of answers if only you'd care to look at it. M Mabelina (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You have already been warned several times by an administrator to stop adding the Burke's Peerage website's homepage as a faux citation and as an external link. You cannot link to a website which requires a paid subscription in order to search for specific information. You either provide a direct link to specific information or you don't link to anything at all. Comprehende?! Anglicanus (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
In response to your request for a citation ref Prebendary qv: Ven DR EGERTON LEIGH, of West Hall, lord of the manor of High Legh and patron of the 1st mediety of Lymm, Rector of (the 1st mediety of) Lymm, Rector of Myddle, Shropshire, Archdeacon of Salop, Prebendary of Bullinghope alias Bullingham Magna, Herefordshire, Canon of Hereford, Master of St Katherine’s Hospital, Ledbury, and Vicar of Upton Bishop, Herefordshire, antiquary, and friend of the poet John Byrom, baptised 30 March 1702, educated St John’s College Cambridge (LLB 1728, LLD 1743), married first 4 December 1724 Anne (died 26 April 1734), elder daughter of Hamlet Yates, of Aston Park, Aston by Budworth, Cheshire, and had issue.. (qv. Burke's Landed Gentry 1952 edn; www.burkespeerage.com: LEIGH of West Hall, High Legh)
Firstly, don't put citation tags in other editors' talk pages as they stuff up the formatting. Secondly, this information belongs in the article talk page where I asked the question and not here. Thirdly, this information does not answer or clarify my question but only repeats the information in the article. Fourthly, it reveals that you sometimes take information directly out of Burke's Peerage and put it unchanged into Wikipedia articles in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. Yet another of your problem editing habits we need to be alert to. Anglicanus (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
OK - apologies for putting citation tags on your page but I see you don't mind that much as you have just restored it all. Frankly your 1st, 2nd, 3rd points etc illustrate a combative approach and as far as I can tell at the moment whatever quotations I put on Wiki wouldn't satisfy you. Wiki should be grateful for decent info I should have thought & whilst I know where the extra info can be found your approach hardly encourages such effort because you'll probably only go and delete it on account of its being so-called unsourced (like much good info). Enjoy the rest of your Sunday and let's try to start again with a more positive and co-operative outlook soon. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I had already removed the citation tags from your earlier comments. As for your comments about my other points they are not only incorrect but also erroneous. It will also principally be up to you to develop a "co-operative outlook" by taking note when your MOS and WP policy mistakes are corrected by other editors instead of just repeating them again and again. I cannot be any clearer. Anglicanus (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I can be clearer - I just spent several minutes compiling a full scale rebuttal of your ungrounded points only for it to get deleted when I tried to post it on account of guess what "Edit conflict" - you spend too long fighting me - haven't you got anything better to do? Btw any allegations of copyright violation are groundless since the subject matter was published over 100 years ago. Why don't you subscribe to Burke's if you are so fascinated? M Mabelina (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC) PS. I'm gonna remove all this soon because it is such a waste of time arguing with you - doubtless you know about Wiki but not this stuff...
You cannot remove comments, even your own, from my talk page. If you attempt to remove them they will be restored. I stand 100% by my comments. You have created the problems and only you can solve them. Anglicanus (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I note that you delight in starting arguments but never acknowledge favourably when in the wrong. M Mabelina (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that you repeat your last comment while looking in a mirror. Anglicanus (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I also suggest that you need to read the article on psychological projection. It is very pertinent to your own behaviour. Anglicanus (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are driving me round the bend!

I suggest you read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_lose Anglicanus (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I lose - good bye & what a load of claptrap your article states - anyway good luck & sorry you didn't like my contributions Anglicanus

Revert in disambiguation page[edit]

I am very sorry to revert you in John Wright, but per MOS:DABRL there should be one blue link per entry in disanbiguation page. Taivorist (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That's okay, Taivorist. Thanks. This aspect of the MOS when there is a red link in a disambiguation page was previously unknown to me. I am a bit surprised that red links are okay in disambiguation pages but I expect that it is allowed in order to encourage editors to start the articles. Anglicanus (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anglicanus reported by User:TITUSIIX (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded. There is some very strange behaviour going on with this editor. Not good. Anglicanus (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Now closed per WP:AN3#User:Anglicanus reported by User:TITUSIIX (Result: No violation). In my opinion neither your ANI complaint nor TITUSIIX's report at WP:AN3 were the best idea for resolving this. The problem has now been drawn to the attention of admins. In my opinion you might consider leaving any follow-up to others. If you have any remaining concerns, you could explain on my talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. I certainly do have considerable concerns about all of this experience and I have been appalled by the misdirected criticism of me by some editors who I believe have been very naive and hoodwinked. There is no doubt in my mind that there has been some deliberate COI editing and other editing issues going on by the other editor and that he is not a newbie as he claims. Obviously it is not possible to prove this and because of Wikipedia's non-outing policy, which I strongly support, I am not at liberty to go into the full reasons anyway. I will accept your advice and leave it to administrators to keep an eye on things at present. Anglicanus (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Old Catholic Confederation Comment[edit]

I have a question about you edit which reworded derived from Married Priests Now! Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo. Wasn't that what Milingo was at the time? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

BoBoMisiu : Yes, I think he was involved with the organisation but I also think that Brennan was the principal person concerned with it. I initially removed it for that reason and also because it wasn't very good grammar. I was going to check things and then reword the sentence but I forgot. Feel free to do so yourself. Anglicanus (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Hello!

I saw that you're active at the WikiProject Christianity. I had a quick general question: if the Pope states, for example, that he forgives Galileo, does that mean the government of the Vatican as we know it officially forgives him? Or is it just the words of a Pope? Is there not a legislative council where these things are voted upon in the Vatican? Sorry to bug you bout this, I really am looking for answers. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Étienne Dolet : An interesting question but not one I feel competent to answer. My instinctual thought is that, considered as the source of authority in the RCC, that if a pope is speaking with authority or officially on behalf of the church then the rest of the church is expected to fall in line with what is said. It may be a bit more complex than this but I suspect that this is essentially the case. Anglicanus (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see. I'm curious, does the Vatican have a legislative council that passes canons or rules that the Church should abide by? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I ran into this: Roman Curia. But it's not really a legislative body. It's more like Vatican's version of a state. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Seraphim Rose[edit]

I have just inserted what I think is an excellent compromise into the Seraphim Rose article, one that I think is balanced, fair and has the potential to satisfy both sides in this dispute. I refuse to get into an edit war or a verbal sparring match with this gentleman/lady; having been through that some time back on a totally different article, I have no desire to repeat it again. I have had several friends tell me I ought to quit this encyclopedia for good, and I'm starting to wonder if they have a point. One thing I'm certain of: I fully understand why academics and other reasonably-educated people have a hard time taking WP seriously. Anyway just thought I'd let you know about the compromise; if you have a sec (assuming it hasn't bee reverted by the time you get there), stop by and tell me how it looks to you. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Seraphim Rose". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 May 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Seraphim Rose, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Seraphim Rose reverts[edit]

Greetings! Please remember that there are a very narrow set of exceptions to the three revert rule, and violators are subject to being blocked. Your edits at Seraphim Rose put you in peril of that. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

C.Fred : I have commented on these issues on your talk page. Please respond there or here if you prefer. Anglicanus (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the main reason this was turned down for mediation was the withdrawal of the request. You might try going back there or through another dispute resolution channel. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I note that this problem has already been raised on the edit warring noticeboard. Please have a look at this if you feel so inclined. Something needs to be done. Anglicanus (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons for Olympic athletes[edit]

Hi, Aglicanus. You removed the Australian flag icon from the "national team" parameter of the Elka Graham article. With regard to athletes in international competition, MOS:FLAG specifically states:

As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others. However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport.

Furthermore, the single flag icon for the "national team" parameter is standard formatting for all Olympic swimmers and others who have participated in international events such as the Commonwealth Games, FINA world championships, and Pan Pacific Championships. As the instructions for the "national team" parameter of Template:Infobox swimmer specify:

National team - The national swimming team for which the swimmer competes in international events. If the "national team" parameter is invoked, the "nationality" parameter is excluded. This parameter is only used for swimmers who have represented their country as a member of their national team in international competition such as the Olympic Games, FINA world championships, Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games, and Pan Pacific Championships. A flag icon, representing the swimmer's national team, is used in this parameter.

Accordingly, I have restored the single flag icon to the Elka Graham infobox, so that it is consistently formatted with all 255 Australian Olympic swimmer articles, per the applicable provisions of MOS:FLAG and the instructions for Template:Infobox swimmer. Thank you for your cooperation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. There often seem to be exceptions to the usual MOS principles. This one doesn't make any real sense to me but such is life on Wikipedia. Anglicanus (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Anglicanus. The basic idea is that national sports team members, i.e., athletes who participate in the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, etc., represent their country and the representational use of the flag icon is appropriate under those circumstances. Notable swimmers who have never competed internationally (e.g., channel swimmers, etc.) should not use the "national team" parameter or a flag icon, but should instead use "nationality" parameter option with the athlete's nationality stated in simple text. In the spirit of overkill, Infobox swimmer formerly employed two flags, one in the main body of the infobox and a second one in the embedded medals table. WP:SWIMMING is in the process of purging the redundant flags as well as other duplicate links in the embedded medals table from all transclusions of the infobox template. So far, the redundant flags and links have been removed from all 255 Australian Olympic swimmers, as well 660 U.S. Olympic swimmers, and most of the Canadians. There are something like 4,000 total transclusions of the template, so it may be several months before all of them are brought up to current usage standards. This requires manual editing, and it's a pain in the @#$ because the templates usually have to be updated to the current standardized version. Anyway, that's the full back story. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Confirmation of election[edit]

Look it up. Dan BD 09:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

He is NOT a bishop until he is consecrated. Study some theology! Anglicanus (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I never asserted that he is a bishop (because, as you correctly point out, he is not in bishop's orders.) I even inserted a note at the top of the infobox to that effect. He is, however — READ THE SOURCE: [4] — THE Bishop of Eds & Ips, because the legal ceremony (confirmation of election) which makes the man (regardless of what orders he is or isn't in) legally the holder of the office has occurred. Do the research, educate yourself (try this [5]) and then let me know that we can unrevert. (Also, btw, I performed other edits on that page at the same time; I don't know why you felt you needed to throw the baby out too!) Dan BD 10:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of whether he is legally the holder of the office he still is NOT a bishop. Your edits, as they far too frequently are, are in clear violation of the principles of WP:CRYSTAL. You are the one who is constantly causing these problems on multiple articles. The sooner you stop doing so and wait until something is actually factual the better it will be for everyone. So don't blame others for attempting to correct your problematic editing. The problem is solely your responsibility. Anglicanus (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Did you even read what I wrote above? Would you like to do that now? I have not affirmed that he is a bishop. What I have affirmed (AND SOURCED!) cannot possibly be CRYSTAL because 7 May is in the past. It's 12 May now. 7 May comes before 12 May, doesn't it? Dan BD 10:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I read them and they didn't change a thing. The first reference indicates that he was only now confirmed as the "Bishop-Elect" with "authority" as a diocesan bishop (but not actually a bishop). The second is not relevant since Welsby was already a bishop. Anglicanus (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
How about "It is the confirmation of his election which makes the Archbishop-elect into the Bishop of the diocese." [6] (p3) or "It is the confirmation of the election which actually makes the candidate bishop of the diocese" [7] (5.24)? Dan BD 10:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
And indeed "9.2.2 The legal process whereby the person nominated by the Crown Nominations Commission becomes the bishop of the diocese (beginning with congé d’elire and letter missive signed by Her Majesty and concluding with the confirmation of election by the Vicar General of the Province) cannot legally begin until the diocesan see exists." [8] Dan BD 11:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Is that enough to convince you that an episcopal ordinand can become The Bishop of X through her confirmation before she is in episcopal orders? Dan BD 11:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dan BD 13:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving discussion to Talk:Martin Seeley Dan BD 14:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You have quite a nerve accusing any other editor of "unilateral" editing. You do it it frequently as well as frequently ignoring the MOS and substituting your own style instead. Your hypocrisy is risible. Anglicanus (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Did you not understand that we moved the discussion to the article talk page? We are discussing the content there. Dan BD 12:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
And yet you don't deign join us. Dan BD 16:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
No, still don't fancy it? What makes you expect you can be a part of this community without being part of discussion which directly involve your editing patterns? Dan BD 13:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

all three gone[edit]

With no drama needed, really. :) Are there more that you know of? Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anglican Church in Japan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |primate = [[Nathaniel Makoto Uematsu, Bishop of Hokkaido

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anglicanus[edit]

Hello, in the spirit of peace and quiet and prevailing calm, the only reason why I described The Marquess Conyngham's ancestry as "illustrious" is basically because it is, ie not PEACOCK (whatever that means) but true - that's why the family was elevated to the rank of marquess (previously having been barons), plus an earlier ancestor was at the Battle of the Boyne (the significance of which I'm sure you'll understand?)! Anyway let's not start up again because hopefully we can co-operate?

I trust that much of what I amended has met with your approval since it has not been reversed... and, on the matter of Burke's Peerage & Baronetage (which the Heralds at the College of Arms and almost all good scholars to my knowledge recognize as being authoritative) clearly one could continue to make OFFLINE REFERENCES in the curtomary way - these I trust are satisfactory. Complications, however, arise where there are multiple references and whilst I appreciate that the Burke's online (www.burkespeerage.com) is a subscription service, a) I have seen numerous places elsewhere on Wiki refs to Subscription service only (or similar) and b) Burke's is available online at all major libraries (throughout the English speaking world, Europe and the Commonwealth) so by withholding such authoritative refs surely Wiki is being unhelpful? Surely there must be a way that such reference points can be indicated (even if you can't see the contents)? I don't know about you, but if I find a subject which is of interest I don't tend to rely on the regurgitated stuff on the internet but prefer sources which are more accurate. Anyway let's try work together & look forward to hearing. Many thanks. Cordialement MMabelina (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mabelina : I have just reverted "illustrious" because it is a clear example if "peacockery" as defined at WP:PEACOCK regardless of whether it is true. So please do not again revert me on this matter. If I change or revert something there will be a good MOS reason for my doing so. I don't do so just to be difficult. If I make an MOS error I appreciate it being pointed out to me so that I can improve my editing. I hope you will do the same from now on. If you want to reference Burke's then you must do so properly. Just linking to the website's homepage is never acceptable. I also hope we can be more co-operative from now on. Anglicanus (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
OK - thanks & agreed, let's pull together. Now how to phrase it that the Conynghams weren't just a landowning family, but a major / aristocratic / foremost / etc landowning family in Ireland? to say just landowners would give the wrong impression now that the topic has been raised. Which adjective would you suggest? Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Massive??
"Prominent" is probably acceptable. Anglicanus (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Using "a prominent aristocratic landowning family" is also probably acceptable in this instance. Anglicanus (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Okidoki - thanks - just amended styled & italicized Dowager Marchioness to make it clearer (but I defer to your judgement on this). Best M Mabelina (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Mabelina : The way that you've referenced Burke's in this article is very good. As you have access to the printed version then it should be possible for you to do so in this way with other articles. I have doubts about italicising styles and titles. I don't think this is usually if ever a correct Wikipedia way of doing things but I will do some research on it before possibly making any changes to your edits. Thanks, Anglicanus (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Anglicanus - appreciated. The reason behind italicizing certain styles is when they are "by courtesy" - at least this is the standard practice in the books/docs I come across. So Dowager Marchioness/Duchess/etc is a courtesy title by virtue of marriage - heirs apparent are not actually The Earl of - the father is - but he lends the "style" to his son and heir whilst they're waiting in the queue - similarly in Scotland one sees Mistress of / Laird of as well as all the English-type styles... It would take ages to explain every whichway but somehow it should be made clear that when he was called Earl of Mount Charles, he wasn't actually The Earl of Mount Charles (his father was)..... Can expand on this if need be - anyway till soon. Best M 06:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar for adding the Oxford comma[edit]

Well I did get an Editor's Barnstar (whatever that is) as thanks for adding the Oxford comma, so it can't be that bad.

Good for you. But it's still not appropriate to use it indiscriminately in articles written in forms of English, such as British English and Australian English, which don't normally use it. I often add it to American English articles when it hasn't been used. When in Rome do as the Romans do. Anglicanus (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem?[edit]

I don't understand why you eliminated all the academic degree notations from, "List of Moody Bible Institute People." Canihaveacookie (Talk) May 29, 2015; 7:34 UTC

Consensus at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome#Consensus to change from ref to sfn style citations. Thanks. BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

Hi Anglicanus I write to seek your advice noting your previous guidance which much appreciated. I am experiencing a similar experience with one Rjensen over adding the simple statement in David Cameron's Wiki entry: He is an 8th cousin of the present Lochiel. I have provided links & replied to this editor's talk page but I can tell that it is already getting heated (you will be able to see the trail). My simple viewpoint is that Wiki has loads of genealogical info on it & surely how David Cameron descends from the Cameron Chiefs might be of some interest to Wiki's readers? Anyway I can see that this could escalate - so perhaps you could guide me as how to avoid this happening!? Many thanks again. M Mabelina (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your intervention earlier today. M Mabelina (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
PS. how to correct Archibald Cameron of Lochiel?
Hello Mabelina. Thanks for your message and also the "star". I haven't yet looked at the David Cameron article but I've made a few MOS and other edits on the Archibald Cameron article. The MOS guidelines do actually specifically say that the title "Dr" should not normally be used anywhere in articles (an exception seems to be in a "styles" section), although the actual guideline is about the academic title rather than the medical one. Very few styles or titles, however, should normally be used in the opening sentence either before or as part of someone's name and "Dr" is not one of the usual exceptions. Hope this helps. Anglicanus (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It does help & thanks for your further assistance - let's continue helping Wiki to provide improved accuracy.
Many thanks again M Mabelina (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
PS. How important is it that Wiki should have accurate listings, say, of High Sheriffs of Cheshire and French Ambassadors to Great Britain?
Mabelina : Why on earth did you include "Dr" in the article again after I had already explained to you that this title is *not* normally used in articles? There are some very particular exceptions but certainly not in this case. And I had also already made it clear in my edit to the opening paragraph that it was ambiguously worded. Despite this you restored the ambiguous wording. Anglicanus (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
And "clan chief" is a generic position and is not capitalised in this context. Please do not capitalise this or any another other generic position names again from now on otherwise you will again engage us both in conflict and edit wars. The MOS is very clear on this matter regardless of the mistaken "vanity capitalisation" customs of many organisations. Anglicanus (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Anglicanus - totally understand re clan chief, altho re "Dr" thought I had only put this in image caption: otherwise noone could necessarily be able to tell from Wiki that he was known as Dr Archibald Cameron, during and after his liftetime. Def no point in edit war so thanks for alerting. Best M Mabelina (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I am removing "Dr" again. I have already told you that the MOS is quite clear that this title is not used and no styles and titles should normally be used in captions. If you keep on refusing to take any notice of the MOS then you will only be starting further conflict. Like all editors you are required to edit according to MOS principles. So I suggest you start studying it properly and editing accordingly from now on. Anglicanus (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Anglicanus - I like your amendments to style & phrasing (and I do hope you like mine too at least to some extent?!). Could I just ask one point about MOS , namely how anyone reading this article who is new to the subject would be able to detect that Archibald Cameron is none other than Dr. Archibald Cameron? Presumably the reason to eliminate honorary prefixes under the provisions of Wiki MOS is twofold: a) because it could cause complications for incognoscenti & b) modernising of names for consistency (especially historical figures)? Wiki does not seem to be so accommodating in this regard as let's say ODNB or Burke's, but perhaps its raison d'être is not to be? If it is not too much trouble, please advise why.. (since it seems to me leading to the dumbing down of info).. Many thanks Best M Mabelina (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
PS. there is even "A Song to Doctor Cameron" cited, yet putting Dr. in front of his name is not allowed..?
Peace Barnstar 6.png

Anglicanus (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for resolving matters. Best M Mabelina (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


Please do not bite the newcomers[edit]

What you have done seems to be amounting to bullying in Wikipedia. Such contributions are not COI. Look at Royal Holloway University London site and you'll see it's done there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.230.12 (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing how much editing knowledge you already have for a "newcomer". Quite incredible. Anglicanus (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You might also note that I am now the second editor who thinks that you are involved in COI editing. Not surprising as your editing shows all the usual signs of COI editing. Anglicanus (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Chapter of St Paul's[edit]

Pls don't edit-war or 3R the capitalization of "Chapter". Do you have access to a copy of the Cathedrals Measure 1999? You'll see that "Chapter", uppercase is a term of art. Like "Parliament", and "the Queen". Also, you have ignored the point that MOS recognizes exceptions from MOS for sources which universally use capitalization, which they do. Regards Ironman1104 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue a case then do so here. The Cathedrals Measure has no authority in Wikipedia articles. And it is plainly nonsense to suggest that "Chapter" is somehow universal in sources. Anglicanus (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The website of St Paul's is also riddled with the most ridiculous vanity capitalisations. So it is hardly a reliable guide to contemporary English style. Anglicanus (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Show me a source which doesn't have it capitalized. Although you don't admit it, you obviously haven't read (perhaps just because you lack access to) the Cathedrals Measure 1999 which is the definitive source, because it gives effect to the term "Chapter" in this technical context. I did make one mistake, though, which is that I hadn't realized when I wrote the above that you have a bit of a tendency to aggressive edit-warring. So I'm going to leave the point, recognizing that having the last word on this little point is important to you, and it isn't to me. I suggest that you use your remaining time trawling Wikipedia putting Parliament, Queen etc into lower case. Ironman1104 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
So your patronising comments are just fine and dandy are they? As for my alleged "aggressive edit-warring" you need to take more notice of your own behaviour before throwing stones at other editors. You were invited to argue your case on the relevant MOS discussion page but didn't do so. If you haven't read the comments there then I suggest you do so. The MOS guideline about capitalisation being consistent in sources means that this should be consistent across various sources, not just one. Your comment that the Cathedrals Measure is "the definitive source" on this matter is only an unsupported opinion and there is no obvious reason why this document should determine how the word is treated in Wikipedia articles. Anglicanus (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anglicanus - a note of thanks[edit]

Hi Anglicanus - thanks for your MOS corrections which genuinely always appreciated - I should say if we only have capital letters to worry about then things are okay. We in England have much more to worry about (like the state of the cricket, for example). I see that you have been prompt to look at my edits (because you they are easy game for amendment! - don't mind as long as Wiki improves). Can I ask you what do you make of Brianann - do you know him at all? Whilst realizing that sadly I may be hounded for a while on some historical matters (e.g. where there is no easy way to reference, unless by subscription service), could I ask you for your opinion as to whether it is a good idea for me to enhance Wiki's info or give up when faced with the threat of being blocked again. What is most incredulous is that those who make it their pastime to get me banned don't actually contribute to the substance, apart from you that is from whom I enjoy learning. Many thanks & looking forward to hearing. Best (& let's hope Australia don't do too well tmrw!) M Mabelina (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Anglicanus - you know how we used to wrangle about MOS etc! - I am seemingly getting drawn into a spot of bother now about matters of plain historical fact, & try as I might to explain where the sources come from people would seem to prefer to argue rather than check out the source. How annoying is that? What would you do in this situation, because I know you're fairly persistent and like to get your point of view across? In a nutshell do you think the Wiki behaviour I am experiencing is in accordance with the values of mutual collaboration as set out in the groundrules? M Mabelina (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Anglicanus - further to your recent statement & (with a view to seeking consensus about the George Osborne article) with ref to the one below it is a vexed point (given the recent electoral success of the SNP - which possibly seems to have been putting forward its viewpoint without much impugnity of late - i.e. creating a new highly contentious political matter). Technically and indeed legally all those born in the UK are of British nationality (not English, Scottish, etc - which needs rectifying if Wiki is prepared (for poss argument) - there is no such thing as English, Scottish or Welsh nationality in law) and where describing places it can of course be most helpful to state whether the relevant location is in England, Scotland or elsewhere... You can rely on my support(/advice) on this & other topics.
If I could just run this by you in order to rebuild confidence regarding the George Osborne article (before making amendments) thereby providing an insight into my thought process:
Preamble: (Para 2, amend to read) Born at Paddington in London, Osborne descends from one of the oldest Anglo-Irish aristocratic families...... from Magdalen College, Oxford. (Para 3) speechwriter and Political Secretary - MOS seems inconsistent here... (Para 4) to read "HM Opposition Leader"... "Chancellor of the Exchequer". (Para 5) UK's annual budget deficit ought to be linked to the United Kingdom national debt article; delete "which makes him Cameron's de facto deputy" & insert "formally making him Deputy Prime Minister" (because that is what it formally makes him). These amendments would be more correct - what do you think?
In brief for the rest of the article: Infobox could state Chancellor of the Exchequer and/or First Minister of State as a image caption immediately beneath (but certainly including the former);
skipping thru (poss pro-Labour bias - i.e. much about controversy about Osborne & not much about other matters!). After 2015–present suggest amend to read: "Osborne was reconfirmed as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Cameron's second government, being additionally appointed First Secretary of State (i.e. Deputy Prime Minister) succeeding Nick Clegg. Also perhaps "Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham wrote" might be amended to read "Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham wrote:". And, under Personal life it would perhaps better read as Sir Peter Osborne, Bt?
Much appreciate your guidance on these & look forward to further co-operation. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there - re Talk:David Cameron#Problems there seems to be some antagonism continuing which is not my wish. In simple negotiating terms better to drop the Burke's references rather than the blazon of the coat of arms? Bit silly because both are true but rather that than get blocked for no apparent reason.. What do you think Fr? M Mabelina (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Anglicanus - I totally appreciate that my grasp of Wiki politics continues not be up to speed; however on the back of my previous record I am now ambushed by certain Wiki folk on a specific topic to which no reply - nor even an attempt at a satisfactory one - has been received, before referring me to the authorities. Seems to me that despite explaining myself over and over, should someone dislike my edits it's easier to backdown and let inaccuracy take sway than make an issue? qv. reference to a Tweet from York Herald of Arms. Please confirm best practice for me - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your problem?[edit]

The UK is the actual country, not England. Referring to the UK as England is like referring to the USA as Texas or any other state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.133.68 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)