User talk:Zfish118

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Zfish118/Mkow88's Talk Page!

This page is archived occasionally. See: Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4


Graduate student with research to finish and resumes to send
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of December 2014.

Catholic Church article[edit]

Hi! I saw that you had posted a peer review for the Catholic Church article, but have already nominated the article for a GA status. Would you like for the peer review link to be closed? I had the same issue for a while with the Alexander Hamilton article when I had nominated for a GA status. LeftAire (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@LeftAire: Yeah, thanks! I couldn't figure out how to withdraw it myself when I noticed it was still open. I will try to be around if you have any questions about the article. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catholic Church[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Catholic Church you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LeftAire -- LeftAire (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catholic Church[edit]

The article Catholic Church you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Catholic Church for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LeftAire -- LeftAire (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

State and Religion in Catholic Church article[edit]

I should have made direct citations in the section State and Religion (formerly, "State establishment of religion") section. However, I do not understand why so much content was wholesale removed. Of course perhaps it could be refined, revised, ect. But why was it removed and retitled? Perhaps "Relationship between Church and State" would be a better title. Since I'm not a registered contributor, maybe I don't have standing to revise or do anything, but I thought it was worthy of mentioning, considering the historically complex historical circumstances surrounding the Catholic Church's relationship with the state, from Emperor Constantine to Pope St. Gelasius to Pope Innocent III to Pope St. Pius X to the Second Vatican Council, and how some outside the Church in modernity view the Catholic concept of confessional states as controversial or as a rebuttal of the modern principle of religious pluralism (which indeed it is). I thought, therefore, that it would fit in with other "controversial" subjects before and after, such as the Church's understanding of the issues of homosexuality and male-only ordination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@, thank you for reaching out. I removed the content primarily because it was unsourced, however, I had some concerns about quality. There was a sentence about the "social kingship of Christ", which was a concept I was unfamiliar with, at least not with the qualifier "social". If this could be cited, I have no issue with it. The following paragraph:
In the Decree Apostolicam Actuositatem, the same teaching is repeated: "It has pleased God to unite all things, both natural and supernatural, in Christ Jesus "so that in all things He may have the first place" (Col. 1:18)... The whole Church must work vigorously in order that men may become capable of rectifying the distortion of the temporal order and directing it to God through Christ. Pastors must clearly state the principles concerning the purpose of creation and the use of temporal things and must offer the moral and spiritual aids by which the temporal order may be renewed in Christ."
The lengthy quote does not seem to immediately support the statement that the "same teaching is repeated". The meaning of the quote, while indeed addressing the temporal [ie, earthly] authority of the church, is rather opaque to readers without extensive knowledge of theological terminology. Perhaps an alternative quote might be selected to more clearly illustrate document's teachings. A minor concern to avoid is WP:Synthesis; primary source documents can be used to illustrate clearly what they teach, but any conclusions about their interrelationship or controversy must be independently cited to a published source. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
To briefly address your secondary concern, having a "registered" account only facilitates communicating concerns. If your internet providers switched your IP, or you edited from another computer, I would have no way of contacting you. Please, feel free to fully participate in editing and discussions. Your contributions really were high quality, and the lack of discussion regarding state established churches was a matter that was not meaningfully covered yet. My primary goal, after having spent considerable time getting this article to "good" status, is to help steward the article, so that only the best content is kept so that the article quality does not slide downward again, as has happened several times in the past. I have had to revert many well intentioned, but low quality edits in the past from both registered and unregistered users.

Million Award[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Catholic Church (estimated annual readership: 1,000,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! LeftAire (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The actual amount estimated was 1075684 views was based of a 4-mo. estimate (as of 4/4/2015 had 268,966 views in a 90 day period this year). Congrats! LeftAire (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@LeftAire: Thank you - I am quite honored! --Zfish118 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 September[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hartford Whalers[edit]

Someone "completely clueless about Hartford hockey" should be reading the Professional ice hockey in Connecticut article that is already in the see also section. Hat notes exist to inform the reader about other subjects at the same title or the risk of confusion between two titles. Using a hat note to inform the reader about a completely unrelated team in an entirely different league on the basis of the trivial link of both being hockey teams in the same city is not appropriate, imo. Resolute 14:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Carolina Hurricanes are legally the same team that existed previously in Boston and Hartford. It is entirely appropriate to link in a hatnote to the article of the current location of the same team, although, as I said, this is not strictly necessary. However, the Connecticut Whale was so named specifically to invoke the memory of the Hartford Whalers; in fact it was renamed "The Whate" by a former owner of the Hartford Whalers, as part of an elaborate (but failed) attempt to attract enough interest to start a new NHL team called the Hartford Whalers. Anyone looking up "Howard Baldwin" or "Whale", or "Whalers" or "Connecticut Hockey" or "Hartford Hockey" might end up at the wrong team article, and it is entirely appropriate to provide a disambiguating link in the Hatnote. Hartford hockey is a complicated story; the Professional ice hockey in Hartford article elaborates on this for anyone interested, but some people just want to find the team they are looking for. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Carolina Hurricanes is already explicitly linked in the lead and the infobox. It's overkill to add a hatnote for it. As to the rest, I personally disagree. All of those options - assuming they are not already linked in the article - would be viable for the see also section. But hat notes are used to minimize confusion over articles with similar titles, not to push see also entries to the very top of the page. Resolute 19:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Resolute:, I am only in favor of keeping a courtesy link to the Wolf Pack/CT Whale in the hatnote. The rest I only meant as examples of simple search terms someone might use to find the Wolfpack, that might bring them to the Whaler's page. I do not propose to include any of them on the Whaler's page or hatnote. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
There are only five titles that redirect to this page, and not one of them is likely to indicate a user meant to search for the Hartford Wolf Pack but ended up here. Someone searching for Harold Baldwin would end up at the Howard Baldwin article. Someone searching for "whalers" ends up at a dab page, and "whale" has an appropriate hat note to a dab page. "Hartford hockey" and "Connecticut hockey" takes you only to a search results page. None of these examples brings a reader here, which further argues the lack of utility for such a hat note. Resolute 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I am speaking of off-wiki search engines delivering someone to the wrong page. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Off-wiki search engines are even less likely to deliver a person to this page using those search options than the on-wiki search engine is. Resolute 23:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Resolute: Fine. We are spilling all these words over one sentence. Get rid of the hatnote if you wish. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

CCC template[edit]

I would like to craft a template for Code of Canon Law based on your {{CCC}} but do not see where your lookup table for {{CCC}} is to use as an example. Can you point me in the right direction? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Very cool! The table can be found here: Template:CCC/TOC logical selection (I had to dig for it myself). I also added a link to the documentation. Good luck! --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
TYVM –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catholic Church. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have also notified User:Sundayclose about edit warring, but that notification was removed diff. Please stay cool yourself, take WP:3RR seriously and don't go anywhere near reaching or passing it, continue to discuss on the talk page without worrying too much about WP:The Wrong Version in the short term! --Mirokado (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mirokado: Thank you. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catholic Church may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Papacy SE.svg||thumb|upright|The crossed keys of [[Saint Peter]], a symbol of the Catholic Church]] redundant-->
  • In some predominantly Catholic countries, it is only in recent years that divorce was introduced (i.e. [[Italy]] (1970), [[Portugal]] (1975), [[Brazil]] (1977), [[Spain]] (1981), [[Ireland]] (1996),

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


@Sundayclose: I wish to state that I disagree very strongly with the suggestion that I have been engaging "edit warring". My concern is the inclusion of questionable material in a prominent template on a page as highly visible as the Catholic Church article. I dispute several factual claims made in the template. It is not appropriate in its current form. I am not inflexible. If a higher quality, factually unimpeachable template were developed in draft space, I would not necessarily object to its inclusion. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

For the most complete of records, I placed my concerns on the talk page several hours before I removed the infobox:


I think it would be a good idea for you to add your clarification about limiting the infobox to historical claims (that you just added to DRN) to Talk:Catholic Church. When I said "let the dust settle" I didn't mean that we couldn't clarify our positions, and I appreciate any clarification you can make. I think more people will see it at the article talk page, and DRN says "Continue on article talk page if necessary." I personally would like to keep all points on one page as much as possible; I think any volunteer from DRN would look on the article's talk page. I don't oppose your discussion at DRN if you feel it's appropriate, but I think it would be a good idea for anyone to see all points at the article talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Will do --Zfish118 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit on White Anglo-Saxon Protestant[edit]

Indeed, all these dictionary sources are dubious. I removed a quotation from the Hippie dictionary. Needless to say, that isn't reliable at all and the definitions are too biased. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Gremlin has been fixed[edit]

Greetings. There was a Gremlin caused by this edit that had me vexed but it has been fixed. One curly brace was missing. Take care. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Zfish118. You have new messages at Talk:Catholic Church.
Message added 19:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)