This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Happy New Year
Happy New Year, Ptolemy Caesarion! Hope 2008 goes well for you. I'm signing off now to get ready for the excitement - less than 6 hours from now at my location. I hope the vandals and troublemakers stay away for a day or two. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk)
02:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ptolemy Caesarion, I have a quick question about an edit
A couple of months ago, I noticed that you had changed the Christianity Portal link on the Christian libertarianism page to a different kind of link. It's now a small single link instead of a menu-like box on the right. Could you tell me what is the difference between the two. I kind of like the look of the menu box. Is there a Christianity Portal policy or guideline outlining the suggested use of the different links.
I am the creator of the
Christian libertarian page and so far the primary editor but it's my first article and I'm still very inexperienced as a Wikipedia editor. I plan to continue to develop the page and I'm trying to learn the ropes. Thanks.
WDRev (
talk)
21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the your contributions to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity . I have notcied that you have made some significant contributions to the main project page. Thank you. You have done a good cleanup.
One request : Use a convention for subpage creation , preferably all under 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity' folder itself .
New pages :
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Introduction
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Tasks
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Content
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Category
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Templates
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Members
Shall we stick to this method ?
Anyways u have done a wonderful job and I welcome you to join the project also.
Question; I noticed your removal of this template on several articles with the explanation that the topic was no longer on the nav box. Does that mean that the topic was once on the box and got removed? Some of these topics are very important to Christianity. Curious. Thanks. --
Storm Rider(talk)17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the right thing here is really to phase out the template entirely, and focus on the footer. A series as big as "Christianity" is just too big to be sensibly approached by the template strategy IMO.
Tb (
talk)
17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be the direction we are heading. I phased it down to about 125 pages last fall. Since that time, other editors reached consensus to bring it down to under 75 pages. I suspect it will continue to be replaced by the footer. Some pages I saw had the Arminianism, Methodism, Protestantism, and Christianity Nav box. Clearly, there has to be a limit. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Hi. We're basically in agreement on the statement about Anglican orders in the article. It seems silly to have a dispute between two such like minded editors. But we simply can't leave a statement unsupported by citations that appears to likely be false in the article. I'd like to ask you to please revert your last edit, which removed the word some. The current sentence makes it sounds that all Anglican bishops have been ordained in those lines when we have no evidence to support that other than the often quoted line that you and I have both heard many times (from the mouths of priests), and yet neither of us have ever seen any evidence of it. I hope you will please revert your last edit so that the article will exist without unverified claims while we work on finding citations. Thank you.
Dgf32 (
talk)
01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Gosh you being so helpful a as part of the Maintenance Department and Outreach Department, he say sarcastically.
So now that I have put so much effort into deleting my many weeks of efforts toward a request you left up, how/where do you think my efforts could be better spent elsewhere.--
Carlaude (
talk)
19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of the request until you pointed it out. In my defense, There are a number of editors who work to maintain the project and the portal. I was unable to edit for most of the new year and have only recently had a chance to do some house cleaning.
I can relate, there was an attempt to delist
Christianity as a good article some time ago. I protested. The reason I was given was that the article "needed major changes" to remain GA. I worked on the article for about three days straight, I mean day and night, and then suddenly found the article delisted while I was still working on it - 2 days prior to the end of the 5 days it was required to sit at GAR. The reason being that "major changes" had taken place and the article was now "too unstable" to remain GA.
So, there was a demand for major changes, or the article would be delisted, and then the article was delisted by a single editor due to major improvements taking place.
I gave up, stated my piece to the editor in question, and moved on to other articles and projects. Wikipedia can be frustrating, but we seem to think it is a worthwhile hobby. I hope you will continue to help us no matter what happens with the deletion debate. Best, --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please pay attention to why some does an edit. The Archbishop of Canterbury inbox was giving the article trouble in spacing while the bishop box did not. The original use of the bishop box was to point out his previous posts since the Canterbury box did not allow previous postings. Glad to see moving it to the top corrects that. The sample information for the Bishop's infobox is for the current Archbishop of Canterbury no less.
You move the officeholder box instead of looking to see that it was for more then just the Justiciar. Additional there were two section there for him being Justiciar.
What do you mean by GA?
21:48, 3 March 2008 Ptolemy Caesarion (Talk | contribs) (27,976 bytes) (The Canterbury box trumps the bishop box. It is in use on all 104 Archbishops. Do not make this change to a GA without consensus.) (undo)
Spshu (
talk)
22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
All seems fine now. As long as Ealdgyth is here, do we want the Canterbury box to allow for previous postings? This could be done with ease for both Canterbury and York. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't mind adding some of the information from the plain bishop infobox to the ABC and ABY infoboxes. It certainly won't hurt at all.
Ealdgyth |
Talk22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll put it on my to-do list and let you know when it gets done. I'll make the new lines optional so we can add back info at our lesiure. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and check out
Augustine of Canterbury. It's pretty dang close to GA now, just needs a bit of tweaking that Angus and Mike Christie suggested. Now that I'm able to edit again, it should be ready for GAN very quickly. You can see where my progress is here:
User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress#Articles I'm preparing. —Preceding
comment was added at 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad form
It seems, rather, like bad form to change a template without discussion—- then when called on this-- to revert and discuss claiming the other is edit waring.--
Carlaude (
talk)
02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, whoa, slow down. I have never insulted you personaly and if you have felt insulted by any of my posts/edits, then I am sorry. As for policy, links to many of them can be found on the top of this page.
I assume by "deleting" an article you are refering to the blanking of the directories and redirecting them to the list. You yourself indicated it would be alright to reformat the directories into a list. The list already exists, so I redirected. If you want to restore the directories and go through AfD, we can, but consensus is strongly against the category and is growing against the "Find a Church" template, so it would probably just postpone the redirect. We can disagree about these issues and a whole lot more with out insulting one another. This does not mean enough to me to get nasty about it. Best wishes, --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Cranmer
Hello Ptolemy Caesarion. I noticed that you are the shepherd of the Cranmer article and got the article to GA. I was wondering if you are planning to advance it to FA. I'm hunting for another article to adopt and I am interested on the subject of Cranmer. If you already have plans on it, then I got some other candidates to work on as well. Drop me a line on my talk page! --
RelHistBuff (
talk)
11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to be a bit more anonymous, you can request that your user page be deleted. Then, recreate it with the redirect. The point of doing this: your edit history will be accessible by admins only. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk)
20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to review this for you, but it might be a couple of days I'm a bit busy in the immediate future and I have two other GA requests to deal with first. I was happy to help with Boleyn and Martyn, they were both excellent.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ptolemy Caesarion, you may find this frustrating, but I've now 'met' users that are several magnitudes more difficult. Yes, a thousand times! Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk)
03:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
William Wilberforce
We may get another Anglicanism GA out of
William Wilberforce. It looks promising. (I was involved in the nasty Roman Catholic Church FAC for the past couple of weeks. It failed but was worth taking part as it clarified for me what must be done to the Anglicanism article should it ever get past B-Class) Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk)
19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiki misery
Well, before stepping into the horror of the RCC FAC :-), I was deep into the gore of the
Introduction to Evolution FA. That made it to FA! Since then spending more time at the Novels Project. Will I think be returning back to Anglicanism. Your comment about "going at each other like Roundheads and Laud's men" made me laugh. My diocese made it into the news for a couple of weeks in Feb 'cause of the Civil War Redux :-) No bishops burnt at the stake...so all is well. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk)
20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Infobox
You are using an infobox that was created for a different religion (not a big deal).
Template:Infobox Orthodox leadership has been created for solely for the Orthodox Church (infobox is colored, see
Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Society#Religious_leaders) I'm going to have some extra sections added to it to make it more like the one you have been using. The only thing is that this infobox is colored for Eastern Orthodox churches, are we going to group Oriental Orthodox churches with it? I think we should, theyre pretty similar. Here is a page with the new infobox:
Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens. Like I said, past positions will prob be added shortly, also your input at
User talk:Trödel might be useful.
Grk1011 (
talk)
16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply.
Grk1011 asked for my help on a religious Infobox - something I volunteered to do at
List of infoboxes/Society some time ago - and which hasn't been edited or maintained from the looks of it. Like many things on Wikipedia there are people going about trying to solve similar problems on different articles and eventually they run into each other as a standard is developed and it spreads. Personally, I don't really have a dog in the hunt, so I would be happy with either solution. I do like the idea of having different colors mean things. Additionally, I have grown fond of the {{LDSInfobox}} - and created it based on the {{Infobox Pope}} a couple years ago. Because of the very specific names for office used in the LDSInfobox - I would suggest that it would not be appropriate to use {{Infobox bishopbiog}} instead.
Additionally, I am available to help with the template programmning if you want to have some conditional logic based on the denomination. I.e. start passing a parameter like "Denomination=..." or "Style=..." that would then change the terms used to describe the beginning of service and end of service to something other than the generic "term began, term ended". See {{Infobox LDS Temple}} and {{LDS Temple list}} for some examples of uses of logic made to control the look of an Infobox or a list of items in a table.
I am on infrequently because of other commitments now - but please leave a note on my talk page and I'll try to work in some time to help within a week. --
Trödel05:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Protestant NAV Box - Christian Church (Disciples of Christ
Your recent edit removing the NAV box and your question about why use it are interesting. Do you think perhaps one reason to use it, is that it may need to be edited so that it does in fact navigate to protestant groups? For now, at least I do not have time to do that one myself. Thanks for your help in cleaning up the page.
John Park (
talk)
22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. For now, I'd be cmfortable either way. There are so many things I have not figured out yet. I have been focused on content and references and I am just beginning to look at page apearance and boxes that were there when I started.
John Park (
talk)
22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You can always come to me with any questions you might have. On the whole, we as a project seem to be moving away from the nav boxes. They are clumsy and grow like topsy. The footers at the bottom of the page seem like the way to go. I figured the Campbellites were important enough to put on the box, though. Again, Welcome! --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I did not mean to come across as snippy, just responding to the question posed. Thanks for the explanation. I am finding a lot of great people in the Wiki community. I can see how the NAV boxes can quickly raise POV issues about categories and lables. Would you reccomend that it be dropped from the CC(DOC) article??
John Park (
talk)
01:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
As you know from our recent exchange, I am editing the
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) article, with a view toward getting it to Feature Article quality. This morning there is a section added by an unregistered Editor that is really extraneous material, about the Churches of Christ that withdrew from our movement between 1865 and 1906. I moved the end of a block quote that the new text landed in, so that the added section would not be seen as part of the quote. I also added a clarifying header to the top of the article.
I do not want to trigger an editing battle by just deleting it. I think the person who added is probably acting in good faith. (However, I do not understand the logic that says "we withdrew and want no part of their heresy and we are the only church, but we want everyone to know we are a part of them.") I also understand that the article I am working on is a community project, not just mine. Edits from others really are desirable and usually helpful.
My question is this: Do you have any suggestions for proper protocol for removing extraneous material from an article, without prompting a battle? My inclination on my next round of edits, is to first move it into the history section headed "Divisions" and then remove it completely when I get to the polishing stage. Is there a better approach?
John Park (
talk)
16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You didn't ask me but I have been following your edits with interest, and am excited about the improvements you are making. I would say that I think it is important that the article say something about the relation of the
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) with the other Churches of Christ. There is an existing section titled "Division" which I think is nicely written to address the issue. But I think that, from the perspective of the other Churches of Christ, the article might seem a little POV-centric. It sounds a bit as if the history section is written in such a way as to suggest that the current Disciples of Christ was founded back then, oh, and there were these other groups that split off. From their perspective, they were founded back then too, and have an equal share in the majority of that history. Perhaps it might work to do two things: take the paragraph you rightly deleted (IMO) and see if there are particular facts or perspectives that might well be incorporated in the existing Division section; and have the history begin with some kind of acknowledgement that the current Disciples are only one strand that originated in the story of Scott and Campbell.
Tb (
talk)
16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help and the affirmation! I see the value of collaboration, and appreciate the help, from both of you!
John Park (
talk)
17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Crusades
Hey Ptolemy Caesarion, thanks for the help with the Crusades task force. I regret not creating a new Project from the very beginning; hopefully that can be fixed. Thanks also for boldly moving the German Crusade article. I could swear it has been referred to that way somewhere, but back when that article was created, it was easier to get away with just making up a title and hoping it would be fixed later. (And now I know much more about the crusades and crusade historiography than I did back then.)
Adam Bishop (
talk)
08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A 'mediator' wants a summary of the salient points in the
Edmund the Martyr problem. I wonder if you'd care to summarize? I remember at some point you found evidence where the fringe theory was coming from...maybe it is relevant...maybe not. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk)
16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
He's probably a board school kid. Its best to quietly revert and wait till he passes. Britanica capitalizes the Sky Faries in their treatment of them. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You may not know this, in fact, but it is a Wikipedia policy that pronouns referring to the deity are not capitalized. See
WP:MOSCAPS, where it says, "Pronouns referring to deities...do not begin with a capital letter."
Tb (
talk)
18:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah pronouns! I see. Use of pronouns should be avoided when discussing God hor a number of reasons. We can correct this going forward. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused; you've just done edits to
Adam (Bible) and
Christianity and Judaism which restore capitalized pronouns, under the edit summary "replaced pronouns." Will you fix those please? Under no circumstances is it permissible to capitalize these pronouns in Wikipedia.
Tb (
talk)
18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In the case of
Adam (Bible) you extended the quotation to include words not actually there. (Are you confusing Genesis 5:2 with Genesis 1:27?) The words seem to be KJV, which does not capitalize pronouns anyhow. In the case of
Christianity and Judaism no quotes were involved at all.
Tb (
talk)
19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Good call on KJV. Is there any consensus where quotes should come from? I doubt it. I try not to cite anything out of the bible as unless you are using it as a source for itself, as in: "The bible states...", and in that case you may be violating
WP:OR. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, TB was really quick to defend this "anonymous" editor's edits. And not just revert them but to comment on both of our talk pages. Seems pretty fishy to me.
-Crunchy Numbers (
talk)
19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's not suggest anything. Assume good faith. Tb was largely correct and he was even correct that one of my corrections introduced another error. I just think we have to show IP editors who edit against
WP:TE that their work is pointless, as it will be reverted quietly and almost instatntly. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Quotes from Bible
(Responding to above)
I am not aware of any policy about where Biblical quotations come from, and I did hunt for one at one point. It is a hornets' nest of chaos I would rather not get involved in. I think that the practice of quoting from the KJV is risky, and the worst choice as a rule, because the language is not contemporary English. But a policy picking a translation would be a disaster too. In general, I leave translations alone unless I have a reason, and then I change things to NRSV, which has achieved scholarly consensus. When I add my own quotes, I always choose NRSV. As for using the Bible as a source, I think it is reasonable, in a case such as
Adam (Bible) or other clearly religious contexts, and where interpretation is not at issue. Where there are variant interpretations, then it becomes important to require more than the Bible as a source, at the very least, in order to avoid
WP:OR. I think of it really rather like a book synopsis: the book itself is a perfectly good source, unless there is a genuine dispute about it.
Tb (
talk)
20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Definition of "Crusade"
I see you reverted me on the Spanish Armada. Fair enough, but I think it reminds us we need to have a definition of what is or is not a Crusade. Was the Spanish Armada the last instance of the granting of a crusader indulgence? If not, what others are there and how long did the papacy continue to grant such things? Should we consider post-medieval actions as Crusades at all (that was my initial reason for reverting: 1588 is just too late).
Srnec (
talk)
21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
EdChampion
In a case such as this, all that can be done is to reply as politely and sensibly as possible and address the issue at hand without becoming drawn into a slanging match that benefits nobody. Well done on not doing so so far and please continue to abide by
WP:CIVIL yourself even if others do not. If such behaviour persists then they have only themselves to blame for the consequences.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi frnd,
You dont need to sign again while using {{subst:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Welcome}} . I had tweaked the templete to have it automatically signed by the person who writes it....
Tinucherian (
talk)
08:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not that much in favor of using a specifically Anglican bishop infobox on pre-Reformation bishops in England. I think it implies that they were Anglican, and I don't really see much wrong with the bishop infobox. Persuade me (grins).
Ealdgyth -
Talk02:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the little "Anglicanism portal" kinda shouts Anglican. Why is it needed to change it when the generic bishop box works fine? Another issue i have is that it specifies province, which is really redundant in the case of pre-Reformation bishops. I won't scream if you replace them all, but I really have no motivation at all to change them from the current generic bishop box to something else. I've got enough on my plate.
Ealdgyth -
Talk02:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The portal tag shouldn't be there. I also didn't mean them ALL. I should have been clearer, the intention is just to replace the York and Canterbury boxes as this one gives the missing fields from the general bishop box. Province will not appear if left blank, none of the field will which is why it superior to the existing boxes. Maybe I can just cut the relavent code into the templates already in use. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Okies, that makes more sense. If the portal tag gets out I can see using the box for York and Canterbury. Although I'll still leave it to you to do (grins).
Ealdgyth -
Talk03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
With all the windows and statues of him in Great Britain, nobody can get us a descent fair-use photo? That Victorian fantasy drawing is a little silly. How about these
stamps what is fair-use on postage? --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
03:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008
Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit
this link. Mahalo nui loa.
WikiProject Hawaiʻi 15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm discussing it
here. You are welcome to participate or raise the issue in another forum. I'm guessing that there is a way to make AWB ignore the tag. Question, have you ever received a project newsletter on this page? —
Viriditas |
Talk22:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the problem was with your page. I think you are ok leaving it the way it is : ) --
MPerel 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the ancient Egypt wikiproject
I saw your name added to the ancient Egypt wikiproject and I wanted to extend a welcome to you. I see you are a fellow Illinoisan, I am actually living in Oak Park and going to grad school at UIC. I saw your comment on the project talk page about the GA sweeps; are you able to find a source for Thutmosis I? Anyway, glad to have you on board the project.
Jeff Dahl (
Talk •
contribs)
18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I am quite well versed with Oak Park and I do own several good sources on the subject and have access to dozens more. I hope to be more active on the project. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If you believe I have attacked you personally - by all means - feel free to pursue the matter through the proper channels here at WP. -- Ptolemy Caesarion
You've done a great job. When I get time I will add a section on the history of its exploration perhaps. I like the way you pruned down the external links and hadn't before noticed what
wp:el says about keeping links to a minimum. It's probably asking too much, and I have mentioned this here,
[1], but a very aggressive editor with clear ownership problems has, after I deleted it twice, added a ridiculously bad link under the excuse of a new section ""World Wide Web sites that were used by some editors in the construction of this article." I'd love some advice as to how to handle this. I could just delete it in toto of course, but there may be better ways to deal with this editor. No problems if you are too busy or if this is of no interest.
Doug Weller (
talk)
11:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
WWW citations that will be used in the GA version of the article will be third party sources, such as established news agencies or university works that are peer-rivewed - not self published web sites. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
17:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked at this and the problem you are going to face is that the article is in such poor overall shape. It is easy to throw out "references" that are not reliable when the rest of the article has legit sources - notice my first priorities at the pyramid were structure and sources. If I were you, I would add sourced material to the unsourced to push the article to B class. Once this is done, declare on the talk page that the article is now on a drive for GA. At that point you can cut most of what is unsourced, all the nonsense from the EL per policy
WP:EL, and you can get rid of the "Webpages my friends run" or whatever he called that section that violates
WP:MOS. You might find a champion at one of the science wikiprojects. It worked with the Great Pyramid, right? Let me know if there is anything else I can do - sorry I can't do more, but the subject is not in my department. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
07:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You need to re-read
Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names which, while dealing with article title, in theory applies to your edits on the page you mention above. Since this is not the first time I have had to correct you on this, I will quote you the passage:
“
Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help
improve Wikipedia.
Is this an April Fool's joke? :-) I thought the old PECUSA debate had been re-activated and what do I find ...a battle royal over kingdoms on the TEC page!!! Silliness. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk)
00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish. I have run across this guy before on his quest to right great wrongs here. I am going to try to stay out of it as "debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help
improve Wikipedia."
--
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom
User:Bardcom apparently has interpreted my objection to his behavior as a personal attack, and yours as well. He's now violated
WP:3RR. His behavior as you note is broader than here; I found a change to
History of Jersey, for example, where he made it sound as if Jersey was part of the UK, which it proudly is not. I think that AfC is appropriate, given the breadth and persistence of his bullying. What do you think?
Tb (
talk)
01:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I mean RfC. It does...nothing...except it is the necessary gateway to arbitration.
Tb (
talk)
01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be cynical...but arbitration leads to ... nothing. Even if all the effort you put into a 'case' causes the stars to line-up just so, a banned or blocked editor ...will reappear within the hour as a sockpuppet. There are better things to do with the time spent at a fun hobby. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk)
01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspect he won't do that. But I recoil at being bullied, and it's destructive when he obliterates facts, as he did in
History of Jersey. It's easily found.
Tb (
talk)
01:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe your edits are destructive. You have explained them inaccurately, and you make them without sufficient care for whether they are correct, simply seeing whether you can figure out a way to get "Great Britain" out of an article, and then you use a bullying strategy as you did in
Episcopal Church in the United States to try and get your way. And you've done the same thing before. So yes, I believe you've been a bully. I've requested that you stop. Will you?
Tb (
talk)
01:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If he really did a 3R VIO have him blocked. You can try to go RfC, at least he would be outed for what he is - a destructive troll that searches for instances of the two-word combo he wants censored from the Encyclopedia. I try not to waste my time on such arguments, but I will continue to add the phrase where it is correct and defend it if one of his changes make an article incorrect - as they did today. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
06:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this vandalism? He is rapidly doing this to a large number of articles -- clearly POV edits. I think blocking him is worthwhile, what can I do to help?
Doug Weller (
talk)
07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The subject is complicated because the edits are contentious. What this editor is doing is wrong, and in violation of the policy I cited above, but a block for vandalism could depend on the sympathies of the admin. The better bet is to quitely revert and not feed the trolls. I'll take a look at your battery problem as well. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
07:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to look at the RFC on Bardcom, including my comments on that page. The vast majority of his edits were found to be supported by facts. The debate on the "Great Storm of 1703" are typical. Bardcom changed the description of it as the biggest storm to hit the "British Isles" to the greatest storm to hit Great Britain and was attacked. 2 mins of looking for references found that he was correct. Tb has been accusing him of all sorts of crimes, yet the references DO NOT generally support that accusation.
Wotapalaver (
talk)
10:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I am indifferent about the RfC which I did not think would come to anything from the start. My personal experience with his edits demonstrates otherwise. I do not wish to discuss this anymore than I have to. This is not what I do here. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
10:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to randomize the DYK in this portal. Any other ideas would be most appreciated. It's kind of rough at this point, but it's a start. Thanks!
Brian0324 (
talk)
19:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. Regarding the work group for
Christianity in China - very good idea. There might be a pool of help interested. I definitely need help to improve it and the articles that are within the category. I have yet to get one to GA status, but some are close. I feel like I've been so involved trying to build the "skeleton" that it is still a bit thin on "meat". But the potential is huge. Even more so if there is interest in Wikiproject Christianity. I'm on board with that project again, but I still have limited time. Any help or advice that you have is definitely appreciated. As an aside, I appreciate your work and I didn't intend to start a battle with you on "
Indian Christianity" - we just keep running into each other, here because of our similar interests, it seems. Peace.
Brian0324 (
talk)
15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I hoped you in particular would be able to help with as you are an authority on this subject and I am not. How does the non-juring bishops (Talbot in New Jersey, Welton in Philly) who ministered in the USA in the 1720's fit in with the discussion on Seabury being the first episcopal bishop outside the British Isles?
Bardcom (
talk)
17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Both are considered non-canonical as they did not act as suffergains of the Bishop of London, but were instead in America against the wishes of Bishop of London, who had authority there at that time. What ever office they held would have been illicit. Their "ordinations" are also of dubious validity as Welton had only one bishop present at his consecration and Talbot had only two, one being Welton. All of this needs to go into the article on the Nonjurors and I again invite you to work on that article. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ptolemy Caesarion, thank you. I will contribute where I can, but I really am no expert on this subject.
Bardcom (
talk)
17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Also, there were no Church of England dioceses outside of England (minor quibbles about the Channel Islands,etc) until the Diocese of Nova Scotia in 1787. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk)
17:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw your edit to this page. Please be careful adding info from other pages because now there are two red cites in the references. We have been very careful about what books we are using in the article and have had to eliminate some that were deemed inappropriate. Could you please go over your edit and either put proper references in there to eliminate the broken links or eliminate the wording? Thanks, we are trying to bring the article up to FA soon.
NancyHeise (
talk)
22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry, I just reverted your edit because the two broken refs were to children's books that I had to eliminate throughout the article per FA reviewers comments on the second FAC attempt.
NancyHeise (
talk)
22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Please, I did not mean to offend you as it looks like I have. I prefer your rewrite of the paragraph because it gives more information and I think is really better than what we had. I have just been through the ringer with our references over the past two FAC attempts which want scholarly works (written by university professors) preferably published by University presses. The other books were children's books. I dont know about your new sources but if you think they are going to pass muster at FA then by all means lets use them. Could you please put them in the same format as our other refs to be consistent? We put the book used in the Bibliography (you can see the format by looking at the other books) and then in the article, cite the last name of the author, a short book title, date of publication and page number. Thanks for your helpful additions to the article and efforts to keep the citations in consitent format.
NancyHeise (
talk)
01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No offence taken. I'll try to format to your liking. The books should pass FA, but the "judges" there can be so screwy that I don't bother past GA. How about offering some suggestions for
Bernard of Clairvaux which I want to send GA. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Bernard of Clarivaux is one of my favorite saints but I never knew all the things about him that are on the Wikipedia page - its very thorough! I do know that he wrote letters to the Countess of Brittany and said "Wherever I go I feel you near me. If you go to the bottom of your heart you will find mine." This is from a childrens book I have. He also was the saint who had an experience of the Virgin Mary that led to the words "O'Clement, O Loving, O Sweet Virgin Mary" at the end of the "Hail Holy Queen" prayer. Also, I have faith in Wikipedia policies that if you follow them properly, you can bring an article to FA. I dont think the FA reviewer is all that unreliable and I am hoping that they will see the Roman Catholic Church article has met all criteria to pass FA. We have been very thorough in our research and adherence to Wikipedia policy and response to FAC and peer review comments. I cant imagine it would fail next time. Lets hope.
NancyHeise (
talk)
01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Take a look at what I added and if I need to change the sources for her. I didn't suggest you all weren't doing your job, I just meant GA is about all the agitation I can stand. Perhaps YOU could take a look at
Bernard of Clairvaux while you are at it. Not an English bishop, but up your alley none the less. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
01:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I did. Schwarma's not exactly a university press book, but it's current and at least somewhat reliable. Being the source elitist I am, i could probably find better, (McCollough's Reformation springs to mind) but I wouldn't oppose based on using it. You might be getting a bit long on the whole bit of the Anglican section, in the RCC article, but that is more up to the regular editors to decide there. I'll go look at Bernie Boy now. (He's way up on my bete noir list though, so be warned.)
Ealdgyth -
Talk02:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Schama is indeed a popular historian, he is cuurent and he is reliable. Not BoC fan? This should be interesting! I am not a lover or a hater, I made one or two small fixes and before I knew I was sucked in all the way. I think it maybe close to GA which is why I am asking around, rather taking it directly there. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a theologian, and I detest intellectual history. And Bernard was, to be blunt, a bigot. And a meddler. And pompous. And what he did to poor
Abelard.... (grins) I think he may be right up there on top of my least favorite medieval people, and that's saying something!
Ealdgyth -
Talk02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestions mirror my own thoughts about the article. I have not decided if I want to do the work from here to pass it at GA - which is my target for most everything I work on. Thanks for the suggestions. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
02:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I really don't have much on Bernard, honestly. I don't read French (at all!) and so my sources on French history are not the best. And I think I have enough on my plate (grins). FYI
John Peckham, another ABC should be GA shortly. We're in the final stages with the review.
Ealdgyth -
Talk02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ptolemy Caesarion, Who is Elizabeth Jenkins? I cant find anything about her. Is she a University professor somewhere? I have to be able to make Ealdgyth happy at FA.
NancyHeise (
talk)
12:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, if you click on the ISBN number listed with the book, it'll take you to a page where you get some options. One of the headings is "Online databases" I usually use the "Find this book at Google Books Search" That'll take you to the Google Books page for the book, which you can then use as a springboard to all sorts of goodies. It looks like this book is a reprint of a 1958 book, and is a mainstream publication. Given that you're dealing with pretty basic facts here, it'll pass muster. It'd be nicer if he was using
The Reformation which is a nice new mainstream book on the Reformation.
Ealdgyth -
Talk15:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read it, but it requires a trip to the library to cite it. I have a few hundred books here at home that often are enogh for the work I do (mostly GA). I also think that MacCulloch writes with a pretty clear bias at times. He is in vogue, however, and I am aware that we are going to have to live with conclusions for some time. We need a proper Oxford man and not a Cambridge grad to get something published! --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you know... all this is so recent and "modern" to me... that I'm not as up on the reformation current scholarship as I could be. You know me, anything past about 1300 bores me. Heck, theology, if it's past
Pelagius it bores me!
Ealdgyth -
Talk21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ptolemy Caesarion,
Thanks for the excellant efforts and hardwork for the
WP Christianity and its workforces. I request you not to shy away from the co-ordinater elections. I am nominating you for the election , unless you have any very strong personal objections. Altough it doesnt make much of a difference of how we work otherwise for the project, I feel your silent efforts should be more recognized. - Thanks ,
Tinucherian (
talk)
09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thought you'd like to know that you've been nominated to be one of the coordinators of the Christianity project, by Tinucherian. Officially, though, candidates should nominate themselves, or at least formally agree to the nomination. While I personally would vote for you if you ran as well, it's really your choice whether you run or not, so, if you don't want to be a candidate, feel free to remove your name.
John Carter (
talk)
12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Timeline of the growth and expansion of the Anglican
What about an article tracking the growth/expansion of the Anglican community through the world? Maybe also including splits, schisms, but mostly focused on expansion of parishes and communities on "foreign soil", etc. I'm reminded of the side-by-side table of British monarch on an old page here
[2]Bardcom (
talk)
13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, My first cat as an adult was a calico I got 32 years ago and I've had at least one cat ever since. So it will take some getting used to. Thanks again.
clariosophic (
talk)
01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There has been some question about who was the first Anglican bishop outside the British Isles. Do you have a proper and irrefutable citation for Samuel Seabury so we can end this mess? --Ptolemy Caesarion (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think David Edwards states this explicitly, but will need to check. It is a nice point whether Seabury's consecration in Aberdeen was, or was not, Anglican. Very few clergymen of the Church of England would have acknowledged the Scots Episcopal Church in the late 18th Century; for them a bishop within British territory was only a bishop if appointed under Parliamentary authority - which the Scots were not. There was a very complicated debate at the time about whether Episcopal ministers needed to be re-ordained if they came to England (noting that foreign Roman Catholic priests didn't). One view is that one can only properly describe the bishops of the Scots Episcopal church as Anglican following the explicit recognition of their validity in the "Ecclesiastical Titles Act".
TomHennell (
talk)
10:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response, but I was able to quote and cite it myself with much more ease than I first thought. Keep up the good work. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
10:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
you may find this book (Colin Podmore: "Aspects of Anglican Identity" page 30ff) very good on the interrelation between Scots, American and English Episcopal churches - especially in so far as it was still (even as late as 1852) very much a high-church viewpoint to regard the Scots Epsicopal church as the Scots counterpart to the CoE. Podmore notes that Charles Simeon, when in Scotland, worshipped in the Church of Scotland, not in the Episcopal Church.
No surprise when it comes to Simeon! You wouldn't happen to have access to the source I am looking for in the hat note
here, would you? The only library in my part of the world that has it is at the Nashota Seminary several hours from my home. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
10:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been reading the discussion on the question of "British Isles" on the ECUSA page- such fun for all involved! One point that I don't think was made is that three bishops are required for Anglican consecration under canon law. Hence Seabury, following his Aberdeen consecration, could ordain priests but not consecrate successor bishops. Hence the reason for two further bishops to be made - which was achieved in accordance with changes in British Law.
TomHennell (
talk)
14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK...Ptolemy Caesarion you stated at one point "This is like aruging if George Washington was the first president of the U.S.A. - it is an uncontested and well known point of American history"....well, there is a faction of lunatics who insist he wasn't. See
John Hanson (myths) which makes Washington ...I think ...the seventh president! Wikipedia ...the depository of ...everything. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk)
15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I made the point about the problems a single-bishop consecration presents somewhere, sometime, about somebody during all this, but I no longer where or when. On to better things I hope. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting....not sure what to make of this. But it wasn't until the Foreigners Consecrations act of 1786 that empowered the Archbishops of York and Cantebury to consecrate candidates who were not British subjects to foreign sees without a royal mandate. It wasn't until 1789 that a General Convention then agreed a constitution and canons for the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA. So strictly speaking, that probably makes Nova Scotia the first province....and it also probably means that it could be argued that Seabury was probably not Anglican...
Bardcom (
talk)
22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
NS was only a diocese, it was part of the Province of Canterbury on its founding (as best I can make out). The Canadian church didn't become fully autonomous until later, all spelt out in Aspects of Anglican Identity.
David Underdown (
talk)
19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ptolemy Caesarion, David, I've learned a lot thanks to you both. I think very highly of your opinions and I value your responses. As I've already said, I'm no longer contesting the use of the term "British Isles" in the article - it has been shown to be notable. Also, Ptolemy Caesarion, I'm not interested in the last word - you have it.
My earlier note above was probably nothing you've not seen before I'd say - but ingrained therein lies a small itchy fragment of truth that I'm trying not to scratch ... but here goes. In an earlier conversation, it was noted that other bishops (e.g. Talbot) were appointed to minister outside the British Isles - but that the consecration was by nonjuring bishops - therefore doesn't count. The current article states that Seabury was appointed by nonjuring Scottish bishops - and that this makes him the first bishop, etc.... Why does this count - why is this different that Talbot? It seems that part of the reason for the difference is that Seabury's consecration was questioned by some when he returned to America, but was recognised by the general convention of his church in 1789. It also seems that the ECUSA was formally set up during this convention, and not before. So one question remains - where was the first diocese outside of the British Isles? It seems to me that it could be argued that it was NS? What do you think? (And thanks in advance for your patience)
Bardcom (
talk)
22:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that the earlier bishops a)visited under their own steam, they weren't appointed either as diocesans, or as suffragans of London, who otherwise had Ordinary jurisdiction, and in general one is supposed to only exercise episcopal powers with the permision of the local Ordinary, and b) there orders are not questioned purely because they were non-juring, but because they were only consecrated by one or two other bishops, whereas three is the normal requirement, or one of the consecratos had doubtful orders for the same reason. In any case the only sources we've found do refer to Seabury as the first, and claim to the contrary would need to be verifiable.
David Underdown (
talk)
19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom, to add my own three-penny worth; the answer to your question about the relative status of Seabury and Talbot/Weston. is that it turns on a. hindsight, and b. the Oxford Movement. We recognise Seabury as Anglican, because, in the subsequent development of Anglican identity both the church he was consecrated to (ECUSA), and the church whose bishops consecrated him according to canon law (The Scots Episcopal Church), came to be accepted - and to accept themselves - as "Anglican". But this was not, in 1784, a foregone conclusion. Until 1788 (and the death of Charles Edward Stuart) the Scots Episcopal Church still regarded the Church of England as schismatic - and vice versa. The significance of b. (The Oxford Movement), is that it transformed High Church discourse within the Church of England away from an intra-Erastian quarrel as to the relative supremacy in divine law of Parliament and of the Monarch - i.e. the non-juror issue - and towards a discourse that rejected Erastianism almost entirely. Neither Tractarians nor Evangelicals were, in the C19th disposed to accept retrospectively the historic validity of irregular consecrations undertaken by English non-jurors.
TomHennell (
talk)
11:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
TomHennell, thank you for the detail. I think I have the full picture now... It seems that an unusual situation occurred. When Seabury was consecrated, he was not regarded as Anglican, and no royal warrant was issued for the setting up of his "foreign" diocese. When Nova Scotia was set up therefore, it would have regarded itself (and been regarded in turn) as the first diocese outside the jurisdiction of the British monarch, and it's bishop as the first. But over time, it appears a degree of retrospection (hindsight) is being taken into account in order to acknowledge Seabury as the first Anglican bishop, etc. No offense to anyone, etc, but is this a simplified summary?
Bardcom (
talk)
11:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom, we should not trespass too much on Ptolemy Caesarion's hospitality. However, I broadly agree with your understanding (except your use of the term "unusual"; in this period confusion, incoherence and inconsistency on all sides was the order of the day). The Church of England in the 1780s would be inclined to distinguish three divisions of the Scots Church: the established Presbyterian "Church of Scotland"; the covertly Jacobite "Epsicopal Church of Scotland"; and the "qualfied congregations", i.e. episcopal congregations who had accepted the Act of Toleration of 1712, and who consequently used the English Book of Common Prayer and swore allegiance to the Hanoverian Kings. Which, if any, of these, an English churchmen would regard as his co-religionists was very much an open question. Modern "Anglicanism" could be said to involve adherence to episcopacy, the Prayer Book, and to the legal establishment; but here the three considerations led to three different conclusions. Charles Simeon, in Scotland, worshipped in the Church of Scotland. The CMS, on the other hand, worked closely with the qualified congregations; while the SPG promoted the "reformed catholicity" of the Episcopal Church. On the same basis, I suspect, that all three groups except the SPG (and associated high churchmen) would have initially have viewed the ECUSA dioceses as a "separated church", and hence would have regarded Nova Scotia as the first newly-formed protestant episcopal diocese outside of England, Wales, Ireland and Man. I think that CMS only shifts its position on this point after 1851, as the qualfied congregations took a long time to be re-absorbed into the Episcopal Church. The issue of jurisdiction is an even more complicated one - especially as the Colenso case revealed the legal instruments employed to have been arguably ultra vires anyway. But if you want to continue the debate, perhaps it would be better to repair to my discussion page.
TomHennell (
talk)
14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A tricky point David. It is fundamental to the eccelsiology of Anglican bishops that their power of orders is subject to from episcopal consecration, and their power of jurisdiction is subject to the state. But it was far from clear who - in the Province of Nova Scotia - should embody the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the state. When Inglis was appointed to Nova Scotia he was ordained in England (and took an oath of obedience to the Archnishop of Canterbury), but obtained his jurisdiction by letters patent of George III. But Nova Scotia (I believe) already had a legislature of its own under the Crown, so the letters patent were actually ultra vires - as the Colenso case made clear - the Royal Prerogative being unable to act alone, in matters properly the function of the relevant legislature. So, while the civil province was and is under the sovereignty of the British Crown, its Church should have been recognised from the first as independent of direct Crown jurisdiction.
TomHennell (
talk)
15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In his first ever article contributions he embarks on a wholesale rewrite of a top-importance article! Perleese!
Johnbod (
talk)
19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for bothering you. I tried to get a link established between the
Hever Castle page and the Anne Boleyn one in the "Also see" list. My edit was reverted/ didn't take. I think it might be of interest to people because that's the castle where Anne's family lived. I also asked s.o. to mention that Anne's name used to be "Bullen". You seem to be able and willing to edit that page. One of the reasons so many people get bored with history is because the dusty book stuff doesn't manage to bring people to life. Looking at where s.o. lived is an important step in that direction. I'd be happy if you could put that info in. Thanks. Lisa4edit--
Lisa4edit (
talk)
04:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The "See also" section should only include subject that are not linked elsewhere in the article, the castle is mentioned and linked. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have followed this with one eye for some time and I may comment later. I don't feel very strongly either way about this. A nav box with links to all the articles on the subject should be probably be created. Orthodox, Romans, and most Anglicans have many similar beliefs and some differences. If I see it breaking in a direction that I feel is wrong, I'll attempt to correct it. I am curious to see other opinions first. Thank you so much for the heads up. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to set up the archiving and noms format for
P:CM as has been setup for
P:CI. Could you help out, please? Atleast, if you let me know how it works, mebbe I could do it myself. I've tried analysing the code, but it's slightly beyond me... Sorry to be a bother.
aJCfreakyAk21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the portal discussion has been closed as unsuccessful. Feel free to nominate after suggested changes are made. Regards,
Rudget (
Help?)
15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II - May 2008
Aloha. The May 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit
this link. Mahalo nui loa.
WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you missed being elected one of the coordiantors of the Christianity project. Traditionally, insofar as there is a tradition in such matters, the top votegetter gets the lead job. Right now, there's a tie for top votegetter. You wanna close out the balloting and name the lead, if we decide on having one? It looks like Tinucherian has already nominated me for the function. God knows I ain't even remotely qualified for the post, but I'm willing to take it if it's determined we should have someone in that position and I wind up being the poor sod chosen to fill it. Your call.
John Carter (
talk)
20:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you've looked at this article lately? Do you think it's missing anything in particular? Do you think it's good enough to be raised a category yet?
Boleyn (
talk)
20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been quite busy with work as of late. The article neeeds many more citations before it can be promoted. If you wish to help but are not sure how, contact me here. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Look over the
recent changes list for recent improvements to articles, other changes and vandalism.
WikiProject Christianity Coordinators : The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention.
The following Coordinators were elected after
Elections 2008
There is also a discussion regarding whether any new subportals dealing with Christianity should be created
here. All inputs are welcome.
Bot Assisted Assessment was used for the unassessed project articles. Should you need any manual reassessment , kindly request it
here.
Member News
Our
membership continues to expand. It is currently at 223 users. 39 new users have joined the WikiProject in the month of April 2008. Please make them feel welcomed!
Christianity Articles by Quality
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
Archives of previous newsletters can be found
here. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format,
add your name here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, let ~The Newsletter Editors know. This newsletter is automatically delivered by
Addbot (
talk)
15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC) .
Anglicanism portal has been promoted to featured status
The portal you nominated at
featured portal candidates on
May 22008 has been promoted to featured portal status, and the 119th to do so. Well done. You can view eventual comments at
the nomination page. Best regards,
Note: I haven't finished updating all relevant lists here with respect to the portal, I'll get round to it tomorrow due to emergent commitiments.
Rudget (
Help?)
16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - June 2008
Aloha. The June 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit
this
link. Mahalo nui loa.
WikiProject Hawaiʻi 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the Sixth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
Luckily, you all won't have to see my comments very often, as very little I have to say is really that important. But I would like to take the opportunity to say that I hope everyone finds the new
General Forum page useful for discussing ideas relevant to Christianity in general, and feels free to make any additional comments regarding general Christianity there. Also, if any of you feel that you want to place a comment here in the future, please let us know what you want included. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
We are initiating a new feature here. Every month, we will list one misisng article. The first person to start the article will be mentioned by name in the next newsletter, as well as any others should they help get included in the Main Page DYK's section.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section
here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by
TinucherianBot (
talk)
09:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - July 2008
Aloha. The July 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit
this
link. Mahalo nui loa.
WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
We now have 53 featured articles 6 featured lists, and 130 good articles, with the recent promotions of
Thomas Cranmer to FA class,
List of encyclicals of Pope John XXIII to FL status, and
Hugh de Puiset to GA level. Thanks to all those who worked on these articles!
Welcome to the Eighth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
As many of you will know, we currently have several articles relating to the same basic topics. The articles in the
Category:Baptism are one example of such. It is really in the interests of all of us to try to place as much content in the main article of such topics, and then have the other articles "branch off" from there and making the central article as good an article as possible. We also now have a proposal for a new general "Christianity" related award, similar to the Military history project's chevrons, at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum.
John Carter (
talk), Lead Coordinator
Newsletter challenge
Last month's new article challenge, Church of Daniel's Band, was begun by
User:Jack1956 and was included in the
Main page's DYK section on June 15. Thank you to Jack1956 for his great work on creating this article!
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - August 2008
Aloha. The August 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit
this
link. Mahalo nui loa.
WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, you asked me to contact you if the article might be delisted. I have addressed several of the concerns myself, and another editor helped reference one of the paragraphs. There are still three small points at the end of the review that need to be addressed. If you could take a look, I would really appreciate it. Thanks,
GaryColemanFan (
talk)
16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No progress has been made, and I believe that the article needs some work in terms of breadth of coverage. If no progress (or request for an extension) is made within a couple of days, I will begin the process to delist the article.
GaryColemanFan (
talk)
02:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - September 2008
Aloha. The September 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit
this
link. Mahalo nui loa.
WikiProject Hawaiʻi 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VII - October 2008
Aloha. The October 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit
this
link. Mahalo nui loa.
WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VIII - November 2008
Aloha. The November 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit
this
link. Mahalo nui loa.
WikiProject Hawaiʻi 07:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I am reviewing a number of class settings and probably pasted in the edit summary from the last article I corrected. I double checked the rating and it is as it should be. Thanks for the heads up. --
Ptolemy Caesarion (
talk)
20:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate on the downgrade of
Father Damien? I realize the new C-class was carved out of the low-end of B-class and the high-end of Start-class, but I and future editors would like to know what needs to be done to get it back to B-class. It was once a Featured Article, so getting it back up to B if not GA should be relatively easy.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)/(
e-mail)
00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, after you edited two articles on my watch list (
Christianity and homosexuality and
List of Episcopal bishops (U.S.)), I thought I'd have a look at your user page and see who you are. I see that you also edited a lot on the article about my parish's patron saint (
St. Augustine of Canterbury) and about
de:Apostolicae Curiae, which I used as a model for the German version. So it seems we have a lot of common interests--plus, Illinois is the state in which I was first registered to vote (from April to September of 1985) and last registered to vote (from June 1994 until December 2004, when I renounced U.S. citizenship to become German). In high school, during Youth in Government week, I was in the "Senate", too. Is there an article on WP somewhere about the impeachment process and why it takes so long?--
Bhuck (
talk)
07:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Ack. I just saw your request on the
WP:HAWAII talk page a week late. Can you give me an update? I have access to many books on the subject and I would be willing to collaborate with other editors.
Viriditas (
talk)
11:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)