User talk:Ptolemy Caesarion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Secisek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

I'm sorry I undid your edits too, I noticed a blanking, and wrongly assumed it was vandalism rather than justified removal of nasty vandalism by previous editors. I've been back and added in the proper lead paragraph from before. Sorry.

Again, welcome! Eve 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BCP

I wonder if Secisek could explain why the historic name is not appropriate in a historical section. It helps to know reasons. Roger Arguile 11:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolving sensibilities

Please!!!!! Put it back. It was subversion. I have no idea what on earth your phrase could mean. Roger Arguile 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it just shows how opinions can differ. WUWC included inaccuracies and unncessary detail. As for subversion I think you understand the word differently. Cranmer's purpose is well set out in MCCulloch's book. He was utterly opposed to prayers for the dead and to the offertory. Both were reintroduced. Subversion is not a POV word. To say that one person's purpose is subverted by another is not to judge either of them. That some people hated what Cranmer did is no more than the truth whoever you suppport (and I have not written where my sympathies lie). The fact is that Cranmer would be very upset about what was done with his book. (whether I like what he believed might be for you to guess!) Roger Arguile 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking: have you read Diarmaid McCulloch;s biography of Cranmer? 1549 and 1552 were part of a project which Cranmer, together with others, conceived. Those who followed in 1559 and 1662 disagreed with some of Cranmer's views. I have no idea what you mean by 'living texts', but the changes made were deliberate underminings of Cranmer's intention. As for Cranmer's recantation, I fall back on McCulloch. I don't think what you say is sustainable. I think you are using the word subvert in a particular sense which I don#t recognise. Roger Arguile 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but what you write does not make sense. The idea of maturation expresses a point of view. It would have to be argued that there was development rather than disagreement. As for the history of the Prayer book in the USA, that again was strident, divisive and fienly balanced in its result. The 1786 BCP and the 1789 were very different, (but that's another story). Your living texts issue is, in my understanding, a confusion between origin and use.Roger Arguile 16:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

'Evolution'? The same disagreements about prayers for the dead and the mass are now current. I don't think you will find McCulloch using the word. The point is that the disagreements manifested themselves in changes to the liturgy. The notion of development, however conceived, would have to be argued for. I am sorry, but I think you are wrong. As for words like 'foundational', in that context I fear that I don't understand. Roger Arguile 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Access for sources? Indeed. But in the lead section they are not necessary, only in the article itself where you will find them. what sources are you after? Roger Arguile 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PPS I am having serious difficulty. I am not talking about what we base our faith on. the article is not about my faith or yours; it is about Cranmer's view and those who disagreed with him. Where you and I stand on the matter is completely irrelevant. I fear that your opinions keep getting in the way of the issue which is about a series of texts and why they were altered. Roger Arguile 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What's this 'lovingly' stuff? Cranmer's editions but not his opinions. I fear that I do not share your assumptions, which I do not believe can be supported. I fear I have to leave the discussion for the present. Roger Arguile 16:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. We have been having a disagreement. I have not merely reverted but continually tried to alter ands improve. My persistence does not justify your energy. Roger Arguile 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I agree, as I have already indicated. There is a place for some description of practice but what is written is so vague as to be unhelpful. Roger Arguile 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may be approved but it resutled in the mess up which you may have seen. Your instruction may be based on what is recommended, but not only did it result in a hash up but it is less precise. I could say 'please don't alter my reference system which works well just because it might help to make a GA (which the Eng. Ref. article apparently didn't need)' but I won't. I agree about ibid. as being less helpful, but frankly I don't have the patience to learn how to use the electronic system. Mea culpa, no doubt, but it seems to me that a mixed economy is undesirable in an article. For which reason I don't feel obliged to obey. Roger Arguile 08:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at the Elizabethan settlement when I have time. Thanks for the comment. Roger Arguile 08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism Project

Needs a point where outsider non project members can try to communicate with the project. To have a blackened 'in your place' is not what wikipedia is about - you need to allocate a space where nonplussed persons have no need for anger mary tudor or anything - but actually have a point of entry. It demeans the project to have such a non user friendly structured project talk page - to even address the anger issue at the head of the page - would be to have a talk page and take the structured page to a sub page SatuSuro 02:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought about - went back to your original comment there - perhaps my frustration is misplaced here - my apologies - what I would suggest is more than one talk page perhaps? - this is the first project that I have ventured into that has such an impervious talk page so the perplexed response is meant in good faith - however one could possibly think of other ways of keeping up with threads rather than structuring such a page - sub pages seem a better idea SatuSuro 03:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah dont worry I went on to make a much bigger mess on the catholic project anyways :| SatuSuro 02:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the tagging the categories is why I am bothering john carter - we are in the same boat so to speak - trying to get articles tagged and the issue of the category or NA response to the class item - when doing categories -anyways - cheers SatuSuro 02:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The more I have to look at your comment and my comment I suspect I should remember the fools lines in King Lear - and get on with trying to fix up the tagging issue SatuSuro 05:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the change was requested so that people wouldn't see the stats on those articles in the assessment statistics box. Why they might want that, I don't know. Anyway, I think the change has now been made, so there shouldn't be any problems. I'll check on it again on Monday. John Carter 22:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Heheh thats what I used to always say to new users - pinch off others talk pages what you can find (however top right hand corner - identity issue ithink :) - good stuff!! cheers SatuSuro 06:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Over time I got very bored with userboxes and the sub page is somewhere in the depths of my archives - i think - nothing is ever lost on this goldfishbowl  :) hope you enjoy the rest of your stay and you dont get too many uses like me with short attention spans and limited sense of humour - from your user boxes you seem very british - is it your ancestry? SatuSuro 08:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey as you are new user - ever have any problems drop me line on or off wiki - and I'll see what I can do to help - cheers SatuSuro 09:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Any chance you could make more use of edit summaries - it makes it easier to tell what's been done to an article without viewing it directly, adn it's generally considered good practice?

There is a setting in your user preferences which will stop you saving an edit without adding an edit summary. Thanks, David Underdown 08:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move etc

You should just be able to use the move tab at the top of the page (next to history). I believe you can usually move over a redirect. If that doesn't work, try putting {{db-move}} at the top of the page you wish to move it to - an admin should then "speedy delete" the contents of the page, and you should be able to do the move without any further assistance. once the move is complete, have a look for any "double redirects" i.e. a page that redirects to the current page lcoation (which will then redirect to the new lcoation). Amend the redirect target so that it points directly to the new page name. you can find these by using the "What links here" link at the top of the "toolbox" in the left hand panel of the page. incidentally the "proper" name of the page should probably be "Chair of St Augustine" (with no full stop after St) as that is usual British usage, and how the name of the chair appears on the Arcbishop of Canterbury's webpage.

On citing, chapter and verse can be found at WP:CITE, you're not doing too badly, although you should also record the date you accessed webpages. I find the "cite" templates useful as they format things in a consistent way, and encourage you to record as much info as possible about the source (which can be useful if a webpage later chagnes its URL etc), but they are not mandatory. See {{cite news}}, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} for examples (there are others). Feel free to ask for further help. David Underdown 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Trinity

I don't mean to offend you if it's your personal belief, but Anglicanism is typically considered to be a Protestant denomination. I'm not entirely certain about the dos and don'ts of terminology in this case, but it seems unfair that Anglicanism might get special mention whereas other traditionalist reformation churches do not, as in this case the most general denominational terms are used.--C.Logan 10:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

ABCs

I had been taking an extended Wikibreak - this thing can be quite the vortex if one isn't careful! Anyway, your message stirred me from my reverie. Indeed, this is a recurring issue, one which I daresay will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. Whole pages of debate can be found archived at Talk:Roman Catholic Church, if you're feeling particularly masochistic. I regret to say that I pawned many hours in this debate, but I don't think anyone's opinion shifted. I concur with your position, the term Catholic means many things, just as the term Catholic Church (disambiguation) means many things, and on Anglican pages (and lists), one needs to be particularly clear about parsing when we are speaking of the Anglican Church as a Catholic Church and when we are speaking of the churches in communion with Rome. The template for the list, with its three subdivisions, seems fine, and no one can argue that Reginald Pole was the last ABC in communion with Rome, as the article suggests. Indeed, as a point of interest, Canterbury never declared itself out of communion with Rome - it was the other way around. The Henrician acts of supremacy simply stated that foreign bishops had no jurisdiction in England, i.e., outside of their episcopal or provincial Sees. I will post these comments on the relevant talk page. fishhead64 23:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you see my work on Cranmer? I think it is close to GA. I want to write it to FA. It needs grammer and spelling experts to take a look at it. SECisek 07:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nag's Head Fable

A tag has been placed on Nag's Head Fable, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Edokter (Talk) 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This stub is cited and is about an important legend that has arisen in several other articles on Wikipedia. It is a stub, yet it has room to grow into an article. Springnuts already removed the Speedy Delete, but I thought I'd make my case here, anyway.

SECisek 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Replacing multiple identical references

Hi,

The technique is described here.

Thanks for your work on the Nag's Head Fable - I hadn't heard of it before! TSP 22:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RCC vs. CC

What was concluded? I've read through everything from 2006 and I can't find a conclusion. List of Archbishops of Canterbury: I really don't think it is appropriate to label those sections of the list in that manner to begin with. It should be Saxon to Reformation and Reformation to Present. That is how it is on the lists for York, Winchester, ALL of the others are like that. I am sure my debate partner doesn't know about any of the other sees and is just messing with ABC to be disruptive. Is there something I can do other then stalemate him? He won't accept any solution other then his own.SECisek 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The only conclusion one can reach about the Roman Catholic vs. Catholic name debate is that it is interminable. For Wiki background, please see Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive 7 for the 2006 debate - as you've already done. From a Real World perspective (and a Wiki one), the usage of Roman Catholic is not incorrect especially from the vantage point of those ecclesiastical communities outside of the Catholic Church. In short, while the organization self-identifies itself as the Catholic Church, it is known as Roman Catholic because that is what all those ecclesiastical communities call it to differentiate it from the catholic church of which they are part. The Catholic Church uses the name Roman Catholic when dealing with other churches e.g. the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission or ARCIC. I'm using the phrase "ecclesiastical communities" ironically - in this context- as that is the phrase the Catholic Church uses to refer to all those churches outside of it. In the case of List of Archbishops of Canterbury, the usage must be Roman Catholic as the Anglican Church sees itself as a catholic church and not as an ecclesiastical community.

See also: Roman Catholic Church § Terminology, Catholicism, Christian Church § Related Concepts, and Anglicanism § Doctrine

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RCC v CC again

Ok, I looked in the current talk page, and all I found was a single comment by Rehnn83 which doesn't really source his view. I really believe that Catholic Church is appropriate here, because Roman Catholic implies Roman Catholic to the exclusion of other Catholic churches. I went to a Byzantine Catholic church a couple weeks ago, and in their liturgy they mentioned Benedict far more times than we do in RC masses. The Pope is the spiritual head of Western-rite Catholics as well as the 22 some Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Has this point been addressed in a talk area of which I'm not aware? Carl.bunderson 18:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has. I was tracking down the link, sorry I did not get it posted quick enough but it is there now. Do not confuse "Roman Catholic Church" which includes 22 Eastern Rites with "Latin Rite", which is what some people incorrectly think the term "Roman Catholic Church" should refer to. There is a bit of a truce here right now and it involves maintaining a bit of stasis. See my comments on the the talk page now. -- SECisek 18:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Excuse me sir, this were not isolated cases, You cant hide the truth. I have started this story one hour ago, and I have alread found at leat a dozen of people that were involved in such ugly crimes. You cant just remove articles. Please let it stay there and wait for names to be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipernar (talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my english is poor and I uncited source. But you can help me citing source and correcting my english and not only removing my edits.

I justify my edits, to improve the NPOV of the article, it can't be a good one mainly because of the NPOV.

--V3n0w 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone else has already corrected the Heliocentric section in the direction you were trying to take it. Done. -- SECisek 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wanna change all "Church doctrine and science", that was the first step. Look at this: "This position is a reverse of the view, held by some enlightenment philosophers, that the Church's doctrines were superstitious and hindered the progress of civilization."By some? And only enlightenment philosophers think in this way?Were superstitious? Anyone who has a brain think that the church doutrines are superstitious.-V3n0w 01:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to want remove a non-NPOV, you seem to want to insert yours. I simply revert obvious vandalism and unproductive edits on that article. Best of luck. -- SECisek 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism stuff

SECisek - thanks for the message on my talk page. The changes you have made to Thirty-Nine Articles are definitely in the right direction - I've edited the discussion of the term "reformed catholicism" a bit, as I think the term ought to be contextualized as an important element of later Anglican thought, rather than a term which was invented to describe the articles. I do think that a fair amount of work needs to be done in terms of the summaries of the individual articles to remove Anglo-Catholic bias, Beyond that, in terms of what I see at least as an Anglo-Catholic bias, I find it a little bit hard to believe. Insofar as anyone finds the 39 Articles important nowadays, it's Low Church Anglicans, and I can't imagine that they would interpret them along the lines of Tract 90. But clearly we haven't had many of them working on the article. You'reprobably right, though, that the Articles are today more important to historians than they are to present day Anglicans. That just means it's all the more important that we look at historians' views of the Articles, rather than contemporary Anglican interpretations, or 150 year old Tractarian analyses Anyway, I'll try to get more specific about specific issues on the talk page. john k 23:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Proto-Protestants

Please don't destroy and completely rewrite what others have done before you. I have just found out that you rewrote completely all of my articles related to Proto-Protestants deleting a lot of factual information. I have spent a lot of time reading books and articles devoted to the subject so please don't regard yourself as the only expert on that. If you want to add something, please, don't just cut out whole parts that were written by someone before. If you question validity of some information just place 'quotation needed' note there. For instance, Luis the Pios did not consider Claudius a heresiarch at least during the first period of his reforms in Turin. He did ask that bishop to write commentaries on all the Pauline epistles. He did ask others to write response to Claudius' claims not to condemn them, but to provide ground for theological dispute. If he truly considered Claudius a heresiarch he would have deposed him before his death, wouldn't he? The statement you have placed in the article is, therefore, at least highly questionable. The same goes for your statement that it has been disproved that Waldensians can be traced to the followers of Claudius. Nothing has been disproved, it has just been shown impossible to prove, which is a great difference. My request is that you show more respect for the work that others do here on Wikipedia. You have great knowledge, nice English, but please, don't consider others like me to be stupid kids. Sorry for a little bit sharp note, but you have deleted a great deal of information and I do not have either the time or patience to trace all of your edits and try to recover any valuable info that you deleted. Regards Bravehearted 10:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One article you restored had a bullet-point list of statements. I rewrote the list into prose and cited the facts. I deleted some conjecture. You have now gone back and tacked the list on AFTER the prose stub so all the facts are now in the article twice. If you read my edit, you would see that the facts are still there. Wikipedia articles should not be lists of trivia or isolated statements. The articles need to be readable. As for why Claudius wasn't deposed, I can not speculate and I sure as heck couldn't write about my conjecture in Wikipedia even if I could. Wikipedia should present cited facts and let the reader decide. In a number of articles, there were several times that an editor squared the circle for the reader. I removed those, but I see you restored some. I will remove them again with explanations for each on the corresponding talk pages.

To address some specific points, while it can't be proven that the Waldensians trace their roots to Claudius, it is a proven fact that the Waldensians themselves trace their roots back to Peter Waldo, nearly all scholarship backs this. If it is proven that Waldensians trace their roots to Peter Waldo, it is impossible to prove that Claudius founded the sect, because he didn't - Peter Waldo did. I try to be very respectful of other's work, but editing is the very heart of Wikipedia and if an article is filled with uncited conjecture, vandalism, obvious historical anachronism, or blatant errors, every editor should make it their duty to improve the article to the best of their ability. I did not change a letter in any of the articles with out citing my source and – if it was big – hitting the talk page. My sources on those articles are a number of books from the Oxford Press - highly respected sources. I do not have "great knowledge", but I do have great citations! My edits were not intended to imply that I "consider others like (you) to be stupid kids." - not at all. It is the nature of Wikipedia, at the bottom of this very screen:

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

I am sorry if you have hurt feelings, feel free to edit over my edits, but please cite your sources and explain on the talk page so we can dialog about any controversy.

I am going to nominate Proto-Protestant for deletion as I have failed to find, in print or on the web, enough info to even get a working definition of the term. It is a neologism and doesn't belong in wikipedia. Aside from some of my cited edits, the article is all original research, which isn't allowed at wikipedia anyway. Sorry once again, and I look forward to seeing these articles in question improved. -- SECisek 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Enraght

Thank you for your kind comments, and suggestions, I will have to read up on "Wikipedia footnotes" so as to put your suggestions into practice, (I am very new to wikipedia and have a lot to learn). daveportslade 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Episcopal Church in the United States of America‎

You deleted the adjective "Protestant" from the name of the Episcopal Church of the USA, describing bare "Episcopal" as the "modern name." Actually the most recent version of the "modern name" is the bare "Episcopal Church," which seems a little inadequate given that the Anglican churches in Scotland, Jerusalem and the Middle East and the Sudan are also "Episcopal" churches. However, both names are actually informal: legally the entity's name is still the Protestant Episcopal Church. Legal pedantry, perhaps.... Masalai 07:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Legal pedantry...

the question here is usage. Go to [Episcopal Church] and look for the word "Protestant". Look who owns the copyright on the website and you will see it is the "Episcopal Church". PECUSA dropping the "P" was done for a reason. There has been ample debate else where at WP about the legal name and it is clear that general usage - both at Wikipedia, within the church, and in secondary sources, exludes the word "Protestant". To include it is to be confusing at least (as at least one other Church now uses the name "Protestant Episcopal Church") anachronistic at best (because the Episcopal Church doesn't anymore) and offensive at worst (because some folks in the communion are sensitive about it.)

The article in question mentioned "improved relations with the Protestant Episcopal Church". The Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church could be who that is refering to. Please respect usage and do not revert, unless you really mean to link to the Protestant Episcopal Church. Thank you. -- SECisek 07:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You needn't have anticipated my reverting your correction, which was, indeed, a bit previous as our English friends would say, and instructed me not to. I have not. I was merely explaining the reason for the original formulation. Please, however, do try not to be quite so earnest: it was long the special talent of Anglicans to maintain a sense of humour as we kept to the vaunted but apparently lost middle road: we seem to have lost both and look at the fix we are in these days. Masalai 08:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. Tolerance, manners, and politeness, long the hallmarks of Anglicanism, are starting to become scarce in the Communion. It sometimes feels like we are living in the days of Laud and Cromwell or Cranmer and Pole. Yes, I am easily excited these days...sad. -- SECisek 08:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for a latter day Jonathan Swift, eh, to champion moderation with savage indignation. Masalai 08:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the reference but I think you've just walked into the dreaded "Is it TEC or ECUSA?" debate. The reason for the bizarre paragraph on the BCP was to highlight that The Episcopal Church (TEC) was used in 1979 and reflects the decision in 1967. The acronym that became popular - ECUSA - doesn't have the pedigree that TEC does. For whatever reason, TEC seems to have official approval now. And the origins of the BCP paragraph can be found in the last paragraph of an official TEC webpage What is the Episcopal Church (USA)?. I'm not going to touch your edits but other quibblers may. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

*Giggles*

You are on the map now, look out! ^Ariel♥Gold 20:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC, not FAR

I believe you wanted to submit Thomas Cranmer as a featured article candidate (FAC), not featured article review (FAR--a review of existing featured articles). Please visit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for information on how to submit there. I did remove your addition to the Wikipedia:Featured article review page so as not to confuse anyone. You'll need to follow a similar process--make a subpage, add your nomination text, and then add the subpage to the main page. –Outriggr § 06:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Something did not seem right. I fixed it - and thanks for the heads up. Secisek

Kells

There are plenty of distinguished English and Continental medieval manuscripts in Oxford & Cambridge Colleges, not to mention Eton. Are you going to include all them as well? Inclusion by possession seems a very bad way to go to me. It would be ridiculous if every work of art in a Catholic church were claimed by the Catholicism project, and they have a far better claim to connection with most of them than Anglicanism does here. I notice the Anglican project does not even claim TCD - quite rightly in my view. I would ask you to remove this mistaken project tag. Needless to say, the article itself at no point mentions Anglicanism, which is a basic criterion for inclusion in a project. Johnbod 03:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my tag of the article. I was not trying to suggest anything sectarian or make any real-world claim for the ownership of the book for one faith or another. I wasn't suggesting that any "Anglican" POV needs to be covered or that Anglican specific material needs to be added. The article is FA and is wonderful as is.

You spoke at length about "claims". The project banners do not "claim" any kind of ownership of an article, thatisn't allowed (WP:OWN) What the banners do is help editors find articles that relate to their projects. An editor tossed our project banner off of a 13th century saint stub the other day, with the reasoning that he "wasn't Anglican". The saint is commemorated as such in the calendar of the Church of England, why would he NOT be of interest to us? There was a HUGE debate where somebody suggested that the Archbishops of Canterbury needed to be split along the lines of "ours" and "yours". With so many articles needing work, that kind of thinking is really poor.

What I WAS trying to do was draw the attention of the editors of our project to this well-known book in the hopes that somebody, someday, might pick up one of the red links and run with them or - my real goal - to get our editors more intrested in the early Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Most of The Archbishops of Canterbury from that period are still just stubs - did they "belong" to the Anglican Communion? No not, really. Do they relate to our project? Yes, in fact, our editors have done most of the work on those archbishops thus far. Much more needs to be done. Articles concerned with Pre-Reformation Christianity in Britian and Ireland are typicaly not of high importance to our project, but they are still of some importance.

If seeing our project's banner on "your" Book of Kells talk page is totaly offensive to you, then, in the spirit of peace, remove it. I just think that doing so would be very petty: WP:OWN. I am sure your removal was done in good faith. My restoration was done as well as outlined above. -- SECisek 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You mistake my concerns - the "claim" I meant was purely in WP project terms, as you had (then) expressed the reason for the addition as being TCD's ownership. I have no objection to all the ABCs being tagged, although I think saints with no special English connection should be covered by WP:Saints, not tagged by every denomination that celebrates them (Lets see: RC, Anglican, Lutheranism, EO, Methodism(?) - at least 4). As with many articles, there are about twenty projects who could also add their tags to the Kells page; it just adds to banner-cruft. You have to ask not: what does the page do for the project? but: what can the project do for the page? The answer in your case is not obvious. It is a member of WP books, & WP VA, which, apart from WP Ireland, are certainly the most obvious. I would be just as ready to remove a WP Catholicism tag. It is not a case of WP:OWN on my part - I've hardly edited the page except to link & revert vandals. The fact that it is an FA, an aspect of WP you appear to be concerned with from your talk page, & that none of the many comparable articles on Insular MS have been tagged (or say The Benedictional of Saint Aethelwold) , also struck me as maybe not coincidental. When Andy Warhol's Soupcans went FA, a whole lot of US city projects with examples in the local museum piled in, until reverted. So I will revert, but I hope you understand this is nothing to do with taking any position on the relationship between Anglicanism & the church within which the book was created etc. Johnbod 11:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not express any "ownership" of TCD. "Ownership" is a bad thing. I said I hoped adding the Book of Kells article to our project would encourage further project intrest in TCD.

Banner-cruft? I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy against so-called banner-cruft. If you are worried about so-called bannercruft, We should just nest the lot of them, as is done wherever several project wish to add an article. Your intrest in the integrity of a talk page strikes me as bizarre.

I will tell you in no uncertain terms that you are wrong to suggest that the tagging of an article by a project, such as "Saints", should preclude other groups from alerting their editors to an article by way of a Wikiproject tag. This is nothing more then WP:OWN:

An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it.

This was already discussed elsewhere and consensus was in favor of multiple tags: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject#Curious Question About Removing WikiProject Tags

"Broadly speaking, the consensus (or gentleman's agreement among WikiProjects, really) has been: Properly-placed WikiProject tags are never removed; the only time they get taken off is if the article is deleted/merged/redirected/etc., or if it's not in scope of the project in the first place. It's perfectly normal for articles to have multiple WikiProject tags."

What is properly-place and who decides? Keep in mind that each project defines its own scope. Ours is Anglicanism, which includes the Church of Ireland. By removing our banner, what you have told me is that editors intrested in the of Church of Ireland are not to be alerted to, or invited to edit, an article about an historic Bible created in Ireland. I don't why you think that is so, or why you feel you should be able to make that call.

I was going to just let this go, but now I can see other editors dropping our tag from St. Augustine of Canterbury and Henry VIII, telling us that other projects have it in hand, and they are not withing the scope of our project. I am not spoiling for an argument, but you will have to make a better case then telling me that WP books, & WP VA have it hand and that is that. I hope you will yield to consensus, because I think we would both agree that putting an NPOV tag on a talk page would be down right silly. -- SECisek 19:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism importance ratings

I'll add importance rankings as I can, based on my own frankly limited knowledge of the subject. I expect there will be a lot of cases where I won't be very sure of them myself, though, so in those cases (generally in the "mid"-"low" range), I may opt not to put myself in a position of making a potentially troublesome mistake. John Carter 16:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunstan review

Please see Talk:Dunstan/Comments. In short, article looks very good, but a few concerns should be addressed. John Carter 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I cleaned up all the disambiguation links, fixed the ISBN numbers, and formatted the blockquotes. Danny 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work on Dunstan, btw! Danny

Done, and a bunch of redirects fixed - I think I got them all. Popups is a useful tool for tracking those down, if you don't have it. Good luck with the FA & GA submissions! Carre 08:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunstan

Hello. If you send me an email I can send you back a cut&paste of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's Dunstan article. Worth a read. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review for Dunstan

Thanks for the feedback; I noticed you had addressed the review issues (not that there was much to do!), but since stability is a GA pass criteria I'm holding off on the re-review whilst it is currently undergoing editing. I'll keep checking back, and complete the GA process once it looks like things have settled down again ;) EyeSerene^TALK 16:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It must be the pretty GA userbox ;) I had noticed your nom for Peter of Bruys was next on the list, so as we're almost finished here I'll head in that direction next. EyeSerene^TALK 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

GA pass for Dunstan

Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I now have no hesitation in passing Dunstan as a Good Article, and have updated the templates on the article talk page. You may wish to copy the following template: {{User Good Article|Dunstan}} and paste it to somewhere suitable (such as your user page).

It will produce the following userbox

This user helped promote Dunstan to good article status.

and add you to the category "Good Article contributors". I realise you've already got a few under your belt, but I always like to leave one anyway ;) Well done!

Apologies for the wait - I've been unexpectedly busy in RL recently... I noticed someone else had rambled their way over to Peter of Bruys in the meantime anyway, so no harm done ;) EyeSerene^TALK 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It's been a pleasure working with you too - I look forward to running across your wiki-presence again. All the best! EyeSerene^TALK 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Denomination Infobox

I've had far too many arguments with pigheaded Wikipedians who refuse to let other people edit their pages to want to argue this with you. In my opinion, the denomination infobox brings some uniformity and helps to immediately clarify a confusing issue (denominational lineage). I can understand disagreeing with who the "founder" of a church is - in which case, you should just remove the founder box from the infobox. I see nothing objectionable with the rest of the box, and I think it's very rude to revert edits when people are just trying to help.

Adam_sk 12:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not exactly assuming good faith here. I posted a number of objections concerning a number of lines on the "proposed" info box and "denominational lineage" was one such problem. None of the pages in question are "my pages" - I have no pages. As for being pigheaded, I have been PLEADING for help with the Cranmer and Dunstan articles, which I have put a GOOD deal of work into and still would never call "my own." Without addressing any of the concerns raised by me or subsequently by others, you simply called me "rude". I don't want to "argue" about this either, but if you wish to discuss it, as I invited you to, feel free to state your position here or on the relavent talk pages. -- SECisek 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Cranmer

Hi,

Just been reading the Thomas Cranmer article (only due to coming across him in a CJ Sansom book set in the period). I noticed in the edit history that much of the work is yours, and very good it is too - I wish you luck on getting it to FA! Anyway, the point of this message - I noticed a minor thing in the article that seems out of place, namely the spelling of "favor" in the lead. From your user page, I understand that you are American, and as such that is the spelling you would typically use, but since the article is about an English subject, perhaps the British spelling "favour" would be more in keeping? The only other one I spotted like that was "judgment", although Chambers allows that, but prefers "judgement". I didn't edit it, because as I say, you've obviously spent a huge amount of time and effort on the article, and I certainly don't want to get into any edit wars on en-US vs en-GB spellings... just something you may like to consider, given the subject matter. Cheers. Carre 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

British spellings would be better for that article given the subject, but you are correct, I am not in a position to add them all. I have no preference and would defer in ALL articles to British spellings as they are more used world-wide. Feel free to make the changes you suggested or any others you think will improve the article. No edit war here, I promise! -- SECisek 07:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cramner

I would not strikethrough comments you have dealt with (or think you have); it is unneccessary, especially if you are using ticks, and makes it hard for new reviewers to follow what had been done. Johnbod 12:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is for reviewing (as opposed in theory to the articles themselves) there are no agreed standards. At least you are accumulating a store of contradictoryb advice you can refer to in future! Personally I think recent FA's (not old ones necessarily) are more-or-less a gold standard, whilst GA status is near meaningless. But there we go. Johnbod 21:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cranmer copy edit

I'm done! See the article's talk page for details. Galena11 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gone through the copy edit. I don't think I've mucked up the history. There are still a few things Galena11 left that I couldn't answer. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 06:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit, misleading summary

You should not, as you have done at Anglican terminology, mark as 'minor edit' any substantial removal of material. That is not minor editing. Help:Minor edit notes that in a minor edit only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. Your usage is very far from conforming to that definition. I am also very much concerned that, in cases that used to be covered at that page, the Anglicanism page does not reproduce the same content at all, despite your edit summary (which I find less than helpful). Charles Matthews 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The flag was thrown in error as it is my default. Clearly the completion of a merge is not a minor edit. All terms previously discussed on the Anglican terminology have been added to the Anglicanism page and most have been expanded as well. The merger was proposed on the talkpage, where it recieved encouragement with no detractors, and I carried it out in due course. Most definitions that were on the page were only a few word[ long and the article, such as it was, violated WP:NOT#MIRROR:

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not...Mere collections of internal links.

Which is what the article was. If you feel the text in the Anglicanism article needs to be imporved, by all means, edit away. I look forward to your constructive input on this project. -- SECisek 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

--Edit conflict--

Further, you removed content from that page, and then asked for its speedy deletion, citing lack of content. Not calculated to make you friends, that. The fact is that a deletion would have left 50+ pages with a redlink. Charles Matthews 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It needed a redirect, not a speedy delete. My mistake was caught and the problem was solved. It was the first time I attempted anything like that and I would ask you to back off and not bite the newcomers like me. Your total lack of consideration of my good faith has not won you any friends in my book, either. -- SECisek

I would suggest it is a bad idea to have the "minor edit" flag as default, unless you are the sort of editor who mostly corrects simple spelling mistakes etc, which you are not. It is easy to annoy people by mistakenly flagging edits as minor; but they never mind the other way round. Johnbod 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. 49 out of your last 50 edits are marked as 'minor', and they are mostly not minor. Charles Matthews 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang on there. I checked your edits first: you are not exactly a newcomer. Pointing out the wording on what a minor edit is, and is not, is actually precisely what is required by the situation. Don't quote WP:AGF to deflect criticism that does not involve good faith at all. Charles Matthews 21:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have edited for less than two months, I had never completed a merge before, so I would say I am a newcomer. It was an honest mistake made in good faith. Exactly WHAT nefarious ends are you suggesting I was trying to bring about by merging a list of links into the prose of an article? The suggestion was floated over 10 days ago and I felt the time was right. Another user encouraged me to be bold. I changed my default so I won't forget to turn off the minor edit flag again, but I don't understand your nasty tone on my talk page over a simple error. -- SECisek 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually your tone is combative, and you seem to feel a need to have an argument about this in two places at once. If you are considering a merge, you are supposed to put a merge notice up, on both pages preferably. Of those ten days or so, I have spent most of the time in Taiwan. See Help:Merging and moving pages for basics on how to merge. This or any other pages on merging would make clear that the idea is to redirect one of the pages while preserving the whole content. Charles Matthews 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for all my short falls, hopefully I will improve in time. Thank you for the heads up and I would like to make it quite clear that I am not being combative. I am not even sure what we are going around about, other then your whipping me for not knowing the merge procedure and having the minor edit flag thrown. Really, why must you be so negative? -- SECisek 22:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC

As you can see from this objection to an article I have submitted to FAC, the process is often difficult. Awadewit | talk 03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect it to be easy. Again, I wish you the best of luck. -- SECisek 21:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations in the Lead

Hi Secisek. You may be amazed at the random interpretations regarding GA and FA policy. I just noticed a minute ago that Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)#Failed GA GA failed because - in part- they had in-line citaions in the lead. To quote:"Citations in lead are unnecessary". Wikipedia and its "policy makers" are out to make fools of us all. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's crazy. I would never fail a GA due to that! Oh well. The Rambling Man 08:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Cranmer has been getting run in circles at FAC for a month, with each editor having me undo the work of the last. As of now there is one support, one oppose (who contradict each other's reasoning), and one conditional oppose, pending a "professional" copy edit. I will try to see Cranmer through, but I am resolved to only work on GA articles from here on out as the process is more personal. -- SECisek 11:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism

I was trying to clear up the page for people who don't know that Anglican means English. I also highly doubt most people outside of the UK know who the see of Canterbury is. Calibas 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bishop of Rome

Perhaps wrongly, I interpreted Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Titles ["The formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun: “Hirohito was Emperor of Japan” and “Louis XVI was King of France” (where King of France is a title)"] as supporting "Bishop of Rome". ("A bishop of Rome" would obviously be a different case: it might mean one of several, perhaps even one of the auxiliary bishops; and so it might be a mere description, not a title.)

Have you noticed that David Underdown, who obviously knows more about the matter than I do, has added a comment to what you put on my Talk page? Lima 11:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes. Not for "king", "duke" etc. in isolation, where the word is merely a common noun, but for "King of England", "Duke of Plaza Toro", "President of the United States" etc., which are titles. But perhaps not everyone would agree. Lima 12:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism

Thanks for the heads up to the project, I'll have to wait and see on formally joining. I'm mainly more of a medievalist by hobby, so sometime around 1500 or so (maybe 1547, I kinda like Great Harry) I'll stop working on the Archbishops of Canterbury and start on the Archbishops of York, then on to the others as they need it. I'm just not that interested in Anglican history past say Elizabeth, and other than a few specialized areas of more modern history, everything past the Thirty Years War leaves me pretty cold. So it'd feel a bit odd formally joining a WikiProject on Anglicanism, since I'm not an Episcopalian either. It's been fun though, always good to go play with dead clergymen! Ealdgyth | Talk 01:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Hold expired

You put the GA nominee Archbishop of Novgorod on hold on August 7; it's now well past 7 days. Could you either pass or fail the article in accordance with the instructions at WP:GAC and WP:WIAGA. Thanks! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

They never did any work on it. I failed it. -- SECisek 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hey, I saw you made that handy little Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury thingie I've been plastering all over pages. Any chance of getting one for the Archbishops of York and a generic Archbishop and Bishop one? I'd be in your debt forever (well, at least until next week...) Ealdgyth | Talk 20:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh Yeah!!! I would be in your debt for doing it! Also, I see you saw the "saint" attachment box. You can use that if needed with the York box. -- SECisek 20:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Both look good. So off I go to slap some boxes on northerners.... whee! Ealdgyth | Talk 21:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

Reviewed now, please see my comments on the talk page. It's on hold so you have seven days to address my concerns. Cheers! The Rambling Man 12:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I noted your concern that several of your articles have been ignored at WP:GAC so I'll do my best to attend to the oldest ones. Wouldn't want you to feel left out! I only chose St Edmunds because I live near his patch... The Rambling Man 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot thank you enough. Your suggestions were wonderful and I have attended to them. Please advise. Thank you again. -- SECisek 13:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I've added a few more comments so I hope that shortly we can promote good old St Ed. The Rambling Man 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. I'll be reviewing at least one of your other GA drives in the very near future and look forward to working with you to getting it to GA. Well done on St Ed, he deserves your efforts! The Rambling Man 21:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

St Edmund

congratulations to you as well for the GA. Especially for the acceleration in getting the article to where it is now. Things will I hope be added as they come to light, and thanks for the invite, I will look at Edward and others and if I find something will definitely contact you. --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Edmund etc

Hey, I've left further comments for you at Claudius and it seems that Edmund is attracting a new editor - you may wish to keep tabs on the article since several large changes have already taken place since I made it a GA. All the best. The Rambling Man 08:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that one of our anon editors is back, may have been on holiday or something. I am going to leave it for a while (as recommended for trolls) and then will return. Yours --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 10:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article now. The POV tag added will stay as long as it's discussed with civility on the talk page! Hope we can conclude this with the anon amicably. The Rambling Man 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your points within the statement. A good step forward, though I must say (Mr. Negative here!) I believe for reasons, some beyond my understanding, as soon as the edit protect is removed our anon(s) will be back. There is an agenda here well beyond the historical man. Is it possible to edit up to a standard (e.g. add most of the points you raised, have it reviewed as accurate by say the Saints Portal and then lock the thing. Otherwise I think we could be back here again, though I would be pleased to be proved very wrong. By the way is Edward like this!! --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

many thanks for the support, we had our differences but knowledge and information were the link in both our actions. the name bit is ... I am going to let it rest for quite sometime then return to see what improvements there are. I do believe that the other editors may have begun to get an understanding about the reasoning and continual development of the article, then it is all blown away. Maybe we will meet over another article. Yours --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Claudius

Done, GA now, congratulations on your hard work. The Rambling Man 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And you'll be glad to hear I've reviewed Peter of Bruys as well, and as normal, comments on the talk page. Cheers! The Rambling Man 16:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You finished tinkering? Let me know when you want me to re-look... The Rambling Man 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Two or three more points await. All good. The Rambling Man 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another GA and your backlog is cleared. Well done. It's been a pleasure. The Rambling Man 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

York

Hm, looking at the little box at the bottom of York, I'm noticing that it should probably be updated to include the elected-but-not-consecrated-Archbishops that I just added into the list of Archbishops. No clue how to do that though, i'm still a baby at Wiki. Today I just managed to conquer the scariness that is disambiguation, so I'm all done for my new skills for the day. Any chance you could update the bottom box? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, are there many? Do we want do that? Would they have "Archbishop of York" listed in their bio? I can do it, but I want to make sure it will not be contested. I don't feel like doing tonight, anyhow. ;-) -- SECisek 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They are included in the Archbishop of Canterbury, and they all list in their article that they were elected/nominated to York, but were not consecrated (for whatever reason). Up to you, I just noticed that Canterbury does theirs that way. It'd be great if you could do it, but if you don't think it should be done, that's cool also. And as for working on the York list, I'd be happy to split it that way, when we both have time. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If Canterbury lists people who were elected but didn't take their see, I'll be happy to add them in tomorrow or so. I just wanted to make sure we had a leg to stand before we did something that could be seen as controversial. Let me know about the York list sometime! -- SECisek 00:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

(blushes) Thanks! And thanks again for the infoboxes and the additions to the template for the ABoYs, I am scared of touching templates for fear of breaking them! Ealdgyth | Talk 00:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to "Do these look familiar?"

Hi, I'm not an administrator, and I don't have the ability to do IP checks. I just sometimes notice obvious sock puppets and report them. If you have a strong suspicion about possible sock puppets, list all the associated accounts/IPs at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check, and if your suspicions are confirmed by an administrator, you can report the individual at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Spylab 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

TEC

Your dead cat edit!!! ROTFL. I like it. Don't let the Wikinuts get you down. Best to stick to constructive editing while wondering what planet some editors inhabit. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard Enraght

Thanks for your kind and encouraging comments; I have gone as far as I can, with the Richard Enraght article, it has been quite difficult as there are no published biographies, articles or definitive works on Fr Enraght’s life. He is mentioned in a variety of books, pamphlets and newspapers etc but in only a very brief way. It has been quite a task to find all these bits and pieces and put them together for an article. I originally only undertook this research for my local Church after discovering he was once a parish priest of ours in the 1870's and wanted this “un-sung hero” of the Anglican Church to be more widely known. The article probably needs the skill of an editor like yourself, to get the article into a better shape. Some of the quotes I have used from Fr Enraght’s own writings may be too long for the article? Regards Dave daveportslade 12:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

SECisek, Just a thought, I could add ‘early life section’ to the article, but this would be very limited indeed, and based only on the ‘timeline’ I have already shown further down the page and using any useful information (if there is any?) from his two 1870’s pamphlets written in Sheffield.I can find no actual documents or publications that records his early life, apart from the 'timeline' taken from Crockfords Directory. Also the following maybe or may not be relevant? :- I know that after his death his son became an Anglo-Catholic priest in his Fathers tradition, and his daughter married the Vicar of Walsingham (one of the most important places of pilgrimage in England to the Anglo-Catholics) Your opinion please,SECisek, Regards Dave daveportslade 08:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear SECisek, Since writing the above messages, I have added a basic “early life” as best I can, and moved texts and sections of the article into a more correct chronological order, should I mention anything about Fr Enraght’s children who went on to take posts within the Anglican Church ?, Regards Dave daveportslade 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Evening SECisek, I think I have gone as far I can with the Richard Enraght article and used up the research I have carried out over the past few years, As I mentioned earlier, there are no books or even articles devoted to Richard Enraght just bits and pieces of information. If any future information on Richard Enraght comes to light, it is likely to come from the opposite end of England from where I live, probably from Victorian newspapers in the areas he once lived. My intentions in putting this article on wikipedia, was to put Richard Enraght “back on the Church map” as in his time he was known in the Anglican Church on both sides of the Atlantic, but faded from history. So if you see anyway to improve the article, please do, as I am sure you will do it in good faith, Regards Dave daveportslade 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now "pruned" some parts of article, but would like to keep 1880 poster, I could (do not really want to) delete Enraght's publcations list and put outside links to his publications in the reference list instead ?, can you give me an idea how much of the total article should be pruned ?, dave dave-portslade 12:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

hello SECisek, I have looked at the Enraght publications section, I do not think I can write about each one of his pamphlets, and take text from other parts of the article to explain its historical background without weakening the other sections. And end up with a “mini” Enraght article within the main article. Mentioning the publications (as they are now) in each of the Parishes as he wrote them shows Revd Enraght gradually revealing his commitment to the catholic cause without fear, while building up the evidence for his opponents to use against him. I could delete the “Enraght Publications” section (if article in total still needs reducing in size) and integrate his publications (where many are already in the “notes/citation” section and his publications not quoted in the article can go into “references” section or “further reading” section, your advice please.dave-portslade 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Battles

You may — or may not — be amused by this piece of Wiki satire —How to win an argument — especially in light of some weird editing battles. Hopefully you haven't become another casualty. I am working on the Anglicanism article behind the scenes. Congratulations on keeping Thomas Cranmer in the eyes of the FA reviewers. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Edward the Martyr

Hello! I'm looking for some help with Edward the Martyr, in particular with his afterlife as a saint and his cult. Since he's a contemporary of Dunstan, I'm hoping you have some information on this side of things. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work! I think I could redo the section on his death a little. It would be nice to work in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle's "no worse deed" condemnation, which is pretty much unprecendented stuff, and say a bit about the growth of the story. Thanks for your help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

GA

Hey, thanks for your note. I'd love to review the article and help push it to GA. It should be noted that by no means am I a subject matter expert and I'll be reviewing it purely on the merits of becoming a GA. In the past I've been bitten by people who think articles have inadequate detail, I'm not sure GA deals with this well if reviews are conducted by non-experts. However, what I could offer is my advice on the current content as an interested observer - I presume that would help? So maybe I'll give comments but not take up the GA review. What do you think? The Rambling Man 20:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Tell you what, I'll provide as many comments as I can, and if, after a few read-throughs, I feel confident that I can pass it, then I'll take it on as a GA. How's about that? The Rambling Man 20:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

As discussed, I've made some comments as opposed to conducting a full-on GA review. I've left them on the talk page. If push comes to shove and you get no interest then let me know and I'll stick my neck out and do the GA review too! All the best. The Rambling Man 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edward pic

You should also give the source of the picture. Also, it is better to upload to Commons - there is no issue with copyright on something this age, and pictures can be categorised much better. Johnbod 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that bad - you have to log on again (I use same name & pw). All old 2-D art can go on the "paintings" licence from the drop down menu. The categories take longer, & are not always what you expect, but they do mean people are more likely to find the picture. Johnbod 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Reformation Bishops of England

They are almost all up as stubs. There are a few that were on the already existant lists on Wikipedia that I could not find any mention of in my sources at all. I haven't given up on them, but will require more digging to find them. I'm now trying to go through and expand the stubs as much as possible, but anything anyone wants to add is great! Should be out of town for most of next week, so won't have a chance to start working on the lists themselves until I get back, and it might be October before I get enough free time. oh! The bishops are cross checked against the lists of Lord Chancellors, Lord Treasurers, and Lord Privy Seals so it should be all internally consistant, except for a few pending merges. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

TEC

I'm will try to do the history pre-revolution before tomorrw. Would you anticipate objections if we combined the Anglican Church of Canada and the TEC's histories into one article prior to 1775? Unfortunately, I do and am copying the same info into both articles even though they are the same...have to be! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishop of Rome

You say that the League of Copy Editors informed you that, unless it precedes a proper name, "pope", "bishop", "king", et al. are to be lower case. Apart from a) standing alone, and b) preceding a proper name ("Emperor Secisek"), there is c) being part of a proper name - I find it hard to believe that your League of Copy Editors would say that "the duke of Plaza Toro" and "the president of the United States" are the correct forms. Lima 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reference is too complicated for me to understand. All I find is the phrase "Cranmer was the archbishop of Canterbury during the reigns of the English kings ..." To my mind this phrase is not parallel to "the Archbishop of Canterbury is the point of reference for the Anglican Communion": in the latter case "Archbishop of Canterbury" is what I would consider to be a proper name or title, just as much as "Anglican Communion"; in the former "the archbishop of Canterbury during ..." is perhaps a description rather than a proper name or title. I suppose you could write "the presidents of the United States in the first half of the twentieth century used to ..."; but I just cannot believe that your League of Copy Editors would write: "Please stand for the president of the United States." Can you ask them? Lima 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually one I'm really confused now. User:Cricketgirl actually seems to have capped up various ecclesiastical titles e.g. Archdeacon of Exeter, Archbishop of Canterbury, although the instance in the lead has been missed. I can't find wehre someone has chagne dit the other way. David Underdown 15:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Thanks for reverting that edit at Bath Abbey. Can I suggest that you start using Twinkle? It is an easy-to-use, powerful tool which any registered user can use. Be warned, it won't work with Internet Exploder.--Vox Humana 8' 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishops' Bible

Got your query - are you talking about the Bishops' Bible article, or the relevant section in the AKJV article? My main information comes from David Daniell and Christopher Hill - and with reference to Scrivener. I have also been much impressed by the current exhibition at the re-opened Rylands Library, but I suppose that ought to be discounted as original research? TomHennell 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with citation templates - I tend just to put the author and publication date in brackets in the text. There seem to be a lot of Wikipedia options; but if you can point me to the particular citation method you think appropriate for this purpose, I would be happy to oblige TomHennell 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your assessment of Bath Abbey

Hi. I have heavily reworked the citations, so you may want to have another look.--Vox Humana 8' 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Ptolemy Caesarion/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! --Thw1309 11:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anglican

I'm an Anglican and a member of the Church of Ireland. How do I get a box to indicate this on my user page, please? Also how do I join the Anglican Communion Wiki-project? Best wishes. Millbanks 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Anglicans

Secisek, did you somehow manage to stray seriously off course into the dreaded Sydney Diocese? If I can be so rude as to ask, wtf were you thinking of? Amandajm 12:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was all in good fun! We used to have several Anglo Catholic clergy in Sydney but dear old Father Austin went to God, one of them retired, one moved to the Abbey, one moved to Woop Woop and the other is clinging on by the skin of his teeth. If you haven't done so, check out the Anglican Diocese of Sydney website. It should be called Sydney Anglicans or Sydney Evangelicals. It's quite alarming! And it is checked everyday by Anglican Media[1] to make sure that the rebels don't slant things. Just look, but whatever you do, don't touch! No-one who has a tolerance for brocade, incense and genuflection could possible understand! Amandajm 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, former archbishop of Canterbury. Now deposed

I jumped the gun on your comment and deleted archbishop references from the Adrian article not realizing you were taking the correct route and notifying everyone. I am sure you had a smoother transition planned. In the meantime, I've broken the succession links and not repaired them. Student7 12:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted and we will see what the experts here have to say. There is one editor who is sharp as a tack about post-Roman, pre-Reformation bishops in England. -- SECisek 14:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See Catholic Encyclopedia 1910. Not necessarily the final word here, but sounds credible. I will defer to your judgement having already disrupted a chain once. Student7 17:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, having looked into it, I tend to side with you, he should be pulled. I will defer to our editors who specialize on this subject. I'll fact tag it and we will wait for consensus. -- SECisek 13:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. I'm out in Wyoming, doing the annual 'visit the elk rut and take tons of pictures' trip, and won't be back home to the reference books for probably another week at the very least. It's been a very productive trip so far, even if it is snowing outside my hotel room right now. I favor removing him from the list, and in fact will be bold right now and go fix the sucession links. I generally figure that folks that got elected but never consecrated for one reason or another should be on the lists. Keep in mind, I'm not a big expert on Anglo-Saxon time frames, I am much more comfortable in Anglo-Norman and Angevin issues, up to Reformation, so I can't adequately evaluate the evidence one way or another, much less have the scholarly works to investigate further. I have Bede and that's about it for Anglo-Saxon times before Alfred. I rely heavily on PASE, which I figure is a good source for whether or not the person held an office. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois 2007 Census

The WikiProject Illinois 2007 membership census has concluded. If you did not add your name during the last week, you were declared "inactive" in the project, your name is still listed at The Participants Page. You can change your status by replacing {{member inactive}} with {{active}} in the table. Any members should also feel free to fill in any missing details on the list below.

IvoShandor 11:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 02:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding an Anglicanism project "census"

I got your note about checking who's active and who's not - sort of a Wiki Santa - and I've more or less have done that. I went to every "participant's" talk page and left them the COTM tag - including your page. This should keep everyone up to date on the COTM. While at each page, I checked the editors editing history. Most are active but few actively edit Anglican articles. I know some projects like to divide the participant lists into active and inactive but I see little point. My opinion: as this is a hobby, all editors are free to put what ever they wish into their hobby. The various editors do cover a lot of areas within Anglicanism, though. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your list is quite comprehensive. I would put the active editors as Carolynparrishfan, David Underdown, Myopic Bookworm, Roger Arguile, InkQuill, Angr, John Carter, clariosophic, Millbanks, and you. Fishhead64 seems not to edit Anglican articles at all now. Other active participants include Neddyseagoon, Bhuck, Badbilltucker, Rockhopper10r, Sarum blue, Bpmullins, Agendum, Dhodges and Garzo. I've been quite evangelical too and invited a number of editors who actively edit Anglican pages to join the project. These include Masalai, Frederick jones, Chelseaboy, W.E.Ward.III‎, Anglicanus‎, Dabbler and Mr/Ms IP editor. The editor who is both active and appears to have a great deal of knowledge is User:Garzo. Quite a few of the editors are active but rarely edit Anglican articles. A number of the editors are one-edit-a-month types or edit only during certain seasons (farmers?). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also invited TSP (who seems to be related to a bishop), John Kenney, Adam sk, and Str1977: all of whom have contributed quite a bit to Anglican articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

invitation to wikiproject Anglican

Hi Secisek, thank you for your kind invitation to join the Wikiproject. I will have a look at it. I'm afraid I don't yet have an immense amount of expertise on the subject, but I will try to contribute wherever I can. Tonicthebrown 03:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England

Nice work on clarifying that & finding a source :) - Alison ^❤ 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry: I am not happy either with the style or with the content of the changes you have made.Forgive me: I have not time ot do anything at present, but your changes appear to me to be a bitlumpy in places.and the issue of vesture is more complicated than you say, but, in such an article I think it is unhelpful to give a blow by blow account. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve. We do need a consensus and I am sure that even a Good Article is capable of improvement but one needs to go about it cautiously. There is endless additional material that can be added, but sometimes the editorial knife needs to be wielded. I would like to do it with the BCP, but it simply gets longer. Of course it can: there are so many books and so much material on any subject. But this is mere scirmishing: I shall come up with some concrete suggestions on Elizabeth for your consideration. Roger Arguile 12:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I fear that while it may be wrong to use OR; there is a problem with merely transferring info. from one article to another. I am not willing to correct the main article from which you moved the information, but the ancient scholarly error of publishing errors by not going back to sources but repeating tertiary material is apparent. It is full of dubious statements and misleading assertions. My short version just about covered the ground but if we are into elongating everything it had better to right.Roger Arguile 08:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In-line citaton kludge

It seemed to work? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a pest but I've checked the diff and it seemed to work? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the image. I do see. Thanks. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Book of Common Prayer#In-line citations for a proposal of mine. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois Post Census Report

The WikiProject Illinois Newsletter (Beta) "Post Census Report" Vol. I, No. 1, Issue 1, October 2007 If you would like to delete this message, the original is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois/Newsletter/Post Census Report

Census results On October 4, 2007 WikiProject Illinois embarked on a membership census. The census was the project's first since its establishment on September 24, 2005. Due to the nature of the wiki, and the two years that had passed, it seemed likely that many of the project's older members were no longer active. The project page had grown stagnant and the census provided an opportunity to see who was still around, slaving away in their own corner of the encylopedia, unknown to the rest of the Illinois editing world. Well, now, the tabulation is complete, and after a notice at the Community Portal, we have gained a couple new members amongst the cluster of project veterans who returned to sign up. Of the 55 members listed on the project membership list on October 4, 26 editors returned to the list to "resign up," thus, confirming their current activity within project areas. If you received this message, you were one of those editors. The List of Participants has now been updated to reflect the results of this membership survey, with members who failed to respond highlighted as "inactive." Now, as a group of editors, we have a core list of individuals, that will hopefully grow in size as the project strives to become a better organized central collaboration space for editors working on Illinois related topics. What's next? The big question, where does the project go from here? Well there are a few proposals being floated at this project page. Little discussion has occurred thus far, and participation would be key to all of them. Some ideas include: An A-class review system, under the WP:ILLINOIS banner, to serve the Illinois and Chicago WikiProjects. A project newsletter, of which this is a beta version. Project restructuring, to include regional and specific discipline task forces. A monthly project collaboration to grow out of our currently idle collaboration division.

From the Editors Welcome new members: Laleena, Omnedon and Rickvaughn Interested in helping building and developing a project newsletter? See, start and join in on the proposal discussion. The table is back up at the List of Participants and it has several blanks you can fill in if you have not done so already. They are: where you are originally from, where you live, the project areas you work in, your join date, and now, your status (which has been filled in for you). News & Notes Don't forget to add the project page to your watchlist so you can monitor the project talk page for relevant discussion. As a note: WP:ILLINOIS is the project page shortcut and WT:ILLINOIS is the project talk page shortcut. Kranar drogin essentially single-handedly cleared out the massive backlog in Category:Unassessed WikiProject Illinois articles, feel free to sprinkle his page with barnstars and thank yous, he deserves it. Everyone can help keep it cleared out by checking it for unassessed articles. For more information see the Assessment division of the project, though it isn't as project specific as it should be, it has enough info to give assessors an idea of what to do. Be aware that classes A, GA and FA can only be imposed by outside review processes. The AlexNewArtBot dumps new Illinois related articles on this page periodically. You can help monitor new material by watchlisting the page, and combing new Illinois articles for clean up, referencing and other needed editing work. Contributors to this Issue IvoShandor

IvoShandor 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

David Standish Ball

Thanks for your update and edits to this one. Bearian 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican portal

I noticed on the Christianity page that the Anglican portal template didn't seem to work. I read somewhere on Wikipedia in one of the technical articles that templates within templates are buggy. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't. I'm pointing this out so you don't drive yourself crazy trying to make them work. See Help:A quick guide to templates#Can I use a template within a template? which I actually don't understand :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Which page? Seems to work for me. Another editor made a small tweak to it. Perhaps that fixed the problem. -- SECisek 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the Christianity page and when I checked the history noticed that you had been the last contributor. In that particular edit summary you had noted " cant make this work noww" which sounded like the voice of frusteration :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The template was being placed next to another one horiz. instead of vert. - I moved it to a dfifferent spot. Somebody has probably removed by now anyway, though it really should be there somewhere. -- SECisek 18:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Wilson (bishop)

Excellent work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything else on him, though I'll have a look around. I don't think "a saintly figure" in Paragraph 1 will survive - too POV for the lede. We could also do with being able to cite P1 & P3, as they predated the DNB injection. Good luck with the GA. If you want to do more of the same, Cornelius Burges is another relatively new input from DNB. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found a larger image for the infobox, and bumped your image off the page. Feel free to revert or readd your image elsewhere. I'll tip you off to new Reverends as I add them from DNB. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it needs some work on the prose. The lede is very choppy with a lot of very short sentences, with some of them look like they came from the 1911 EB, that very Victorian purple prose! REALLY needs a few other sources, is he in the Fasti at British History Online? Oh, yeah he is... here British History Online Bishops of Sodor and Man. Use that for all the basic biographical information, it'll make the sources bigger, and give you another source. I may have some stuff on my shelves also, I'll check when I get home. I'm on the road tonight and tomorrow for turkey day, but I'll try to look at it when i get home. I think it's a good start, but relying on two sources, one of them from 1900 is going to look a bit fishy to some. On the subject of the bishops, I've got some more books coming in, but we'll be gone from the middle of December and only intermittantly in internet range until the second week of Jan, so progress is going to pretty much stop over the holidays. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Edmund Blacket

Hi, Secisek!

If you feel game to venture into Sydney territory again (I've probably scared you away forever) take a look at what I've been working on.... Amandajm 13:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

James Blair (Virginia)

I have expanded the missionary section to clarify. I agree with what I perceive as your skepticism, and I am sure you agree with the fallacy in the whole concept. I have written and studied the Powhatan, and they were very spiritual, and included the land and nature, not just people. Too bad Freedom of Religion in Virginia didn't come for another 150 years or so. Mark in Historic Triangle 03:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican template

I may have been confusing - the cathedral image that I meant, and which I removed, was just the little Canterbury one which used to be next to the Anglican Portal text.

I quite like the cathedrals, though arms are important too. Some infoboxes have space for a picture AND some arms, but maybe this is going a little far! A cathedral at the top and the arms at the bottom may work, or vice versa; or just a small set of the arms by the name. Anything which encourages a push to get a good free representation of the arms of all the Anglican churches on to Wikipedia would be a good thing!

My only issue with the top images at the moment is a small spacing problem - the caption (at least in my browser) ends up much further from the image than from the text below. I was just going to have a look at why that was. TSP 15:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Anglican for you

Henry Cooke (minister) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And someone else has stuck a verification tag on it, which pleases me infinitely less. Still. How about John Pordage - he's much more exotic, though shorter and less well written methinks. You might make a better fist of categorising him. What is the modern translation of a "Divine" and a "Mystic"? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, odd chap indeed. John Preston D.D. (1587-1628), English puritan minister of the church, is more straightforward. He should be delivered in the next hour or so. Ah yes. I'm having difficulty with titles for the very many paragraphs. Came across as a bit of a careerist, to me. Maybe 90 minutes, looking at the length. I'll let you know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

John Preston (clergyman) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff; I like the illustrations. Nothing more from me for a week or so; have fun. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed

I'm not a church goer or religous, but if if I met a guy at Rugby school who was internationally famous. ... and I was so inspired that I went and took holy orders, became a Bishop with a sea of millions, founded several national class schools that provided a continuning mission for 150 years, gave the address at the end of the Indian first war of independance, and then got eaten by crocs on official business....and then found out that on the notability rating I'd scored low then I'd be very impressed to meet the people who are of mid importance. What did they have to do? Victuallers 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep this in mind:

Top	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details
Low	Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial

-- SECisek 22:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism is practiced by a very small minority of people in India. His long term effect has been trivial. It IS a great story, but a trivial one for the purpose of our project. If you don't like the assement, join the project and change it. -- SECisek 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Okay, you say it's not MOS, and others run through and say it is... ARGH! I adore Wikipedia, I really do..... (grins) I'll get the singleton dates as I get to them... don't worry about it, they'll get changed eventually. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Waldensians

Not at all, we'll try to keep the article sound and free from sectarian pseudo-history. We could improve the Peter Waldo article. --Leonardo Alves 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Old St Paul's Cathedral

Hi. I think you constructed the info box at this article. What does this mean? In the info box is some sort of code that I'm not familiar with for "Cathedral church established: x604-675x685-961x962-1087x1087-1666" Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. Thanks for the tip. By the way, I noticed that you've entered another brier patch... the not-all-realignment-folks-are-continuing and vice versa quagmire. You may be pleased to know that not all the realignment folks always appreciate this as evidenced by some of the circulating realignment membership stats ...basically lumping any church that has anglican or anglo- in the name and isn't TEC into the fold. I discovered this when I was revising the Anglican realignment article some months ago. I should go back to it but I plan to limit my Anglican work to the Book of Common Prayer for a bit. You are doing an incredibly fanatastic job. You are the new Fishhead64. Please don't burn yourself out like he did. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger Arguile

For the record, such dogmatism about forms of citation demonstrate to me that WP is not sufficiently serious to warrant my spending time on it. You may be right about the expectations; I simply have more important things to do than to suffer from people who regard the exercise as a hobby, removing information that I believed was important. I may reconsider my decision but it seems to me that, huge thought WPs' coverage is, it resigns itself to mediocrity and error if it allows that kind of vandalsim which my contributions have suffered. I do not propose to revisit the article, and have not done so today. If you feel very seriously about this, my telephone number is +44 1328 711788 and my email address arguile@btinternet.com. Otherwise, you may take it that I shall not be taking part in the WP project. Roger Arguile 15:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I regret but understand your verdict. Best, Roger. -- SECisek 20:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Isaac Newton's religious views

Hi, I reviewed the article and wrote my viewpoint on its talk page. I hope you can improve it and reach GA criteria.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You've done good editions recently but whether other wikipedians who have worked on the article agree with you? Can you ask some of them to write their idea on the talk page of the article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Feel free to let me know if you would like any further vandalism to your page. You seemed to find the idea amusing in your edit summaries. I could probably add some gibberish if you wanted to up your vandalism count. ;) John Carter 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Banner placed in error?

I was the one who placed the anglicanismproject banner onto Talk:Ole Peter Petersen. I'm not familiar with the similarities and differences between Methodism and Anglicanism, I applied it because it's on the Methodism talk page. __meco 07:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Anglican COTM

I chose Anglican devotions. I will do the housekeeping with the COTM in a few hours, if you wish. As to your other observation, like a lot of things in life, perseverance wins out: e.g. The Tortoise and the Hare. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Housekeeping done. Anglican devotions is the COTM. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Tyndale's "mistranslations"

See eg Prof Morna Hooker, Tyndale as Translator, lecture, 19 October 2000.

The three most contentious words at stake were Tyndale's translations of presbuteros = "elder", rather than "priest"; ecclesia = "congregation", rather than "church"; and agape = "love", rather than "charity".

Hooker defends all of these translations by Tyndale as more accurate than the more Catholic status-quo derived terms proposed by Thomas More.

It is therefore not sustainable to say that Tyndale introduced "deliberate mistranslations". What he did was introduce what the Catholic church claimed were deliberate mistranslations. But on a modern assessment they are not. Jheald 13:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation added. Oh, and Boyd Clelland's assessments of the quality of the Geneva Bible compared to its contemporaries, which you also removed, were pretty much on the mark too. In many ways it is a rather better translation than the KJV. Jheald 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Geneva often reads a lot better, particularly out loud... Jheald 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Freculphus

Interested would be overstating it, but thanks. The originator is a menace, who fortunately seems to have left. Johnbod 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert of Jumièges

Cool pics! Great work! I'd just been thinking that maybe I should be thinking about asking your advice on him and Stigand and Theobald of Bec on what I needed to do to get them up to GA status... and you read my mind. The one question I have is about the references. Is that one section method of doing the references good or should I be doing something else? I was taught to do the footnotes/bibliography thing, but it doesn't look very good here in Wikipedia, so as a compromise, I've gone with the one big reference for each footnote, but am open to other options, especially if they are easier for other people to collaborate on. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I present for your perusal Ralph d'Escures, which I think I've tweaked to the point where my eyes are crossing. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and incredible work on Stigand and Theobald of Bec, you do great stuff! Ealdgyth | Talk 04:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

no hurry at all, and I'll keep plugging away at it, but I have to admit you do a much better job of picking pictures than I ever would! Ealdgyth | Talk 05:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Next?

Hm.. Hubert Walter's probably the closest of the next ones. I'm pretty much done with all the ABCs before 1300 until I get to the U of I's library for some more references or get some more of the books on order in. I'm plugging away on the ABYs now, but they are still kinda rough around the edges. Look through the ABCs and see which ones you think are good. Oh, and User:Ealdgyth/Bishops ignored tells you which bishops I'm not bothering with right now. I don't personally like Anselm or Thomas Becket, so have no great desire to work on them, honestly. Anselm was a prig. (can you tell I studied William Rufus in college?) Lanfranc's too much metaphysics for me, I never did do well at philosophy. Let me know which ones you think should be polished up next. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I updated User:Ealdgyth/Bishops ignored to show what's probably ready to go also. I tweaked the prose on Hubert Walter tonight, so it's probably the closest. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP

"could be meat puppets" was a generic statement. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pls provide diffs on the SSP page that clearly show you two are from different countries. That'd settle this real quick. I'd already noticed Ed had a block. Also, pls put a link on the SSP page to the RFC. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL. OK, this is definitely the weirdest thing that has happened to me on Wikipedia. A couple of minutes ago I was checking out Talk:Edmund the Martyr to see what's up. Seems like EdChampion • talk • contribs has done something else besides slap NPOV tags because we are all so narrow minded as not to recognize who the patron saint of England is really. All I can say is this: if Secisek and I are sock puppets then a) it is extremely elaborate as our interests only intersect in Anglicanism, and b) Secisek must be a sp of me because I've been a registered user longer. As for meat puppet! We are both members of the same project and both would like to see more Anglicanism articles get to GA and FA, but I don't see any collusion. If anything our substantive editing on Anglican articles is likely perceived to be in opposite directions. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any knowledge on this topic, so I cannot vouch either way as far as the content dispute. I will say that if the article in question has gone to RfC then EdChampion (talk · contribs) will have to abide by the consensus, as will all parties involved in the dispute. Also, please note that consensus isn't necessarily how many people agree with one side, but the merits of the proposal itself. As I said at SSP, I do not see any real reason to believe you and Wassupwestcoast are sock puppets or even meat puppets, other than the fact that you edit similar articles but as you said you are part of the same WikiProject, so that is a very weak case for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry; but I will let the closing administrator of the case decide that. If you do believe that EdChampion is a sock of a banned user I recommend taking it to either SSP or WP:RfCU. Regards. Bmg916^Speak 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Closed the SSP case. It's one of the weakest I've seen. Also suggested to the RFCU people they close that case. Thanks for the inputs. If you think EdChampion is a sock of a blocked user, suggest reporting him to RFCU or SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My Autograph Book

Thank you for signing it! Bmg916^Speak 04:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for listing all the GAs for the Christianity and Saints projects. I do note that your project is a lot more organized than most, and am graterful for your work. I'm going to try to return to the religion-project article lists as soon as I finish the current Mammals/pocket pets group list, as that project was created a long time ago and has only recently gotten separate assessment parameters in the banner. John Carter 22:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration

This is a reminder to go vote for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration. Current nominations:

freenaulij 03:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the picture at Louis the Pious?

Did you even read my edit summary? Srnec 06:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what do the pictures of the denarius have to do with Third civil war? -- SECisek 06:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cathedral Shelter

No, I'm just asking for sources. If I had it out for the article I'd prod tag it or something. Speciate 07:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, now it needs one more source. Speciate 07:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Rennell

I can't agree that he's a stub. Surely a start? --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Frendraught

You might be interested in the list of people at User:Frendraught. He lifted about 500 articles from the DNB into wikipedia ... I'd have thought some should be anglican ministers. I'll go through them slowly ... do you still want me to flag up divines to you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Edward White Benson

What's with the purple background to the image. Tell me we've not decided that Archbishops should have purple cell backgrounds...I appreciate the motive, but I don't think it comes off at all well. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. No, not today, thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that that gets you off the hook. Compare the infoboxes of Edward White Benson and our friend Thomas Wilson (bishop). The use of purple in the second is far more restrained yet arguably far more to the point than the first. And one would hope that there'd be standardisation across archbishop infoboxes. Clearly you're not obliged, &c., but :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd make York & Canterbury look as much like the generic as possible. Well, if I was you I would :) Or merge them unless there's something so special about Y&C --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So if you update them, you have two updates to do, and toolserver will in time update the 200 articles. Were you to replace with a generic box, then yes, that would require 200 edits. I meant ( as I'm sure you know) is there anything special about the format of the Y&C which cannot be accommodated in the generic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. Point them at Edward and Thomas for a compare & contrast. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Christmas and Anglicans

This is a good idea and certainly there is a lot of neat historical info. It might actually result in a better Christmas article than the Christmas article itself. I'm always surprised when a Wikipedia article suddenly goes sideways. I had no idea that there was a pagan faction out there that thinks Christmas is a big whitewash of 'their' festivals. Of course, when Rowan Williams was COTM, I was surprised to learn that some factions insist that Williams is a practicing druid. Then again I didn't know about the strange links St Edmund has with some very strange groups that you brought to everyone's attention (thank you). Right now, I am trying to concentrate my efforts on two music articles and a movie article. I would like to get back to the Book of Common Prayer article. Maybe during Christmas I'll actually work on an Anglican Christmas article. The article idea is good. Wikipedia: the encyclopedia of the unexpected. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've already got Nine Lessons and Carols, what more does an Anglican need? David Underdown (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Secisek (talk · contribs) for using your talk page :-) Anway. Yes, the Nine Lessons and Carols is definitely Anglican. My own fixation is the banning of Christmas which is really all about internal Church of England squabbles of a bloody kind. But there are other aspects of Christmas and the Church of England / Anglicanism that could be included in such an article that might be broadly interesting. Who knows? I'll let it be my Advent ponderable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Architecture, cathedrals

Hi Secisek! I notice you just rated the article on the cathedrals. I just checked out the rating scale, to see what qualified as a "low priority article" . What it said was:-

While still notable, these are highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles) eg: Parish of the Falkland Islands.

No, the architecture of the great medieval cathedrals of England is not an "obscure" subject. And it isn't "highly specialised" either. This is an article about the major works of art produced by the Church in England (as against the Church of England) over a period of about 500 years. They are still serving their purpose. They are the most highly visible evidence of the presence of the church in England. They are loved, visited, studied. Thousands of British school children are taken to them, thousands of French school children traipse through Canterbury Cathedral alone every year because it is accessible from the Chunnel. That is the indication of the significance of these buildings.

The article has the same degree of importance as an article describing St Peter's Basilica, Rome would have. (I haven't checked it but it's probably rated high on the Architecture scale and also high on the religion scale).

Amandajm (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thannk you for your message, and action, annd thank you also for the hard work that you do on the Anglican project. Amandajm (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tags

Yup. They're a pest best relegated to the foot of an article. I think that was your lot on new Anglicans - I went through User:Frendraught's list of DNB articles to spread the load of getting them into better shape (thank you!). I'm going through the rest in alphabetic order. I suspect I'll still be at it in six months or so & will revisit your new Anglicans when their name comes around. I doubt Thomas Wilson will get a look-in from me, though. Still. We turned up another bishop of Sodor & Man in this haul. Oh, there were a bunch of Wesleyan & Presbyterians & catholics, and some not obviously aligned missionaries. Would you like any of them, as I come across them again? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know what to do with them you can send them to me, but they aren't in the scope of our project unless they are Anglicans or Roman Catholics prior to the split with Rome (1534). I don't mind sorting them though, if you aren't sure which project gets them.-- SECisek (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Elias of Dereham

Hi, I have added a link to the ODNB article on Elias of Dereham. If you have a library card from a local library in Britain you should be able to access it for free, if you have any problems doing this, let me know and I can email a copy of the article to you. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting the DNB text into the article now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me just try H3's as the subsections on Elias. See what you think. Revert at will. btw, the edit comments amused: 22:49 "refs? it is a three sentance stub? Get a life." 22:50 "tense". You don't say. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this now, I may have edit conflicted with you. Revert if you like. -- SECisek (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No EC at my end. Looks fine to me. I'm done with it; all yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. -- SECisek (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Grading

No thanks, its really not my thing. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see people edit articles than have them worry about the ratings...I just thought if yer gonna complain, you may as well pitch in. The project has been quite vibrant as of late, with quite a few editors actively editing and interesting debate being stirred up. It is going well. Best, -- SECisek (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Try Captain panda - he'll sort you out! Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Love it! My real hope is to get people to work on these articles, so I would rather have something on the talk page than nothing. If somebody thinks a "low" should be "high", maybe they will also edit it from "start" to "GA". Class is far more useful (and less subjective) then importance, anyhow.

BTW: You may have noticed that adding Book of Kells to the project resulted in a few more eyes keeping the crank edits and vandals off of the article. Again, all is well. -- SECisek (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cathedrals

Thanks again, Secisek! Whereabouts is it? Is it going to show up on the page sometime or what? Amandajm (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I found it! What's next? There's a few directions I could go. A lot of the great Renaissance painters need a bit of help. The monographs on most of England's Cathedral's are pretty bad, and don't require a very strenuous effort, like the two articles I've just written. It's never easy to write a biography when you've got a member of the person's family breathing down your neck, even if they do contribute very useful information!

I once had this rather uncomfortable experience when I was asked (by the person whose responsibility it was) literally at the last minute, to address a group of professionals (at an important gathering about restoration funding) on the subject of a distinguished member of their profession. Anyway, I happened to know a fair bit about this character, and had encouraged one of my sons to do a school project on him. We had dug up a couple of really funny stories. Anyway, everyone enjoyed my anecdotes....and so did I.... until this red-faced man suddenly fronted up with his eyebrows bristling and said "I never heard that about Grandfather! We never knew that!" I was rather glad that I hadn't mention a rather distressing report that I found on the micro-fiche at the State Library!

Anyway, I've been gearing myself up for the big one on the cathedrals for a while, and I'm glad I've done it. There's a companion article on Cathedral architecture of Western Europe which is the first long article I wrote, I think. I also wrote Poor Man's Bible, and Stained glass - British glass, 1811-1918, which I need to rename and move. I would really like to write more about individual stained glass studios, but it's very hard to source pics, and even harder to find out who did what without having access to the records of a thousand parish churches. Often they don't know, so one is reliant on recognising the style. The architectural Historian, Nikolaus Pevsner, wrote about a vast number of churches and tried to identify the firms that made the windows, but although he was brilliant with buildings, he was quite poor at picking the authorship of stained glass. But because he has great credibility, he is quoted on the subject, often in the face of people with a much clearer insight!

Oh, to be in England! I wish I wasn't ten thousand miles away from all those beautiful cathedrals! Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Canterbury Cathedral needs an overhaul. There's that very long section about what Willis things about the 12th century drawing, reconstructing how it was in the 12th century. There is nothing about the cathedral and how it is today. I'll get onto it. Right now I'm tired. I think I'll play minesweeper! Amandajm (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was amused by this

Check out User:CMacMillan's Wikipedia observations. From the weirdness I've seen, I agree. Wikipedia certainly has been eye-opening. (And, Happy Thanksgiving to you!) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Replacing Christianity nav box with portal link

I appreciate the smaller footprint, but the portal is hardly an adequate substitute. Why are you making this substitution en masse and without any apparent discussion? I undid the edit at God in Christianity, where the nav box seemed to provide a more appropriate context for the article than the portal. Wareh (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page and reverted you edit. -- SECisek (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm warming up to this new approach. Using your logic, this applies to Roman Catholicsm as well. What goes around... --71.42.142.238 (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be fine with everyone, but it is on the nav box. The purpose of the nav box is to get around the connected articles with ease. That is the ONLY Roman Catholic article that should have it. Join the discussion at the template talk page. -- SECisek (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved, this one was my mistake. If you would have explained instead of going off to the RCC article in violation of WP:POINT, this could have been avoided. -- SECisek (talk)

I'm also unhappy with the change in templates you did on Christianity and slavery, which template talk page are you talking about? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Found it! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Anglican Project

Thanks very much for the invitation, I'll be glad to contribute in any way I can. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Threat with blocking

I am active as a user on Wikipedia for 2.5 years now and this is the first time someone threatens me with blocking. You are not a neutral person threatening me with this, since you are American and christian. If i want to keep Europe from being abused by christian fundamentalists of the USA, than i have all the right in the world to do that. If that could me get banned from Wikipedia, than it may be so. English is not my first language, so i would be happy to use other languages that are not used by massmurderers in Iraq.Daanschr (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not threatening you as I do not have the ability to block you or anyone else. I was warning you and the anon IP that sticking {{hoax}} tags on religious articles is vandalism and vandalism will get you blocked. I have never been accused of bias due to my country of residence or any personal beliefs. Have a look at the even handedness of my edits. FYI, I am neither a fundalmentalist nor an American in the sense that you used that term. Best - SECisek (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the religiousness of an article says something about appliance of the hoax template anymore than it does on another kind of article. The fact that you seem it appropriate to mention this, means that you are a typically American christian in my view. In my country religions don't get protected from the freedom of speech.Daanschr (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

They don't exempt religion from free speech here either. The issue here is your restoration of the tag. You put the wrong tag on the article. The existance of Jesus Christ may well have been a hoax, but the article itself about what Christians belive is in no way a hoax. Perhaps there is misunderstanding on your part about the terminology as you have said English is not you first language. The tag was removed for a reason - you should not restore it.

You also could be blocked in the future for not following Wikipedia:No personal attacks - you may want to reread that policy before you respond again. Best. -- SECisek (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Hoax template says: It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax. Well, i think some of it is a hoax, because Europe is not predominantly christian. It is a prominent part of the introduction and simply wrong. It seems like a major issue to me in regard to christianity.

I didn't attack you personally. I only said that your neutrality in this issue, since you are christian and American is disputed. You removed an edit of me, so i am allowed to say that you are not neutral and therefore your removal of my edit is not neutral as well.Daanschr (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A factual dispute does not constitute a hoax. It is an uncited statement, not a hoax. If there is a point that you feel is wrong put the {{fact}} tag next the statement. The tag you used is only for hoaxes. Again, it may be a language problem. It would be easier to resolve if you had not led with a personal attack on me. This is from the policy cited above:

“ There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

”

Take care in the future not to violate this. SECisek (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you are right about the personal attack. I don't agree with the hoax, though. It is not simply a dissagreement about the facts. The facts are even okay. So, that is not the problem. The problem is the misleading introduction of the article on christianity, stating that christianity is about certain dogmas and christianity is predominant in Europe. That is not the case, it is a hoax.

I think there is nothing wrong with me defending my continent and the truth.Daanschr (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if the majority of Europeans were athiests, Christianity remains the predominant religion in Europe. Are you disputing this? It is a fact. -- SECisek (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I dissagree, because when a region only has a minority adherence for a religion than this religion can't dominate it or predominate in it. The fact is right, but the statement is a hoax, especially when it is preceded by a dogmatic orthodox definition of what christianity entails. But, christianity is rapidly decling in Europe, so this is a fight against the rearguard.Daanschr (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if there were only 10 Christians in a Europe where every single other person was athiest, the statement that "Christianity is the dominant religion" would still be true. I am not spoiling for a fight nor am I the "rearguard" of anything. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. I reverted your tag beacuse the disputed statement is not a hoax.

This is growing tiresome. -- SECisek (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My advice to tired people is to sleep for a while, afterwards you will feel fresh and fruity.Daanschr (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Daanschr (talk · contribs) - maybe it is a language problem - but Secisek (talk · contribs)'s position is correct. A hoax is " an act intended to trick people into believing something is real when it is not" - Encarta - or a "a humorous or malicious deception" - Oxford - and nothing in the article indicates trickery or maliciousness in stating that Christianity is the dominant religion. Of course, one could dispute the definition of religion but the statement or words to that effect do not constitute a hoax. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Correcting injustice

You know, I have no idea how it is you haven't gotten one of these yet. But, considering all you have done for the Anglicanism project, I thought it was more than overdue that you receive one. Thanks for all the work you have done, and, with luck, will continue to do. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved barnstar to user subpage! Thanks! SECisek (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You definitely deserve it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anglican Portal

I'm wondering why you reverted my moving the Anglican Portal in All Saints Episcopal Church, Waveland (Jensen Beach, Florida). I am totally aware that it is not an external link. I moved it there to make a better looking page. IMHO it looks ridiculous under the infobox. I've seen other portals placed at the bottom of articles. Is there a rule that says where it gets placed? Are there other alternatives? clariosophic 15:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll see how it looks in the See also section. I edited a printed newsletter for 10 years and have some experience in layout, so I've been trying to find ways to improve the layout of articles for visual appeal. I hope that's OK. Yes I would be happy to join an ECUSA work group. That's a great idea. clariosophic 15:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus work group

I'll create the pages. And, you're going to hate me for saying this, but to create the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/? articles by quality, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/? articles by quality log, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/? articles by quality statistics pages, all that has to be done is create the page and add the Category:? articles by quality to the page. The bot eventually does all the rest. John Carter 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

EdChampion

Yeah, well of course you're entitled to do whatever you need to weed him/her out. I'll do my best to keep it within policy in the meantime. Please don't hesitate to contact me on wiki or by email if you need further help. The Rambling Man 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know someone recommended to me on my talk pages May I suggest (a) Estonian or Balkan politics or (b) J R R Tolkein as areas governed by comparatively sensible editors, by contrast? , and I only wish he was joking. Do take care. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Edmund

I think I can get access to the book. Maybe. The question is whether that book states what the editor states, which is an entirely different matter. I will try, though. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Socks

Hey, the next step is probably to add a request here for some consensus. Then, if that goes ok, request a checkuser here. That will establish whether the accounts are all run by the same user. Finally it should result in accounts being blocked or possibly even a community ban for the editor in question. Good luck, don't hesitate to shout if you need more from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll be watching. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishops

Saw your chart (grins). I do plan to update everyone to 1500 with books and websites, so you can level yours off to 1500 if that makes things easier. I just stopped at 1300 for now because that's where my books mainly stop and that's where the Fasti at British History Online stop referring to other offices held before the episcopate. You know where those are, right? they will be your best friend. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your missing dioceses are Bishop of Blackburn founded in about 1926; Bishop of Bradford founded c. 1920; Bishop of Chester from 1541; Bishop of Gloucester from 1541; Bishop of Guildford from 1927; Bishop of Leicester from 1926; Bishop of Liverpool from 1880; Bishop of Manchester from 1847; Bishop of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne from 1882; Bishop of Ripon from 1836; Bishop of Sheffield from 1914; Bishop of Sodor and Man part of York from 1542; Bishop of Southwell from 1884; Bishop of Wakefield from 1888; Bishop of Westminster that existed from 1540 to 1550. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

A little in between, since it is an open proxy, those sockpuppets could have very well been created from the proxy by different users, however, that doesn't mean it isn't the same person trying to be disruptive with multiple accounts. --EoL talk 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

John Bell (Bishop of Worcester)

When you can clear your desk, it would be appreciated if you would reveiw the John Bell article once more and offer any suggestions on how it can be further improved in preparation for a higher rating. I have added a number of images as you had recommended, and I have at my disposal a research work which covers the subject in greater detail, and can add more material if need be, however, may not be suitable for an article.

Thank you for your help. Jediforce 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try to get at it today. It looks good from what I saw! -- SECisek (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

New

Hello im new to wiki and i want to help with the cristian advent article and the Anglican church project how do i do this?

thanks Hanjay09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanjay09 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Victor Premasagar

At the outset, I thank you for your editions to this article. You may have been irked by my reverts. Please note that there are still many sub-sections and successor/predecessor boxes that were not included by you. Time is a big constraint for me. I would re-insert these sub-sections and successor boxes and also study the other Bishop's biographies referred by you so that this could turn into a good article.

As for K. David, I was shocked to see it being deleted all of a sudden. I do not know why it happened at this time. Please rescue this article. K. David was a colleague of Victor Premasagar and served in the Senate of Serampore College (University). He also did his Ph. D. in the University of Edinburgh.

Earlier too, I wanted to discuss with you on the reverts but could not do so as I did not know where to post the messages. Thank you.Pradeep (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories

Did you know that there is a fringe theory noticeboard at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard? I didn't. It might be a resource in the perpetual Edward the Martyr perplexity. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity project

Good work on the portal. Regarding placement of banners, that might be kind of problematic, particularly with articles relating to "older" subject, like maybe the Arian church. I do agree that, with the exception of maybe the most important articles, the main Christianity banner maybe shouldn't be placed on articles that can be specifically covered within the scope of any more dedicated project. The Syriac Christianity group needs major work, as it seems to have initially been intended as a earlier version of what became Wikipedia:WikiProject Assyria. I definitely think that one is going to need a major overhaul. It would be great if we could incorporated some of the functionality of the Biography and Military history project banners in one banner which could assess for all the Christianity groups, which can on demand display the banner of a given subproject while still retaining the categorization for the parent project. The Hinduism banner is also equipped to "display" daughter project banners, although there they are as separate banners. Whether the other projects would agree to such an arrangement, and how to fix the banner to do those things, is another matter entirely, and we would probably need to have all the articles tagged for the Christianity Project first as an indicator of how using such a banner would be useful. But, in general, I would think that unless the subject had clear ties to one of the subprojects, like maybe Luther's status as a RC monk being cause for the Catholicism banner, we should probably only list for the most prominent relations, until and unless we can get a Christianity banner incorporating all the other projects as well. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Secisek, we've crossed paths on a very similar topic and I thought you might like to know about the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Inactive projects. Again this was a new page to me and might be useful for you in cleaning up the Christianity projects. I don't know how it works just yet. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been following your comments across the talk pages. I am in favor of absorbing the work of inactive sub-projects into larger ones as I did with Syriac Christianity yesterday. John, I have already been through 50 or so Syriac project articles and I did, in fact, drop several that were about geography, language, or people who had no real connection to the project. I also culled a few GAs and FAs from the Christianity project for the same reason. Dwight Eisenhower and Salena both are tagged under the Wiki Jehova's Wittness' project - it seems because at one time or another they professed that faith. While I believe every project can define its own scope, we would have to include almost every man, woman, and child born in Europe for a period of over 1,000 years if we followed their lead! If either had been known for their faith or worked in the religious field, that would be one thing - but simply being a Christian doesn't seem to make you worthy of the project's efforts. Thoughts? Work will continue. -- SECisek (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically agreed. The issue there might be related to the categorization. It's been stated (somewhere or other, I don't where right now), that it would probably be a good idea if as much as possible every project indicated that its scope specifically included "articles in "Category:Foo"", and those articles were placed in such categories. Wheterh they should remain in such categories is another matter. This might be particularly true for the SDAs, because they have comparatively few articles to work with at all. If they aren't particularly notable for their religions though, I don't think anyone would necessarily object to removal of the categories, which could indicate removal of banners as well. They could still be listed on the "list of members of church X", though. That might be the best way to go, unless we run into specific cases where, for whatever reason, someone objects to their being referred to as a member of a church, despite the presence of good sources to verify. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue of who is a member of what has popped up before. Obviously all lists have to be determinate and the members notable. I can't remember where I last saw the argument. It might have been people who were muslim and now christian or vice versa. I agree with trimming out such names in in-active lists unless very notable for their faith. For example, Huckabee ought to be listed in a Baptist project. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism WikiProject

Hi, thanks for the quick welcome. I created David Standish Ball and am working on Sean Rowe. I need to create more, but I'm also busy with the mop. :-) Bearian (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Advent

I cannot edit advent because i'm a new user I really want to do this how?? hannah (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You probably either have to wait a few days or garner a few edits. I'll check. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for your kind support and comment. There seems to be a dislike for self-nom's at RfA so I tried to stay as clear from self promotion as possible. Besides, Wikipedia is a hobby. I know some people get into nasty fights to be 'top dog' on various parish committees, for example, but I've never had much interest in political one on one fights. I believe you are a politician of some sort so campaigning is probably second nature for you. By the way, a number of Anglicanism participants are admins ...except most are of the hidden / quite variety. Ever since our glorious project founder Fishhead64 (talk · contribs) was almost wiped out by his adminship - within weeks of sysop he has barely edited - I have looked at it warily. I've also noticed another very good editor at the Good Article project who just became admin in the past few weeks is now on an extended wikibreak. Something happened. Should I be successful - it is marginal - I'll be a quiet admin helping here and there on Wikipedia. I don't want to be forced out by wikistress. The project will miss you in 2008 when you gird yourself for your political battles. Best wishes. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just invited Fishhead64 to be a WikiOgre for the Anglicanism project. He does edit but sparsely. (Apparently, I'm a WikiSloth and that just seems soooo right! ) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

GA

Authorized King James Version stands no chance at GA until it is referenced. This article bugs me because in 2005 my personal reading list was 'bible translations' and I read about five recent books on the topic. Three of them are in the reference section of the article. But two years ago is too long ago to easily source the text. TomHennell (talk · contribs) seems the best suited for the task but sourcing other peoples text is a pain. It would be easier to delete all unsourced text and have the various editors replace it with sourced text. But that would never happen - and much of the text does not diverge from reality. A Wikipedia conundrum. In the meantime, I'm off to the world of wizards 'cause I promised to work on those articles first, then I'm off to fantasy land with a movie article, then I will return to the Book of Common Prayer. As a bona fide Wikisloth, I'm only active when I'm having fun. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Further Articles

Hi and thanks for the advise. I will re-try to improve the recently deleted K. David and post it back at which time I will inform you.

Meanwhile, I just started B. P. Sugandhar and M. Joji, the Bishop-in-Medak of the Church of South India and the Archbishop of Hyderabad of the Roman Catholic Church respectively. I still need to know their personal details and will substantially improve them later. Please do have a look.

I also presume that you will be creating Bishop-in-Medak going by your additions to Victor Premasagar. On December 1, 2007, the first Victor Premasagar memorial lecture was delivered in Guntur. I have a copy of that lecture in word format. If you are interested, I will send it to you provided you give your e-mail. Thank you.Pradeep (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Andhra Christian Theological College

Hi again ! I understand that you have been into this article originally created by me. You seem to have edited some portions. But look at it now, especially the footnotes. You do not seem to have properly ended the coding. It's all haywire. I'm afraid to touch the article now, thanks to your constant peep-ins into the articles that I have written. I beg to know if you want me to quit wikipedia. Why is it that you're on my back constantly ? especially the articles that I have written ? Hope you understand. Just reminding you to see ACTC once again for the textual references are left loose.Pradeep (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not "on your back", I am trying to help you avoid having articles deleted as happened to K. David. I am not "peeping in" on "your articles". Please note "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Finer points of style are lacking from the articles in question and they are bad enough to get them deleted if they do not get help. Please stay and work with us all. Best. -- SECisek (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good project news

Good project news: look who is back! Check out Talk:Anglican Communion Network. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Apparently, it is considered bad form to thank everyone who votes for RfA...I don't understand it. Thank you for taking the time to vote for me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for welcoming me to the Christianity Wikiproject, I hope I can contribute in a good way. PS I like The Jam too so we're off to a good start! :) Sue Wallace (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the positive feedback! Well, we'll see how it goes. Perhaps I'll feel up to battling the goblins of misinformation after a restorative Christmas break. Cheers! fishhead64 (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy anointing oil

There was a discussion at Talk:Holy anointing oil#Merger with Chrism which resulted in insufficient support for merger. The merge tag was deleted. If you object you might want to mention this in the discussion and restore the merge tag. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

HIstory of Eucharist

I'm about tapped out on the subject - but I'd like it to be a good article. Now that the edit warring is over and out I'd love tips on how to be an A+ article. Thanks in advance. Eschoir (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Good articles may be delisted by an individual, just as they may be listed by an individual. Good article reassessment is for disputed and unclear cases. For a good idea of why the article should be delisted, see Talk:Christianity#Article sources. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Process for the sake of process is quite ridiculous, in my opinion. Feel free to list the article on GAR if you disagree with the reassessment. Also, WikiProjects do not own articles and any interested editor is free to assess an article. Vassyana (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your pointer to GAR, please note that listing an article for reassessment is an option, not a requirement. In fact, it starts off assuming the single editor delist "process" (noting that if you're a major contributor or have delisted it in the past you should ask another editor to delist the article). Vassyana (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

GAR assumes explicitly single editor delisting. "If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, seek another delister, or ask other editors to reassess it here." Note that the first assumption is clearly a single user delisting, just as a single user can list an GA. Unless you have some reason beyond that a bureaucratic process wasn't followed for opposing the delisting, this insistence on a reassessment is pure process wonkery. Vassyana (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An individual can't simply list or delist an article as GA, there is a process for both and it exists for a good reason. If you sent the article GAR one of two things would happen: 1. the article would be improved by the process and remain GA or 2. it would be properly delisted, which changing the grade on the wikiproject banners does not do. The talk page will look quite silly with an NPOV tag on it, so if you want avoid an edit war, humor me and send it GAR. We went the through this with Edmund the Martyr when someone disagreed with the GA tag and the process worked. Best --SECisek (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The process for both assumes an individual will be listing or delisting the article. I will not submit it to GAR for the sake of process. If you disagree with the delisting, you are free to take it to reassessment as that is what it is for. The language as GAR not only assumes single editor delisting, but {{DelistedGA}} also presents GAR in the light that I argue. (That is, it is for unclear or disputed delisting, not cut and dry cases like Christianity.) Vassyana (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't already a disputed delisting I don't know what would be. Away we go then. Listed at GAR. Best, -- SECisek (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Secisek, thanks for taking this on. I'm afraid I'm still doing Christmas myself so have to leave Wikipedia once again. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes at Christianity

I believe you may have accidentally reverted significant changes to the lede.[2] I would welcome your feedback on the changes at Talk:Christianity#Revised lede. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding! I'm done for the moment (I need to get some "real" work done *chuckle*). Please do let me know what you think of the changes, if they're good, if something is lacking, etc. I also believe we can get the article up to snuff, it's just going to take some hard work and time! Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Secisek, you've doing great work enhancing the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:New Picture

Thank you :)--Angel David (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Hello Secisek. Thank you for your contributions at the Christianity article. The source I cited for Christian divisions mentions the fact that "some include the Restorationist denominations as a fourth or fifth group." The Resotationist denominations hold a completely different theology than the other Christian groups mentioned in the article: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox: many are non-Trinitarian, hold other texts in the same reverence as the Bible, such as the Doctrine and Covenants. Another issue with the division section of the article is that one of the divisions is given as "Eastern Orthodox". This could be changed to "Orthodox" in order to account for the "Oriental Orthodox" Churches or another "Oriental Orthodox" division could be made (source). Please let me know how you feel on these issues. For now, I am restoring the reference I placed in the article and am adding an additional one. This reference acknowledges four divisions: Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and "American born Churches" i.e. Restorationists. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thacker article

Hello! I don't think the article is online, but I can scan it for you when I get home again. Hope you had a good Christmas. All the best for 2008, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3