User talk:Octavius2

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Rudminda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rockingham County, Virginia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:

county is the [http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/va/VAELKturkey.jpg "Turkey Capital"]]of Virginia. The annual Rockingham County Fair is one of the top fairs in the nation, and the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Chris Hurst (Virginia politician), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022 discussion[edit]

To give our fellow editor a break, please forward further discussion to my talk page. This is simply a matter of courtesy, of course, so respond wherever you prefer unless told otherwise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hard work[edit]

Hi, @Octavius2: I just wanted to acknowledge how impressed I am with your research and translation skills, as well as your overall ability to substantially contribute valuable information to the public domain. While some of the material you added might not work in the Wikipedia project, I do think it is extremely important material. Not knowing what your career is, I would absolutely encourage you to approach research institutions and peer-reviewed journals if you haven't already. You deserve compensation for your work and, by having it reviewed by your peers, your research will be granted a degree of credibility it certainly deserves but Wikipedia can not provide. Keep adding to Wikipedia, please, as we desperately need experts in this field who are willing to contribute so much. Please keep adding to pages on complex dogmas, especially. But also consider, if you haven't already, that your hard work might even have a higher calling. Also, love the graphic representation you whipped up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, you just made my day, week, and month ! . . . Honestly though, I have zero hope for ever making any money at what I do. I'm 40 years old, without advanced degrees (only 2.5 Bachelors), and I have no money to go back to school. So I just sit here as a bum out of Christendom College, and do various personal systematic-&-biblical-Theology projects. Living here in Harrisonburg (up I-64 from you), I applied to grad school in UVA (in Classics), with 95th+ GRE percentile scores, and got rejected without a single word of explanation. Well, really, I know why: I had no recommendations. Maybe someday, if I apply somewhere else, you could write a recommendation for me? You're the 1st academic person in Theology to like what I do, in years. Regardless, thanks for your continuous, excellent, encouraging attitude, which may've saved the whole Immaculate Conception article from disintegrating early, into a mere shouting-match. Octavius2 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Pbritti says: some of your work is not suited for Wikipedia, but it is an impressive work which could be of use somewhere else. Veverve (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Immaculate Conception CFs post-attempt[edit]

Thanks, for the compliment, @Veverve.

I see no reason why, at 20:04, 11 May 2022‎, you should've taken down my 3 CFs' quotes. You wrote that my error was . . .

"...using purely the CFs with user-selected quotes (what is someone was to take quotes by CFs saying the contrary?)"

Well if someone has CF quotes to the contrary, then they should post them, too, but why should mine be taken down? One of mine even had two "secondary" (your meaning, i.e, 'modern') sources supporting it. Octavius2 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for Ephrem, you did not indicate that Ephrem's quote was from a secondary source I had to click the link to see it. Moreover, you have unfaithfully interpreted the secondary source: the section is about the Virgin mary being given various titles by Ephrem; it is no not about the Immaculate Conception, and the author makes no mention of the Immaculate Conception in relation to what Ephrem says.

Theodotus of Ancyra's quote is partially in the secondary RS. Now this seem like a RS to me, but it can also be interpreted as a biased Catholic seminary manual (it states its use is purely private), so I would suggest discussing its use on the talk page first. It is a very unexpected source you found here. Theodotus of Ancyra's quote you gave in the WP article is also much longer that the one given in said secondary source. It may be legitimate to add the full context throught a primary source in such cases. However, in this precise case, the text you put on the WP article is too long.

While I am on the topic, see MOS:SAINT. Veverve (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well if someone has CF quotes to the contrary, then they should post them, too, but why should mine be taken down?: again, this would be a battle of use of sources whose meanings is contested (e.g. if you read Polycarp while believing his writing contains a defense of papal supremacy, then you will "find" such a thing and "find" nothing disproving it; confirmation bias). Veverve (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OKay Veverve, . . .
Ephrem quote - Then what if I linked to this secondary source here, which describes the Ephrem quote as declaring her "All pure and sinless"?

Theodotus of Ancyra quote - Okay, it says here, that this homily-in-question of Theodotus of Ancyra is one of 2 which remain only in the Latin (i.e, no Greek edition exists); since this might make Protestants skeptical of it, then I could make a note that the Greek original is lacking (and link to this webpage). Does that sound good enough?

Yes, finding Anti-Immaculate-Conception quotes within these saints' writings, would result in a battle. But it's not my job as a single editor to hunt for, or worry about such possible competing view; others can do that. Octavius2 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source states this part is not about Immaculate Conception.
It is not a problem that it only stays in Latin, it is that its secondary source could be so biased it may be considered as unreliable or unuseable.

Yes, finding Anti-Immaculate-Conception quotes within these saints' writings, would result in a battle. But it's not my job as a single editor to hunt for, or worry about such possible competing view; others can do that.: but this is not not how WP works; it is not up to WP to bring arguments from primary (or debated) sources to support such or such doctrine.

You show a lot of good will, so I suggest it is worth for you to go through the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program where someone will be able to explain more thoroughly how WP works. Veverve (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I am at it: the parts between '/*' (e.g. "/* Doctrine */") are the automatically generated names of the section you clicked "Edit" on. They are for that, names of sections. Personnal notes in an WP:Edit summary which are not that should not be between '/*'. See Help:Edit summary#Section editing. Veverve (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'll start doing it. Octavius2 (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi Octavius2! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Roman Catholic scholarship getting strangled, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Homophobia. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Homosexuality in the New Testament, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]