User talk:Dr mindbender

Rome

Please stop changing the links in the Rome article from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. It is causing disambiguity problems. Thanks! LoyolaDude 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please stop putting in this sentence into the Rome article: -

"by virtue of its three thousand years of accumulated history and art: a city of the divine and the sublime, of gods, kings, emperors and popes — Città Eterna — the "Eternal City"."

It's supposed to be an objective encyclopedia article so we just stick to straight facts rather than hyperbolic statements like the one above. Thanks.

State religion

Part of the reason I made changes to your edit, that you reverted, was because it was getting to be a little too in-depth (off topic) for the scope of the article - State Religion. The other reason is because a "point-of-view" is definitely presented in the parts I removed. If you would like this pov to appear, you should at least source it to someone who hold the same pov, but even then it is questionable whether this is the right article for such a discussion. ፈቃደ (User talk:Codex Sinaiticus) 04:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Roman Catholic Church

Hello. Would you please build upon the current version, instead of keeping on reverting before adding new contributions? It took some time to cleanup the article, restoring the "un-clean" version is a bit rude. If you have issues with the current version, let me know.--Panarjedde 10:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you give a reason for your reverts?--RedMC 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your final warning. Stop vandalising the Rome page or you will be blocked from further editing.--Panarjedde 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It's not in my nature to vandalize. Specially the glory and grandeur of Rome. If I had my way I'd want all the classical buildings of Rome rebuilt to their greatest glory. Ironic. But the greater irony it seems is that he got blocked indefinitely at the time of this writing for one reason or another. Hmmmm. Oh well. Life goes on. Dr mindbender 07:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church >> Catholic Church

Please stop changing "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church". It is incorrect and causes a redirect issues. Philip Stevens 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first say that your argument on my talk page was extremely well-reasoned. Very rarely are arguments as well-reasoned as that one made on WP. That being said, I agree that the term RCC is usually only used in the English speaking world, and that it is a term originally coined by anti-papist forces in the Anglo-Saxon world. Catholics in Muslim-dominated countries do not usually refer to themselves as RCs, and the churches that call themselves Catholic but follow the Patriarch are not RC.

However, on the Rome page, I still maintain that the links should point to the RCC, as it is an English-language page. Because English-speaking people refer to the religion as the RCC, it should point there. Rome has always been associated with what English speakers call the RCC, so on the English-language Rome page, the links should point to the RCC. If the Rome page in a non-Anglo-Saxon language like Farsi point to the CC as it is known in Rome, it would be appropriate. LoyolaDude 17:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to Pope I have reverted your final edit. There is a difference (a huge one) between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope template

Thanks for the heads up! Feel free to eliminate "of Rome" from the Pontifex's title. You might want to explain it on the template's discussion page for "permanence." While the change is immediately apparent to a lot of articles, it is easily changeable, as we know. So it shouldn't really be a problem if someone comes up with a different perspective.Student7 11:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while we were deliberating. someone just huffed the whole change! :) Your move! (it was a bit of a nuisance for me. I had to insert a separate box for all popes prior to 376). Student7 11:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was away for awhile. Just now responding to your suggestion to change the titles on the template to "Sovereign of the Vatican. etc.". My original intent was to recognize the transition from the early Roman days about Pontifex Maximus. This amused me and is a title the Pope retains, as we have discussed. Outside of that, feel free to try your suggestions. The other titles didn't seem to tie in with anything pre-dating the popes. so doesn't conflict with mine. You might try a discussion on the template. I didn't and got zinged for it, though we now seem to get little feedback from doing that. Good luck! Student7 21:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Condemnation

Thank you, I just hope that nothing like that page move happens again. Especially after a consensus has been reached. Therequiembellishere 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C mon reverted the page to a really awful version that That-Vela-Fella and I worked hard to change to its current version. This wasn't the first time he'd done this either. Therequiembellishere 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican City

The Vatican City article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

Hello! Thank you for your valuable past and recent contributions to this page. I moved your recent edit out of the lead paragraph and into the Belief section under "Church" and added to the statement to give the full picture. I hope you don't mind. I think it was a necessary and useful edit and adds to the completeness of the article but I moved it out of the lead because in order to bring the article to FA status, your lead section has to be concise. If there is anything in the lead that is too specific, it always gets moved or cut out in order to fulfill the FA status criteria. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Mindbender,I just saw your addition to my talk page. I missed it because it is at the top instead of at the bottom of the page. I think new additions are supposed to be at the bottom but since I am pretty new here, maybe I am wrong. I sympathize with your argument regarding Catholic Church vs Roman Catholic Church. However, I am not going to fight that fight. If you wikilink Catholic Church I think it goes to the page on Roman Catholic Church anyway. As a Catholic, I am not personally offended by the term Roman Catholic and never knew the origins of the term being something derogatory or Anglican. Sorry I couldnt help you here and I hope you like the page otherwise. God bless you! NancyHeise (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC you might be interested in

Hello. You dropped by my talk page a while back and commented on some of my observations on my user page, so I wanted to let you know that an RfC has been filed on me. Please feel free to drop by and comment, if you're interested, one way or the other. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Pope

Template:Pope has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Pope before 376

Template:Pope before 376 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/To-do list

Hi Dr mindbender! It is a pleasure to meet you! The page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/To-do list has been recently updated with a much needed cleanup! I appreciate all of the work you have been doing on Catholic-related efforts on Wikipedia! If possible, feel free to browse and see some of the new changes going on within the portal! Twillisjr (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]