User talk:Ptolemy Caesarion/Archive 2

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


Happy New Year

Happy New Year, Secisek! Hope 2008 goes well for you. I'm signing off now to get ready for the excitement - less than 6 hours from now at my location. I hope the vandals and troublemakers stay away for a day or two. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Secisek, I have a quick question about an edit

A couple of months ago, I noticed that you had changed the Christianity Portal link on the Christian libertarianism page to a different kind of link. It's now a small single link instead of a menu-like box on the right. Could you tell me what is the difference between the two. I kind of like the look of the menu box. Is there a Christianity Portal policy or guideline outlining the suggested use of the different links.

I am the creator of the Christian libertarian page and so far the primary editor but it's my first article and I'm still very inexperienced as a Wikipedia editor. I plan to continue to develop the page and I'm trying to learn the ropes. Thanks. WDRev (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talk -- SECisek (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


No, I didn't - lol! And I created the damn thing! Thanks for it, tho! fishhead64 (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Delisting of Christianity

The path of least resistance here may be to simply renominate at WP:GAN for a formal review. The delisting may have been a bit hasty, but at this point, simply continue to work on cleaning up the article and make another GAN nomination. The article is very close to being a GA, and if your end result is to see it on the list, why not go that route? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 13:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Shocked ...

but not surprised to see you go. Wikipedia eats its young, no doubt about that. I don't know if it will survive in the long term. I'm afraid I spend time at Wikipedia with a cheerful apathy and yet I'm endlessly surprised by the destructive behaviour: if Wikipedia were a person, I'd say it had a severe personality disorder. You certainly will have far more important things to do in real life in 2008 than to spend time here. Good luck on your campaigning. If Wikipedia survives and the Anglicanism project grows, it'll be because of your work - truly a good foundation. If not, I'm certain you now know things you would never have known except for Wikipedia: who knew some people think Edmund is a Patron Saint? And, isn't that what an encyclopedia is all about? To learn new things :-) (OK, my cheerful apathy has a healthy dose of sarcasm). In all seriousness, your work and effort here has been both noticed and very much appreciated. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Certainly, the Anglicanism Project is probably in better shape right now than it has been before, and your efforts are a very big part of that. I wish you best of luck with your future outside endeavors, and hope that if you ever do see fit to return, you find the existing situation improved. Your work has however been very productive, and I and all of wikipedia owe you our profoundest thanks. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Take care. Take the time you need for yourself and remember this is a hobby, not your job. Some folks just are hard to get along with. Vacations help a lot with the stress of dealing with folks who push POV, I should know, I'm on one right now! (waves from Chile) Ealdgyth | Talk 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What, you're going? You just helped convince me to come back, you silly thing :(. Well, I have seen your contributions, and they have been outstanding; and I do hope that you'll consider a return after a break. Cheers! fishhead64 (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


I have a primamry election I am working on in 4 weeks. After that, it may slow down for a time until late Spring. I may be back later in the year - I may work off line and up load material from time, but I should probably stay clear until 2009. It's been fun. -- user:secisek 19:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll be missed. Here's wishing you all the best for 2008 (and 2009), Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with the elections, and any other related matters. And you've been a great contributor. Anything you would wish to add in the future would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back! Ealdgyth | Talk 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And glad to see you won. You were always a "winner" here too. John Carter (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto to the above. You were missed. clariosophic (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity

Hi Secisek,

Thank you for the your contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity . I have notcied that you have made some significant contributions to the main project page. Thank you. You have done a good cleanup.

One request : Use a convention for subpage creation , preferably all under 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity' folder itself .

I have moved some of your subpage as below :-

Your pages:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Indian Christianity/Introduction
Wikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityIndian Christianity/Tasks
Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity Indian Christianity/Content
Wikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityIndian Christianity/Category
Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Indian Christianity /Templates_mainpage
Wikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityIndian Christianity/Members

New pages :
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Introduction
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Tasks
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Content
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Category
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Templates
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Members

Shall we stick to this method ?

Anyways u have done a wonderful job and I welcome you to join the project also.

Thanks Tinucherian (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Indian Christianity WikiProject

Hello, Ptolemy Caesarion , Hearty Welcome ! Thank you for joining the WikiProject on Indian Christianity Articles on Wikipedia. We hope you enjoy your stay here. Happy Editing!
-Tinucherian (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Apostolic Succession citation suggestion

Thanks for you message and the citation on the Historic Episcopate page. Since you seem knowledgeable in the subject, could you have a look here Talk:Apostolic_Succession#Citation_needed_for_Anglican_section and let me know if you have any suggestions for where I might be able to look for a citation? Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Christianity template

Back on Nov. 26 you removed the "Christianity" template from List of Christian denominations, replacing it with a portal. Why? Tb (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the Christianity footer replaced it on most articles. Feel free to add it there. -- SECisek (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly the template was too big and unweildy! Where can I find the footer? Tb (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Right here:
{{Christianityfooter}} Enjoy! -- SECisek (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks! Tb (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Question; I noticed your removal of this template on several articles with the explanation that the topic was no longer on the nav box. Does that mean that the topic was once on the box and got removed? Some of these topics are very important to Christianity. Curious. Thanks. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the right thing here is really to phase out the template entirely, and focus on the footer. A series as big as "Christianity" is just too big to be sensibly approached by the template strategy IMO. Tb (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the direction we are heading. I phased it down to about 125 pages last fall. Since that time, other editors reached consensus to bring it down to under 75 pages. I suspect it will continue to be replaced by the footer. Some pages I saw had the Arminianism, Methodism, Protestantism, and Christianity Nav box. Clearly, there has to be a limit. -- SECisek (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it! Thanks for your work. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Indian Christianity Launched

We are happy to announce the launch of Portal:Indian Christianity by Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity , a work force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject India. Please share your comments and suggestions. - Tinucherian (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Apostolic Succession

Hi. We're basically in agreement on the statement about Anglican orders in the article. It seems silly to have a dispute between two such like minded editors. But we simply can't leave a statement unsupported by citations that appears to likely be false in the article. I'd like to ask you to please revert your last edit, which removed the word some. The current sentence makes it sounds that all Anglican bishops have been ordained in those lines when we have no evidence to support that other than the often quoted line that you and I have both heard many times (from the mouths of priests), and yet neither of us have ever seen any evidence of it. I hope you will please revert your last edit so that the article will exist without unverified claims while we work on finding citations. Thank you. Dgf32 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the citation for the article. Sorry if I got a little agitated. Dgf32 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, I look forward to working with you in the future. -- SECisek (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Christian Church Directory obviously has to go, but also so does the Template:Christian Church Directory footer. I don't know the right procedure. Tb (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was on it, but I got sidelined by other edits. It will be tagged ASAP. -- SECisek (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and there's also Christian_church_directory_of_the_United_States created by the same user. Perhaps she has made more too. Tb (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh you being so helpful a as part of the Maintenance Department and Outreach Department, he say sarcastically.
So now that I have put so much effort into deleting my many weeks of efforts toward a request you left up, how/where do you think my efforts could be better spent elsewhere.--Carlaude (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the request until you pointed it out. In my defense, There are a number of editors who work to maintain the project and the portal. I was unable to edit for most of the new year and have only recently had a chance to do some house cleaning.

How/where? Category:Christianity articles needing attention is always a good place to start when looking for top priority articles. I know this experience must be frustrating and I am sorry.

I can relate, there was an attempt to delist Christianity as a good article some time ago. I protested. The reason I was given was that the article "needed major changes" to remain GA. I worked on the article for about three days straight, I mean day and night, and then suddenly found the article delisted while I was still working on it - 2 days prior to the end of the 5 days it was required to sit at GAR. The reason being that "major changes" had taken place and the article was now "too unstable" to remain GA.

So, there was a demand for major changes, or the article would be delisted, and then the article was delisted by a single editor due to major improvements taking place.

I gave up, stated my piece to the editor in question, and moved on to other articles and projects. Wikipedia can be frustrating, but we seem to think it is a worthwhile hobby. I hope you will continue to help us no matter what happens with the deletion debate. Best, -- SECisek (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for at least replying.--Carlaude (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hubert Walter article

Please pay attention to why some does an edit. The Archbishop of Canterbury inbox was giving the article trouble in spacing while the bishop box did not. The original use of the bishop box was to point out his previous posts since the Canterbury box did not allow previous postings. Glad to see moving it to the top corrects that. The sample information for the Bishop's infobox is for the current Archbishop of Canterbury no less.

You move the officeholder box instead of looking to see that it was for more then just the Justiciar. Additional there were two section there for him being Justiciar. What do you mean by GA? 21:48, 3 March 2008 Secisek (Talk | contribs) (27,976 bytes) (The Canterbury box trumps the bishop box. It is in use on all 104 Archbishops. Do not make this change to a GA without consensus.) (undo) Spshu (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He means the article is a Good Article. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All seems fine now. As long as Ealdgyth is here, do we want the Canterbury box to allow for previous postings? This could be done with ease for both Canterbury and York. -- SECisek (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't mind adding some of the information from the plain bishop infobox to the ABC and ABY infoboxes. It certainly won't hurt at all. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it on my to-do list and let you know when it gets done. I'll make the new lines optional so we can add back info at our lesiure. -- SECisek (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and check out Augustine of Canterbury. It's pretty dang close to GA now, just needs a bit of tweaking that Angus and Mike Christie suggested. Now that I'm able to edit again, it should be ready for GAN very quickly. You can see where my progress is here: User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress#Articles I'm preparing. —Preceding comment was added at 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad form

It seems, rather, like bad form to change a template without discussion—- then when called on this-- to revert and discuss claiming the other is edit waring.--Carlaude (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's pretty much the expected normal procedure. Tb (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Too bad there such backward procedures here.
So is there somewhere I can find these procedures written down so that I am not needlessly insulted by SECisek in his edit comments?
Is it also good form or normal procedure to delete an entire articles while they are under discussion for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talkcontribs) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whoa, slow down. I have never insulted you personaly and if you have felt insulted by any of my posts/edits, then I am sorry. As for policy, links to many of them can be found on the top of this page.

I assume by "deleting" an article you are refering to the blanking of the directories and redirecting them to the list. You yourself indicated it would be alright to reformat the directories into a list. The list already exists, so I redirected. If you want to restore the directories and go through AfD, we can, but consensus is strongly against the category and is growing against the "Find a Church" template, so it would probably just postpone the redirect. We can disagree about these issues and a whole lot more with out insulting one another. This does not mean enough to me to get nasty about it. Best wishes, -- SECisek (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Cranmer

Hello Secisek. I noticed that you are the shepherd of the Cranmer article and got the article to GA. I was wondering if you are planning to advance it to FA. I'm hunting for another article to adopt and I am interested on the subject of Cranmer. If you already have plans on it, then I got some other candidates to work on as well. Drop me a line on my talk page! --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to keep the thread in one place...Perhaps we can continue the conversation over there? --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Father Garnet

Please check the Wikipedia page Hanged, drawn and quartered for mention of Father Garnet not being mutilated because of intervention from the crowd of on-lookers. This was not the source of my information, however. Wloveral (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User page

If you want to be a bit more anonymous, you can request that your user page be deleted. Then, recreate it with the redirect. The point of doing this: your edit history will be accessible by admins only. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

The Saint's Star Award for hard work and diligence on theChristianity WikiProject

This is long overdue. You deserve this Barnstar for your help in Wikiproject Christianity and WP Indian Christianity- Tinucherian (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Aw, shucks. Thanks! --SECisek (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, just saw that, I'd like to offer my congrats and encouragement to keep up your great work! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


You made a lot of edits to Anne Boelyn! (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we saved its GA status. I am proud of that article now. -- Secisek (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

Cool that you've renom for GA. I gave up watch listing it long ago! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review this for you, but it might be a couple of days I'm a bit busy in the immediate future and I have two other GA requests to deal with first. I was happy to help with Boleyn and Martyn, they were both excellent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, one other thing, which category should he be listed under if passed - religious figures or monarchs?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Secisek, you may find this frustrating, but I've now 'met' users that are several magnitudes more difficult. Yes, a thousand times! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

We may get another Anglicanism GA out of William Wilberforce. It looks promising. (I was involved in the nasty Roman Catholic Church FAC for the past couple of weeks. It failed but was worth taking part as it clarified for me what must be done to the Anglicanism article should it ever get past B-Class) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki misery

Well, before stepping into the horror of the RCC FAC :-), I was deep into the gore of the Introduction to Evolution FA. That made it to FA! Since then spending more time at the Novels Project. Will I think be returning back to Anglicanism. Your comment about "going at each other like Roundheads and Laud's men" made me laugh. My diocese made it into the news for a couple of weeks in Feb 'cause of the Civil War Redux :-) No bishops burnt at the all is well. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


You are using an infobox that was created for a different religion (not a big deal). Template:Infobox Orthodox leadership has been created for solely for the Orthodox Church (infobox is colored, see Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Society#Religious_leaders) I'm going to have some extra sections added to it to make it more like the one you have been using. The only thing is that this infobox is colored for Eastern Orthodox churches, are we going to group Oriental Orthodox churches with it? I think we should, theyre pretty similar. Here is a page with the new infobox: Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens. Like I said, past positions will prob be added shortly, also your input at User talk:Trödel might be useful. Grk1011 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. Grk1011 asked for my help on a religious Infobox - something I volunteered to do at List of infoboxes/Society some time ago - and which hasn't been edited or maintained from the looks of it. Like many things on Wikipedia there are people going about trying to solve similar problems on different articles and eventually they run into each other as a standard is developed and it spreads. Personally, I don't really have a dog in the hunt, so I would be happy with either solution. I do like the idea of having different colors mean things. Additionally, I have grown fond of the {{LDSInfobox}} - and created it based on the {{Infobox Pope}} a couple years ago. Because of the very specific names for office used in the LDSInfobox - I would suggest that it would not be appropriate to use {{Infobox bishopbiog}} instead.
Additionally, I am available to help with the template programmning if you want to have some conditional logic based on the denomination. I.e. start passing a parameter like "Denomination=..." or "Style=..." that would then change the terms used to describe the beginning of service and end of service to something other than the generic "term began, term ended". See {{Infobox LDS Temple}} and {{LDS Temple list}} for some examples of uses of logic made to control the look of an Infobox or a list of items in a table.
I am on infrequently because of other commitments now - but please leave a note on my talk page and I'll try to work in some time to help within a week. --Trödel 05:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Protestant NAV Box - Christian Church (Disciples of Christ

Your recent edit removing the NAV box and your question about why use it are interesting. Do you think perhaps one reason to use it, is that it may need to be edited so that it does in fact navigate to protestant groups? For now, at least I do not have time to do that one myself. Thanks for your help in cleaning up the page. John Park (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the church to the box and put the box back on the page. Is this what you requested? -- Secisek (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. For now, I'd be cmfortable either way. There are so many things I have not figured out yet. I have been focused on content and references and I am just beginning to look at page apearance and boxes that were there when I started. John Park (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You can always come to me with any questions you might have. On the whole, we as a project seem to be moving away from the nav boxes. They are clumsy and grow like topsy. The footers at the bottom of the page seem like the way to go. I figured the Campbellites were important enough to put on the box, though. Again, Welcome! -- Secisek (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I did not mean to come across as snippy, just responding to the question posed. Thanks for the explanation. I am finding a lot of great people in the Wiki community. I can see how the NAV boxes can quickly raise POV issues about categories and lables. Would you reccomend that it be dropped from the CC(DOC) article?? John Park (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not snippy at all. It is your call. If you drop it let me know and I will remove it from the nav box. -- Secisek (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A Question about extraneous material edits

As you know from our recent exchange, I am editing the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) article, with a view toward getting it to Feature Article quality. This morning there is a section added by an unregistered Editor that is really extraneous material, about the Churches of Christ that withdrew from our movement between 1865 and 1906. I moved the end of a block quote that the new text landed in, so that the added section would not be seen as part of the quote. I also added a clarifying header to the top of the article.

I do not want to trigger an editing battle by just deleting it. I think the person who added is probably acting in good faith. (However, I do not understand the logic that says "we withdrew and want no part of their heresy and we are the only church, but we want everyone to know we are a part of them.") I also understand that the article I am working on is a community project, not just mine. Edits from others really are desirable and usually helpful.

My question is this: Do you have any suggestions for proper protocol for removing extraneous material from an article, without prompting a battle? My inclination on my next round of edits, is to first move it into the history section headed "Divisions" and then remove it completely when I get to the polishing stage. Is there a better approach? John Park (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't ask me but I have been following your edits with interest, and am excited about the improvements you are making. I would say that I think it is important that the article say something about the relation of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) with the other Churches of Christ. There is an existing section titled "Division" which I think is nicely written to address the issue. But I think that, from the perspective of the other Churches of Christ, the article might seem a little POV-centric. It sounds a bit as if the history section is written in such a way as to suggest that the current Disciples of Christ was founded back then, oh, and there were these other groups that split off. From their perspective, they were founded back then too, and have an equal share in the majority of that history. Perhaps it might work to do two things: take the paragraph you rightly deleted (IMO) and see if there are particular facts or perspectives that might well be incorporated in the existing Division section; and have the history begin with some kind of acknowledgement that the current Disciples are only one strand that originated in the story of Scott and Campbell. Tb (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good advice. Remember to ask that additions be cited or you will never get it to FA. -- Secisek (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the affirmation! I see the value of collaboration, and appreciate the help, from both of you! John Park (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Hey Secisek, thanks for the help with the Crusades task force. I regret not creating a new Project from the very beginning; hopefully that can be fixed. Thanks also for boldly moving the German Crusade article. I could swear it has been referred to that way somewhere, but back when that article was created, it was easier to get away with just making up a title and hoping it would be fixed later. (And now I know much more about the crusades and crusade historiography than I did back then.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury

Significant changes has been made towards the above template. What is your commet? --Ngckmax (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have been reverted. Or am I missing something? --Secisek (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

A 'mediator' wants a summary of the salient points in the Edmund the Martyr problem. I wonder if you'd care to summarize? I remember at some point you found evidence where the fringe theory was coming from...maybe it is relevant...maybe not. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get this today, what really needs to happen is one editor needs to get the WP:POINT. -- Secisek (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive sky-fairy guy

This guy's edits are not incorrect, but his abusive language is of course unacceptable. You may wish to endorse Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ Tb (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He's probably a board school kid. Its best to quietly revert and wait till he passes. Britanica capitalizes the Sky Faries in their treatment of them. -- Secisek (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You may not know this, in fact, but it is a Wikipedia policy that pronouns referring to the deity are not capitalized. See WP:MOSCAPS, where it says, "Pronouns referring to not begin with a capital letter." Tb (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah pronouns! I see. Use of pronouns should be avoided when discussing God hor a number of reasons. We can correct this going forward. -- Secisek (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with avoiding pronouns entirely, for gender concerns if no other. Tb (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Secisek (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused; you've just done edits to Adam (Bible) and Christianity and Judaism which restore capitalized pronouns, under the edit summary "replaced pronouns." Will you fix those please? Under no circumstances is it permissible to capitalize these pronouns in Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It has to be permissable in direct quotes from sources. You cannot even correct a misspelling that occurs between quotation marks. -- Secisek (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Adam (Bible) you extended the quotation to include words not actually there. (Are you confusing Genesis 5:2 with Genesis 1:27?) The words seem to be KJV, which does not capitalize pronouns anyhow. In the case of Christianity and Judaism no quotes were involved at all. Tb (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Good call on KJV. Is there any consensus where quotes should come from? I doubt it. I try not to cite anything out of the bible as unless you are using it as a source for itself, as in: "The bible states...", and in that case you may be violating WP:OR. -- Secisek (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, TB was really quick to defend this "anonymous" editor's edits. And not just revert them but to comment on both of our talk pages. Seems pretty fishy to me.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not suggest anything. Assume good faith. Tb was largely correct and he was even correct that one of my corrections introduced another error. I just think we have to show IP editors who edit against WP:TE that their work is pointless, as it will be reverted quietly and almost instatntly. -- Secisek (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from Bible

(Responding to above) I am not aware of any policy about where Biblical quotations come from, and I did hunt for one at one point. It is a hornets' nest of chaos I would rather not get involved in. I think that the practice of quoting from the KJV is risky, and the worst choice as a rule, because the language is not contemporary English. But a policy picking a translation would be a disaster too. In general, I leave translations alone unless I have a reason, and then I change things to NRSV, which has achieved scholarly consensus. When I add my own quotes, I always choose NRSV. As for using the Bible as a source, I think it is reasonable, in a case such as Adam (Bible) or other clearly religious contexts, and where interpretation is not at issue. Where there are variant interpretations, then it becomes important to require more than the Bible as a source, at the very least, in order to avoid WP:OR. I think of it really rather like a book synopsis: the book itself is a perfectly good source, unless there is a genuine dispute about it. Tb (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "Crusade"

I see you reverted me on the Spanish Armada. Fair enough, but I think it reminds us we need to have a definition of what is or is not a Crusade. Was the Spanish Armada the last instance of the granting of a crusader indulgence? If not, what others are there and how long did the papacy continue to grant such things? Should we consider post-medieval actions as Crusades at all (that was my initial reason for reverting: 1588 is just too late). Srnec (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


In a case such as this, all that can be done is to reply as politely and sensibly as possible and address the issue at hand without becoming drawn into a slanging match that benefits nobody. Well done on not doing so so far and please continue to abide by WP:CIVIL yourself even if others do not. If such behaviour persists then they have only themselves to blame for the consequences.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Welcome}}

Hi frnd, You dont need to sign again while using {{subst:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Welcome}} . I had tweaked the templete to have it automatically signed by the person who writes it.... Tinucherian (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! -- Secisek (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm really not that much in favor of using a specifically Anglican bishop infobox on pre-Reformation bishops in England. I think it implies that they were Anglican, and I don't really see much wrong with the bishop infobox. Persuade me (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it "specifically Anglican" other than the name? It could be moved to where the Archbishop of Canterbury box is now. -- Secisek (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the little "Anglicanism portal" kinda shouts Anglican. Why is it needed to change it when the generic bishop box works fine? Another issue i have is that it specifies province, which is really redundant in the case of pre-Reformation bishops. I won't scream if you replace them all, but I really have no motivation at all to change them from the current generic bishop box to something else. I've got enough on my plate. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The portal tag shouldn't be there. I also didn't mean them ALL. I should have been clearer, the intention is just to replace the York and Canterbury boxes as this one gives the missing fields from the general bishop box. Province will not appear if left blank, none of the field will which is why it superior to the existing boxes. Maybe I can just cut the relavent code into the templates already in use. -- Secisek (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Okies, that makes more sense. If the portal tag gets out I can see using the box for York and Canterbury. Although I'll still leave it to you to do (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh! And check out Augustine of Canterbury. Would you scream if we took out the picture from the infobox? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

With all the windows and statues of him in Great Britain, nobody can get us a descent fair-use photo? That Victorian fantasy drawing is a little silly. How about these stamps what is fair-use on postage? -- Secisek (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Anglican Communion.svg

Anglican rose.PNG I have created the flag of Anglican Communion. I hope it is useful in somewhere of Anglican Project. --Ngckmax (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure we will, thank you. -- Secisek (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008

Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed that AWB was unable to deliver a newsletter to your page. Do you have it setup to block AWB? —Viriditas | Talk 15:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, not that I know can I check this? -- Secisek (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm discussing it here. You are welcome to participate or raise the issue in another forum. I'm guessing that there is a way to make AWB ignore the tag. Question, have you ever received a project newsletter on this page? —Viriditas | Talk 22:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the problem was with your page. I think you are ok leaving it the way it is : ) --MPerel 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the ancient Egypt wikiproject

I saw your name added to the ancient Egypt wikiproject and I wanted to extend a welcome to you. I see you are a fellow Illinoisan, I am actually living in Oak Park and going to grad school at UIC. I saw your comment on the project talk page about the GA sweeps; are you able to find a source for Thutmosis I? Anyway, glad to have you on board the project. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite well versed with Oak Park and I do own several good sources on the subject and have access to dozens more. I hope to be more active on the project. -- Secisek (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Personal Attack

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. EdChampion (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you believe I have attacked you personally - by all means - feel free to pursue the matter through the proper channels here at WP. -- Secisek

April 2008

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For? Do you have the right guy? -- Secisek (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools' Day. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You GOT ME! Well done! -- Secisek (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Great Pyramid of Giza

You've done a great job. When I get time I will add a section on the history of its exploration perhaps. I like the way you pruned down the external links and hadn't before noticed what wp:el says about keeping links to a minimum. It's probably asking too much, and I have mentioned this here, [1], but a very aggressive editor with clear ownership problems has, after I deleted it twice, added a ridiculously bad link under the excuse of a new section ""World Wide Web sites that were used by some editors in the construction of this article." I'd love some advice as to how to handle this. I could just delete it in toto of course, but there may be better ways to deal with this editor. No problems if you are too busy or if this is of no interest.Doug Weller (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WWW citations that will be used in the GA version of the article will be third party sources, such as established news agencies or university works that are peer-rivewed - not self published web sites. -- Secisek (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked at this and the problem you are going to face is that the article is in such poor overall shape. It is easy to throw out "references" that are not reliable when the rest of the article has legit sources - notice my first priorities at the pyramid were structure and sources. If I were you, I would add sourced material to the unsourced to push the article to B class. Once this is done, declare on the talk page that the article is now on a drive for GA. At that point you can cut most of what is unsourced, all the nonsense from the EL per policy WP:EL, and you can get rid of the "Webpages my friends run" or whatever he called that section that violates WP:MOS. You might find a champion at one of the science wikiprojects. It worked with the Great Pyramid, right? Let me know if there is anything else I can do - sorry I can't do more, but the subject is not in my department. -- Secisek (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Information.svg With regard to your comments on Talk:Episcopal Church in the United States of America: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to re-read Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names which, while dealing with article title, in theory applies to your edits on the page you mention above. Since this is not the first time I have had to correct you on this, I will quote you the passage:
Please respect this policy and it will be easier to assume good faith on your part in the future. Best, -- Secisek (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this an April Fool's joke? :-) I thought the old PECUSA debate had been re-activated and what do I find ...a battle royal over kingdoms on the TEC page!!! Silliness. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish. I have run across this guy before on his quest to right great wrongs here. I am going to try to stay out of it as "debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." --Secisek (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


User:Bardcom apparently has interpreted my objection to his behavior as a personal attack, and yours as well. He's now violated WP:3RR. His behavior as you note is broader than here; I found a change to History of Jersey, for example, where he made it sound as if Jersey was part of the UK, which it proudly is not. I think that AfC is appropriate, given the breadth and persistence of his bullying. What do you think? Tb (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean RfC - AfC is Articles for Creation :-) - but Wikipedia:Requests for comment is pointless. Complete waste of time. Report the editor for 3RR and he/her will be blocked. Remember to put escalating warning templates Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace on the user page. As you can note, the editor does this quite well. But going through the RfC process results nothing. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I mean RfC. It does...nothing...except it is the necessary gateway to arbitration. Tb (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be cynical...but arbitration leads to ... nothing. Even if all the effort you put into a 'case' causes the stars to line-up just so, a banned or blocked editor ...will reappear within the hour as a sockpuppet. There are better things to do with the time spent at a fun hobby. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspect he won't do that. But I recoil at being bullied, and it's destructive when he obliterates facts, as he did in History of Jersey. It's easily found. Tb (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. And you feel bullied. I'm trying to discuss this with you in good faith .... Bardcom (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe your edits are destructive. You have explained them inaccurately, and you make them without sufficient care for whether they are correct, simply seeing whether you can figure out a way to get "Great Britain" out of an article, and then you use a bullying strategy as you did in Episcopal Church in the United States to try and get your way. And you've done the same thing before. So yes, I believe you've been a bully. I've requested that you stop. Will you? Tb (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added some sections to User talk:Bardcom outlining examples of the problem, since he seems to think he doesn't really make these sketchy POV edits. Tb (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If he really did a 3R VIO have him blocked. You can try to go RfC, at least he would be outed for what he is - a destructive troll that searches for instances of the two-word combo he wants censored from the Encyclopedia. I try not to waste my time on such arguments, but I will continue to add the phrase where it is correct and defend it if one of his changes make an article incorrect - as they did today. -- Secisek (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this vandalism? He is rapidly doing this to a large number of articles -- clearly POV edits. I think blocking him is worthwhile, what can I do to help?Doug Weller (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The subject is complicated because the edits are contentious. What this editor is doing is wrong, and in violation of the policy I cited above, but a block for vandalism could depend on the sympathies of the admin. The better bet is to quitely revert and not feed the trolls. I'll take a look at your battery problem as well. -- Secisek (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If I file an appropriate AfC, will you sign it? Tb (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll sign it. Seriously. And it's an RfC Bardcom (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'll certainly add what I know about the case. Post me the link. -- Secisek (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is now at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom. Tb (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) (You need to sign your name if you agree with the summary in order for it to be officially opened.) Tb (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I am not going to keep up with this, but if I can do anything else, let me know. -- Secisek (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to look at the RFC on Bardcom, including my comments on that page. The vast majority of his edits were found to be supported by facts. The debate on the "Great Storm of 1703" are typical. Bardcom changed the description of it as the biggest storm to hit the "British Isles" to the greatest storm to hit Great Britain and was attacked. 2 mins of looking for references found that he was correct. Tb has been accusing him of all sorts of crimes, yet the references DO NOT generally support that accusation. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am indifferent about the RfC which I did not think would come to anything from the start. My personal experience with his edits demonstrates otherwise. I do not wish to discuss this anymore than I have to. This is not what I do here. -- Secisek (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you look at this for me?

I appreciate your wisdom. Would you check this out for me? User_talk:Johnparkw#An_Observation John Park (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Portal Anglicanism

I've responded at the portal discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Update your lists, William of York just made GA today. Also don't forget old Augie boy at FAC. I have John Peckham, Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York, and Roger de Pont L'Evêque at GAN too. (I've been busy) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
WHOO! Augustine of Canterbury made FA today! YAY! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Christianity in China

Hello, Secisek!

I don't know how to randomize the DYK in this portal. Any other ideas would be most appreciated. It's kind of rough at this point, but it's a start. Thanks!Brian0324 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do the DYKs - they are a bit difficult. It is off to a great start! -- Secisek (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. Regarding the work group for Christianity in China - very good idea. There might be a pool of help interested. I definitely need help to improve it and the articles that are within the category. I have yet to get one to GA status, but some are close. I feel like I've been so involved trying to build the "skeleton" that it is still a bit thin on "meat". But the potential is huge. Even more so if there is interest in Wikiproject Christianity. I'm on board with that project again, but I still have limited time. Any help or advice that you have is definitely appreciated. As an aside, I appreciate your work and I didn't intend to start a battle with you on "Indian Christianity" - we just keep running into each other, here because of our similar interests, it seems. Peace.Brian0324 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no battle, you raise good points and we are clearly allies and no foes. Keep up the good work. --Secisek (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian flag with a cross?

I have some concerns about the graphic that you created for Template:Indian Christianity could you weigh in at Template talk:Indian Christianity? Thanks!Brian0324 (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A new graphic I created was agreed on by consensus. -- Secisek (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonjuring Schism

Hi, I hoped you in particular would be able to help with as you are an authority on this subject and I am not. How does the non-juring bishops (Talbot in New Jersey, Welton in Philly) who ministered in the USA in the 1720's fit in with the discussion on Seabury being the first episcopal bishop outside the British Isles? Bardcom (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Both are considered non-canonical as they did not act as suffergains of the Bishop of London, but were instead in America against the wishes of Bishop of London, who had authority there at that time. What ever office they held would have been illicit. Their "ordinations" are also of dubious validity as Welton had only one bishop present at his consecration and Talbot had only two, one being Welton. All of this needs to go into the article on the Nonjurors and I again invite you to work on that article. -- Secisek (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Secisek, thank you. I will contribute where I can, but I really am no expert on this subject. Bardcom (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Also, there were no Church of England dioceses outside of England (minor quibbles about the Channel Islands,etc) until the Diocese of Nova Scotia in 1787. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi, I just saw your edit to this page. Please be careful adding info from other pages because now there are two red cites in the references. We have been very careful about what books we are using in the article and have had to eliminate some that were deemed inappropriate. Could you please go over your edit and either put proper references in there to eliminate the broken links or eliminate the wording? Thanks, we are trying to bring the article up to FA soon. NancyHeise (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thsi was discussed on the page. Please note. -- Secisek (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry, I just reverted your edit because the two broken refs were to children's books that I had to eliminate throughout the article per FA reviewers comments on the second FAC attempt. NancyHeise (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am working as we speak to provide new ref. -- Secisek (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
All new refs provided. Enjoy! -- Secisek (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, I did not mean to offend you as it looks like I have. I prefer your rewrite of the paragraph because it gives more information and I think is really better than what we had. I have just been through the ringer with our references over the past two FAC attempts which want scholarly works (written by university professors) preferably published by University presses. The other books were children's books. I dont know about your new sources but if you think they are going to pass muster at FA then by all means lets use them. Could you please put them in the same format as our other refs to be consistent? We put the book used in the Bibliography (you can see the format by looking at the other books) and then in the article, cite the last name of the author, a short book title, date of publication and page number. Thanks for your helpful additions to the article and efforts to keep the citations in consitent format. NancyHeise (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. I'll try to format to your liking. The books should pass FA, but the "judges" there can be so screwy that I don't bother past GA. How about offering some suggestions for Bernard of Clairvaux which I want to send GA. -- Secisek (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bernard of Clarivaux is one of my favorite saints but I never knew all the things about him that are on the Wikipedia page - its very thorough! I do know that he wrote letters to the Countess of Brittany and said "Wherever I go I feel you near me. If you go to the bottom of your heart you will find mine." This is from a childrens book I have. He also was the saint who had an experience of the Virgin Mary that led to the words "O'Clement, O Loving, O Sweet Virgin Mary" at the end of the "Hail Holy Queen" prayer. Also, I have faith in Wikipedia policies that if you follow them properly, you can bring an article to FA. I dont think the FA reviewer is all that unreliable and I am hoping that they will see the Roman Catholic Church article has met all criteria to pass FA. We have been very thorough in our research and adherence to Wikipedia policy and response to FAC and peer review comments. I cant imagine it would fail next time. Lets hope. NancyHeise (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm the picky source person Nancy's talking about. (ducks). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Take a look at what I added and if I need to change the sources for her. I didn't suggest you all weren't doing your job, I just meant GA is about all the agitation I can stand. Perhaps YOU could take a look at Bernard of Clairvaux while you are at it. Not an English bishop, but up your alley none the less. -- Secisek (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did. Schwarma's not exactly a university press book, but it's current and at least somewhat reliable. Being the source elitist I am, i could probably find better, (McCollough's Reformation springs to mind) but I wouldn't oppose based on using it. You might be getting a bit long on the whole bit of the Anglican section, in the RCC article, but that is more up to the regular editors to decide there. I'll go look at Bernie Boy now. (He's way up on my bete noir list though, so be warned.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Schama is indeed a popular historian, he is cuurent and he is reliable. Not BoC fan? This should be interesting! I am not a lover or a hater, I made one or two small fixes and before I knew I was sucked in all the way. I think it maybe close to GA which is why I am asking around, rather taking it directly there. -- Secisek (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a theologian, and I detest intellectual history. And Bernard was, to be blunt, a bigot. And a meddler. And pompous. And what he did to poor Abelard.... (grins) I think he may be right up there on top of my least favorite medieval people, and that's saying something! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions mirror my own thoughts about the article. I have not decided if I want to do the work from here to pass it at GA - which is my target for most everything I work on. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Secisek (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have much on Bernard, honestly. I don't read French (at all!) and so my sources on French history are not the best. And I think I have enough on my plate (grins). FYI John Peckham, another ABC should be GA shortly. We're in the final stages with the review. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Secisek, Who is Elizabeth Jenkins? I cant find anything about her. Is she a University professor somewhere? I have to be able to make Ealdgyth happy at FA. NancyHeise (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, if you click on the ISBN number listed with the book, it'll take you to a page where you get some options. One of the headings is "Online databases" I usually use the "Find this book at Google Books Search" That'll take you to the Google Books page for the book, which you can then use as a springboard to all sorts of goodies. It looks like this book is a reprint of a 1958 book, and is a mainstream publication. Given that you're dealing with pretty basic facts here, it'll pass muster. It'd be nicer if he was using The Reformation which is a nice new mainstream book on the Reformation. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read it, but it requires a trip to the library to cite it. I have a few hundred books here at home that often are enogh for the work I do (mostly GA). I also think that MacCulloch writes with a pretty clear bias at times. He is in vogue, however, and I am aware that we are going to have to live with conclusions for some time. We need a proper Oxford man and not a Cambridge grad to get something published! --Secisek (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know... all this is so recent and "modern" to me... that I'm not as up on the reformation current scholarship as I could be. You know me, anything past about 1300 bores me. Heck, theology, if it's past Pelagius it bores me! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Christianity Coordinators Elections

Hi Secisek, Thanks for the excellant efforts and hardwork for the WP Christianity and its workforces. I request you not to shy away from the co-ordinater elections. I am nominating you for the election , unless you have any very strong personal objections. Altough it doesnt make much of a difference of how we work otherwise for the project, I feel your silent efforts should be more recognized. - Thanks , Tinucherian (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do what ever needs to be done. -- Secisek (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 Done - Nominated Secisek - Thanks Tinucherian (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Christianity coordinators

Thought you'd like to know that you've been nominated to be one of the coordinators of the Christianity project, by Tinucherian. Officially, though, candidates should nominate themselves, or at least formally agree to the nomination. While I personally would vote for you if you ran as well, it's really your choice whether you run or not, so, if you don't want to be a candidate, feel free to remove your name. John Carter (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do what ever. -- Secisek (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the growth and expansion of the Anglican

What about an article tracking the growth/expansion of the Anglican community through the world? Maybe also including splits, schisms, but mostly focused on expansion of parishes and communities on "foreign soil", etc. I'm reminded of the side-by-side table of British monarch on an old page here [2] Bardcom (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Anglican is not a monolithic structure, but a number of autonomous churches, unlike the Roman Church's structure, this style of chart would be less meaningful. Much of the info is covered at History of the Anglican Communion. -- Secisek (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ABC box

Thankee much. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Boxes help

Thanks so much for doing template editing for me, it's very much appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, was nothin'! --Secisek (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, My first cat as an adult was a calico I got 32 years ago and I've had at least one cat ever since. So it will take some getting used to. Thanks again. clariosophic (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Indian Christianity Wikiproject/workgroup

Upon discussion and consensus ( see here) , The following changes and decisions were taken w.r.t to Indian Christianity workgroup :-

  • The scope of workgroup will be limited to Indian region only for now.
  • The workgroup will be renamed to Christianity in India instead of Indian Christianity.
  • The changes will effect the project pages, Portal and the templates.
  • The templetes will be replaced by a Indian map instead of Tricolor flag picture.

This is FYI - Tinucherian (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


There has been some question about who was the first Anglican bishop outside the British Isles. Do you have a proper and irrefutable citation for Samuel Seabury so we can end this mess? --Secisek (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think David Edwards states this explicitly, but will need to check. It is a nice point whether Seabury's consecration in Aberdeen was, or was not, Anglican. Very few clergymen of the Church of England would have acknowledged the Scots Episcopal Church in the late 18th Century; for them a bishop within British territory was only a bishop if appointed under Parliamentary authority - which the Scots were not. There was a very complicated debate at the time about whether Episcopal ministers needed to be re-ordained if they came to England (noting that foreign Roman Catholic priests didn't). One view is that one can only properly describe the bishops of the Scots Episcopal church as Anglican following the explicit recognition of their validity in the "Ecclesiastical Titles Act". TomHennell (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, but I was able to quote and cite it myself with much more ease than I first thought. Keep up the good work. -- Secisek (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

you may find this book (Colin Podmore: "Aspects of Anglican Identity" page 30ff) very good on the interrelation between Scots, American and English Episcopal churches - especially in so far as it was still (even as late as 1852) very much a high-church viewpoint to regard the Scots Epsicopal church as the Scots counterpart to the CoE. Podmore notes that Charles Simeon, when in Scotland, worshipped in the Church of Scotland, not in the Episcopal Church.,M1

TomHennell (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No surprise when it comes to Simeon! You wouldn't happen to have access to the source I am looking for in the hat note here, would you? The only library in my part of the world that has it is at the Nashota Seminary several hours from my home. -- Secisek (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry no; the Rylands doesn't have it. TomHennell (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, none the less. I may break down and order it on-line. -- Secisek (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading the discussion on the question of "British Isles" on the ECUSA page- such fun for all involved! One point that I don't think was made is that three bishops are required for Anglican consecration under canon law. Hence Seabury, following his Aberdeen consecration, could ordain priests but not consecrate successor bishops. Hence the reason for two further bishops to be made - which was achieved in accordance with changes in British Law. TomHennell (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
More like pulling teeth... David Underdown (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK...Secisek you stated at one point "This is like aruging if George Washington was the first president of the U.S.A. - it is an uncontested and well known point of American history"....well, there is a faction of lunatics who insist he wasn't. See John Hanson (myths) which makes Washington ...I think ...the seventh president! Wikipedia ...the depository of ...everything. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the point about the problems a single-bishop consecration presents somewhere, sometime, about somebody during all this, but I no longer where or when. On to better things I hope. -- Secisek (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting....not sure what to make of this. But it wasn't until the Foreigners Consecrations act of 1786 that empowered the Archbishops of York and Cantebury to consecrate candidates who were not British subjects to foreign sees without a royal mandate. It wasn't until 1789 that a General Convention then agreed a constitution and canons for the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA. So strictly speaking, that probably makes Nova Scotia the first province....and it also probably means that it could be argued that Seabury was probably not Anglican... Bardcom (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
NS was only a diocese, it was part of the Province of Canterbury on its founding (as best I can make out). The Canadian church didn't become fully autonomous until later, all spelt out in Aspects of Anglican Identity. David Underdown (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the pope catholic? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, a horse has only four legs. Let this go, already. . -- Secisek (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Secisek, David, I've learned a lot thanks to you both. I think very highly of your opinions and I value your responses. As I've already said, I'm no longer contesting the use of the term "British Isles" in the article - it has been shown to be notable. Also, Secisek, I'm not interested in the last word - you have it.
My earlier note above was probably nothing you've not seen before I'd say - but ingrained therein lies a small itchy fragment of truth that I'm trying not to scratch ... but here goes. In an earlier conversation, it was noted that other bishops (e.g. Talbot) were appointed to minister outside the British Isles - but that the consecration was by nonjuring bishops - therefore doesn't count. The current article states that Seabury was appointed by nonjuring Scottish bishops - and that this makes him the first bishop, etc.... Why does this count - why is this different that Talbot? It seems that part of the reason for the difference is that Seabury's consecration was questioned by some when he returned to America, but was recognised by the general convention of his church in 1789. It also seems that the ECUSA was formally set up during this convention, and not before. So one question remains - where was the first diocese outside of the British Isles? It seems to me that it could be argued that it was NS? What do you think? (And thanks in advance for your patience) Bardcom (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that the earlier bishops a)visited under their own steam, they weren't appointed either as diocesans, or as suffragans of London, who otherwise had Ordinary jurisdiction, and in general one is supposed to only exercise episcopal powers with the permision of the local Ordinary, and b) there orders are not questioned purely because they were non-juring, but because they were only consecrated by one or two other bishops, whereas three is the normal requirement, or one of the consecratos had doubtful orders for the same reason. In any case the only sources we've found do refer to Seabury as the first, and claim to the contrary would need to be verifiable. David Underdown (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom, to add my own three-penny worth; the answer to your question about the relative status of Seabury and Talbot/Weston. is that it turns on a. hindsight, and b. the Oxford Movement. We recognise Seabury as Anglican, because, in the subsequent development of Anglican identity both the church he was consecrated to (ECUSA), and the church whose bishops consecrated him according to canon law (The Scots Episcopal Church), came to be accepted - and to accept themselves - as "Anglican". But this was not, in 1784, a foregone conclusion. Until 1788 (and the death of Charles Edward Stuart) the Scots Episcopal Church still regarded the Church of England as schismatic - and vice versa. The significance of b. (The Oxford Movement), is that it transformed High Church discourse within the Church of England away from an intra-Erastian quarrel as to the relative supremacy in divine law of Parliament and of the Monarch - i.e. the non-juror issue - and towards a discourse that rejected Erastianism almost entirely. Neither Tractarians nor Evangelicals were, in the C19th disposed to accept retrospectively the historic validity of irregular consecrations undertaken by English non-jurors. TomHennell (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
TomHennell, thank you for the detail. I think I have the full picture now... It seems that an unusual situation occurred. When Seabury was consecrated, he was not regarded as Anglican, and no royal warrant was issued for the setting up of his "foreign" diocese. When Nova Scotia was set up therefore, it would have regarded itself (and been regarded in turn) as the first diocese outside the jurisdiction of the British monarch, and it's bishop as the first. But over time, it appears a degree of retrospection (hindsight) is being taken into account in order to acknowledge Seabury as the first Anglican bishop, etc. No offense to anyone, etc, but is this a simplified summary? Bardcom (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom, we should not trespass too much on Secisek's hospitality. However, I broadly agree with your understanding (except your use of the term "unusual"; in this period confusion, incoherence and inconsistency on all sides was the order of the day). The Church of England in the 1780s would be inclined to distinguish three divisions of the Scots Church: the established Presbyterian "Church of Scotland"; the covertly Jacobite "Epsicopal Church of Scotland"; and the "qualfied congregations", i.e. episcopal congregations who had accepted the Act of Toleration of 1712, and who consequently used the English Book of Common Prayer and swore allegiance to the Hanoverian Kings. Which, if any, of these, an English churchmen would regard as his co-religionists was very much an open question. Modern "Anglicanism" could be said to involve adherence to episcopacy, the Prayer Book, and to the legal establishment; but here the three considerations led to three different conclusions. Charles Simeon, in Scotland, worshipped in the Church of Scotland. The CMS, on the other hand, worked closely with the qualified congregations; while the SPG promoted the "reformed catholicity" of the Episcopal Church. On the same basis, I suspect, that all three groups except the SPG (and associated high churchmen) would have initially have viewed the ECUSA dioceses as a "separated church", and hence would have regarded Nova Scotia as the first newly-formed protestant episcopal diocese outside of England, Wales, Ireland and Man. I think that CMS only shifts its position on this point after 1851, as the qualfied congregations took a long time to be re-absorbed into the Episcopal Church. The issue of jurisdiction is an even more complicated one - especially as the Colenso case revealed the legal instruments employed to have been arguably ultra vires anyway. But if you want to continue the debate, perhaps it would be better to repair to my discussion page. TomHennell (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
One note, Nova Scotia, though outside the British Isles, was still under Crown control, unlike the United States. David Underdown (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A tricky point David. It is fundamental to the eccelsiology of Anglican bishops that their power of orders is subject to from episcopal consecration, and their power of jurisdiction is subject to the state. But it was far from clear who - in the Province of Nova Scotia - should embody the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the state. When Inglis was appointed to Nova Scotia he was ordained in England (and took an oath of obedience to the Archnishop of Canterbury), but obtained his jurisdiction by letters patent of George III. But Nova Scotia (I believe) already had a legislature of its own under the Crown, so the letters patent were actually ultra vires - as the Colenso case made clear - the Royal Prerogative being unable to act alone, in matters properly the function of the relevant legislature. So, while the civil province was and is under the sovereignty of the British Crown, its Church should have been recognised from the first as independent of direct Crown jurisdiction. TomHennell (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of the AV/KJ

Secisek, do you know of anyway to source the copyright status of the AV bible? There was a whole section I had to remove 'cause of no sources. See: Talk:Authorized King James Version/Archive March to April 2008#Copyright status. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let me look into this. I think my trust-worthy Oxford Companion has something on this. -- Secisek (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Be scared

Be very very scared. I have just discovered Wikipedia:Featured topics and I could do a series of Archbishops of Canterbury. Scary.... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me know what I can I do to help. --Secisek (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


In his first ever article contributions he embarks on a wholesale rewrite of a top-importance article! Perleese! Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, he also (today) started the no doubt useful stub Theodericus Ulsenius - look at the wikistyle on that! All those guys have articles. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you know where the welcome mat lives, you could lay that out for him. Me, I'll clean up his stub. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • great, giving me an ec. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT - now 2 . PLEASE STOP - I said I was editing the page. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All done now, if you want to add. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, well it looks a bit better now. --Secisek (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing

You might be interested in this: see User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gonna have to really sit down and read this. Thanks for the heads up. --Secisek (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You could add 'saints' to the long list of 'Topics affected by this problem...'  :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. --Secisek (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn

Hi, sorry for bothering you. I tried to get a link established between the Hever Castle page and the Anne Boleyn one in the "Also see" list. My edit was reverted/ didn't take. I think it might be of interest to people because that's the castle where Anne's family lived. I also asked s.o. to mention that Anne's name used to be "Bullen". You seem to be able and willing to edit that page. One of the reasons so many people get bored with history is because the dusty book stuff doesn't manage to bring people to life. Looking at where s.o. lived is an important step in that direction. I'd be happy if you could put that info in. Thanks. Lisa4edit--Lisa4edit (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The "See also" section should only include subject that are not linked elsewhere in the article, the castle is mentioned and linked. -- Secisek (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I found it in the text now. --Lisa4edit (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary

Do you want to post an opinion to the Blessed Virgin Mary Content Fork straw poll/vote? --Carlaude (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have followed this with one eye for some time and I may comment later. I don't feel very strongly either way about this. A nav box with links to all the articles on the subject should be probably be created. Orthodox, Romans, and most Anglicans have many similar beliefs and some differences. If I see it breaking in a direction that I feel is wrong, I'll attempt to correct it. I am curious to see other opinions first. Thank you so much for the heads up. -- Secisek (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglican peer reviews

Please see User talk:John Carter#Anglican assessment. Particularly considering the author requests some information on Anglican sermon standards, about which I know nothing at all, I think you might be particularly useful here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Star of 'Christianity in India'

India Christianity Barnstar.PNG The Star of 'Christianity in India' Wiki Project
I hereby award Secisek for his excellant hardwork and contributions to WikiProject Christianity in India - Tinucherian (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal help

A person (Ajcfreak) from Portal:Christian music needs help for Portal arhiving ( see here . Hope you can help him - Tinucherian (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to set up the archiving and noms format for P:CM as has been setup for P:CI. Could you help out, please? Atleast, if you let me know how it works, mebbe I could do it myself. I've tried analysing the code, but it's slightly beyond me... Sorry to be a bother. aJCfreak yAk 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Unfortunately, the portal discussion has been closed as unsuccessful. Feel free to nominate after suggested changes are made. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II - May 2008

Aloha. The May 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I was busy last week. What did I miss? -- Secisek (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you missed being elected one of the coordiantors of the Christianity project. Traditionally, insofar as there is a tradition in such matters, the top votegetter gets the lead job. Right now, there's a tie for top votegetter. You wanna close out the balloting and name the lead, if we decide on having one? It looks like Tinucherian has already nominated me for the function. God knows I ain't even remotely qualified for the post, but I'm willing to take it if it's determined we should have someone in that position and I wind up being the poor sod chosen to fill it. Your call. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fetured portal

There is a clear distinction between Good and Featured, eh? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008 Newsletter

May 2008 Newsletter is ready to take off at Template:WikiProject_Christianity/Outreach/May_2008 . Let me know if there are any concerns or suggestions asap or make corrections.I had asked BetacommandBot for delivery -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Wolsey

I was wondering if you've looked at this article lately? Do you think it's missing anything in particular? Do you think it's good enough to be raised a category yet? Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been quite busy with work as of late. The article neeeds many more citations before it can be promoted. If you wish to help but are not sure how, contact me here. -- Secisek (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Anglicanism portal has been promoted to featured status


The portal you nominated at featured portal candidates on May 2 2008 has been promoted to featured portal status, and the 119th to do so. Well done. You can view eventual comments at the nomination page. Best regards,

Note: I haven't finished updating all relevant lists here with respect to the portal, I'll get round to it tomorrow due to emergent commitiments. Rudget (Help?) 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

YEAH! That is great news, thanks. -- Secisek (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - June 2008

Aloha. The June 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter


Re your comment:"You seem to be slow around here as well. Best wishes, -- Secisek (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)"

It's summer! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy! --Secisek (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - July 2008

Aloha. The July 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008

This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - August 2008

Aloha. The August 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article sweeps: Great Pyramid of Giza

Hello, I am reviewing Archaeology articles as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force GA sweeps. I reviewed Great Pyramid of Giza today and placed the article on hold for a week to allow for my concerns to be addressed. I am contacting you because you have been a major contributor to the article and may be able to help. The reassessment can be found at Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/GA1. Please get in touch or comment on the reassessment page if you have any questions. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, you asked me to contact you if the article might be delisted. I have addressed several of the concerns myself, and another editor helped reference one of the paragraphs. There are still three small points at the end of the review that need to be addressed. If you could take a look, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No progress has been made, and I believe that the article needs some work in terms of breadth of coverage. If no progress (or request for an extension) is made within a couple of days, I will begin the process to delist the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - September 2008

Aloha. The September 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VII - October 2008

Aloha. The October 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VIII - November 2008

Aloha. The November 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 07:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Talk:Katharine Jefferts Schori

On Talk:Katharine Jefferts Schori you said in the edit summary that you were setting importance=High but actually you didn't. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am reviewing a number of class settings and probably pasted in the edit summary from the last article I corrected. I double checked the rating and it is as it should be. Thanks for the heads up. -- Secisek (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:David Standish Ball

Thank you for the rating. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Father Damien

Can you please elaborate on the downgrade of Father Damien? I realize the new C-class was carved out of the low-end of B-class and the high-end of Start-class, but I and future editors would like to know what needs to be done to get it back to B-class. It was once a Featured Article, so getting it back up to B if not GA should be relatively easy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See the article's talk page. -- Secisek (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Did the politics of your home state make the politics of Wikipedia seem, well, more serene? Welcome back to Wikipedia! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't even want to talk about work. I started doing some small edits largely for escape. I will be busy again soon, but spending some down time here. Glad to see you are still here as well. Do you do Facebook? I'll PM you my contact info if you do. -- Secisek (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I won my senate race and we carried three down state counties for Obama. -- Secisek (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Protestant Reformation

If you are going to down grade an article assessment as you did with Protestant Reformation see diff please state the reason for making the change. Thank you Dbiel (Talk) 04:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See the article's talk page. -- Secisek (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for posting on the article talk page Dbiel (Talk) 20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi, after you edited two articles on my watch list (Christianity and homosexuality and List of Episcopal bishops (U.S.)), I thought I'd have a look at your user page and see who you are. I see that you also edited a lot on the article about my parish's patron saint (St. Augustine of Canterbury) and about de:Apostolicae Curiae, which I used as a model for the German version. So it seems we have a lot of common interests--plus, Illinois is the state in which I was first registered to vote (from April to September of 1985) and last registered to vote (from June 1994 until December 2004, when I renounced U.S. citizenship to become German). In high school, during Youth in Government week, I was in the "Senate", too. Is there an article on WP somewhere about the impeachment process and why it takes so long?--Bhuck (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. See Rod Blagojevich federal fraud cases. -- Secisek (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


I am having a problem making sense of your edit to talk:Protestantism diff while keeping the following:


Dbiel (Talk) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Missed it. The 1.0 ratings went out prior to the creation of the C class. Thank you for catching that. -- Secisek (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Father Damian

Ack. I just saw your request on the WP:HAWAII talk page a week late. Can you give me an update? I have access to many books on the subject and I would be willing to collaborate with other editors. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about naming conventions: Why is the article titled Father Damien, while articles like Mother Marianne Cope redirect to Marianne Cope? Which is the correct convention? Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Comment Article did not claim they were [anglican archbishops]

Secisek, I didn't claim the article claimed this. Where do you get this idea? No, the relevance of these bishops not being Anglican does not stem from the fact that this is claimed in the article, but rather it stems from the fact this article concerns the anglican archdiocese; there is another article for the catholic archdiocese. Maybe I should have stated this. Anyways, this seems fairly simple to me. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I got the idea that you thought that when you removed them from the article with an edit summary that said "not Anglican". You are too smart to not be aware that this removal makes a strong POV claim that the Church of Ireland is not in continuity with the ancient Church in Ireland, which is how they see themselves. A citation can be included disputing this claim, but the claim itself cannot be removed as if it does not exist. I am going to think this over and may revert back to the earlier version later. If you would like discuss this further, we can do so on the article's talk page. Best wishes. -- Secisek (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Their own legal claims are interesting but not relevant to wikipedia beyond this; on wikipedia there is a RC article and an Anglican article. The Pre-Ref bishops were Catholic and not Anglican, so on that basis go in the Catholic and not in the Anglican article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
List of the Archbishops of Canterbury in the Cathedral

The article about the RCC see states that the Church of Ireland 'retained the cathedrals at the time of the Irish Reformation. They did not just fall out of the sky one day. At present, you have removed all appearences of the very real historic "legal claims" of the Church of Ireland.

I have seen you around WP sinc I started editing here and I have long respected your edits, which is why I do not believe you really think your trimming is as simple as all that. You know what full well what the change from History: Pre-Reformation to Pre-History suggests in terms of POV. I reserve my right to revert your edit later if I see fit. -- Secisek (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The history of how the CoI came into possessions of its cathedral is interesting and should be in the articles independent of legal claims. It just isn't factual to have Catholic archbishops in an Anglican list. The Anglican archbishops are clearly factual co-successors/secessionists to/from the Catholics, this can be taken care of in the article without editors worrying about apostolic merit. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The same could then be done for the Archbishop of Canterbury article - A Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury article could be created following the history to the death of Cardinal Pole. As the plaque to the right demonstrates, there is more than one POV on the subjects of successors/secessionists. Not setting a presidence was the very reason I jumped on your edit. I again will think it over and see If I can come up with something that prevents a huge overlap between the two articles while retaining the concept that the current Archbihsops are indeed "factual co-successors" of the Pre-Reformation bishops. -- Secisek (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I have come up with what may be an acceptable solution in this instance. -- Secisek (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
My cleaning up article of some of those articles back then stuck. Your attempted moves aren't sticking. Hold a WP:RM ... no reason why you can't win that. At any rate, it is frowned upon to move established pages by cut-and-paste. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets take it to the talk page. The only things I have done that have not "stuck" have been reverts you made. -- Secisek (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

Hi. Drawn to this matter by a notice at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents, I'm just dropping by to clarify the issue with "cut and paste moves". Wherever this article may wind up (I have no opinion on that), moving it this way is a problem for the project, as it separates the text from its attribution history. Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain copyright under the terms of GFDL. Moving the entire article, with its history, satisfies our requirement for attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to drop this, but I cannot believe an editor of his stature would have made that move without discussuion, edit warred over it, and then got his version protected because of a process vio. I never cease to be disapointed by people. --Secisek (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)15:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually don't care where this article is beyond the arguments I've made here, and didn't try to get my version protected, but rather get someone to tell you about cut-and-paste rules since you were ignoring me. Now, rather than all the controfrontational stuff, rather than attempt to win every dispute you have by hoping you can revert more than your opponent, how about actual discussion or suggestions or otherwise trying to find a solution?
Wikipedia, btw, isn't the place to be if people "disappoint" you easily. Like, you said :
Well, lets take it to the talk page. The only things I have done that have not "stuck" have been reverts you made.
Rather than take it to talk, you actually reverted twice against wikipedia's de facto anti-cut-and-paste policy, despite knowing of the process violation you were committing. Now you are complaining about edit-warring? What this might suggest to many is that, rather than desire to discuss it, you instead wish it to get fixed at your version while your opponents wastes his time making arguments on talk that you are doubtlessly going to ignore anyway. The latter is suggested by the fact that you responded to my reasonable good-faith arguments for the current position with little more than that is your POV, not a fact. What led you to believe people take this kind of behaviour seriously? The two outside admins don't give a monkeys about whether the AoA page is a dab or the location for the historic/Catholic list, they care about process and good behaviour. That's a very minimum prerequisite to constructive dialogue.
And constructive dialogue is necessary here ... because Irish bishoprics pose a wikipedia problem that the small group of editors who're interested, me and you and perhaps a handful of others, are obligated to try and solve. If we can all work in good faith, it can be solved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Constructive dialogue is necessary, but you chose not engage in any last year when you decided which of the archbishops should get the page without so much as an anouncement that you were moving it, let alone a discusion. No, Wikipedia is not the place to be if you are worried about being disapointed by people, but I have seen your edits before and I respected you. This undiscussed move, that you knew full was controversial, was beneath you. The fact that you snuck it under the radar and only got called on it recently does make it any less wrong. I found it very amusing that you made this move without discussion, but when user:Scrivener-uki attempted to move it back, you said he couldn't revert it to where it had been because such a move would be "controversial". You then assured him you would make it so. You knew it was controversial when you did it, too.

You all but admited that you were wrong when you said, "Hold a WP:RM ... no reason why you can't win that." There "is no reason why" because your move raised a hell of a lot more controversy then it rested. Furthermore, I am not intrested in "winning" anything. I asked you twice to discuss this - and I pointed out if there was a process problem - in good faith - you could restore the version prior to your undiscussed move while we developed consensus. All you did was respond by reverting me and then coming to my talk page and pointing out that my contributions just weren't "sticking". That happens when there is a consensus of one against me. Again, looking at our interaction and others you have had with editors who brought this to you attention, you have not done yourself credit. I don't care where the page ends up, but some people will and I thought it would have been good to have consensus going forward. I am going to drop this now because I don't won't to work with you based off your behaviour here.

I have never have attempted to get a position advanced at Wikipedia by "out-reverting" an opponent. I asked you repeatedly to restore it to where it was before you moved it, and discuss it. You refused to do either. You pointed out above that I invited you to the talk page and then I "actually reverted twice" while waiting for you to discuss it. Think about that for a second.

I am certain someone else will come along and fix this at some point in the future because it is not right as it stands - that is the beauty of Wikipedia. I am dropping this, but I will be adding all of the RCC/CofI sees to my watch list, siince we have established you like to make controversial moves/edits without discussion and once they are done - that is that. I am sorry we crossed paths. You are one more name off of my private white list. -- Secisek (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I read to "snuck it under the radar" and have learned all I need to now. Sorry I wasted my time. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We are in agreement at last, sir. Good day. -- Secisek (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Children! Behave! (said VERY tongue in cheek) Seriously, though. Can you both take maybe a day or two, step back from this, and approach the matter calmly. Deacon is right, we need to sort out something about the CoI bishops, which needs to take into account the contentious history without stepping all over either side. Chances are good that neither "side" will end up happy, but it isn't served by two of the more productive editors in this area at each others' throats. (Not to mention it makes my life less pleasant...) Take a week off, and then think about compromises, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You know me Ealdgyth, always in good faith - always in good faith. In fact, I agreed above that we need not rehash long bits of pre-Reformation history in CofI articles if it was already detailed in a RCC article somewhere else. This is nothing more than a naming issue and - as you have seen before - those tend to get most out of hand, most quickly. I said my piece on it and I am gonna step away. I am not the first to bring this up and I won't be the last. Someone will move the DAB page back where it was at some point. Thanks for the wise words. -- Secisek (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)