User talk:Lima/Archive 2

BCP Lord's Prayer

It is not true to say that the doxology is not part of the BCp text. In fact the orders for Mattins and Evensong include the Lord's prayer twice, once with and once without. The first time the prayer occurs (following the General Confession and Absolution, often omitted except on Sundays) it is with the doxology, the second time it appears in following the Kyries in the Responses after the Creed, it is without. I don't think the additional external link was helpful, but if we must have one, linking to Wikisource texts for Morning or Evening Prater would be better, or a link to the Church of England website or www.justus.anglican.org would eb more definitive I think. David Underdown 08:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original sin article

I am glad that you inserted tags into the opening paragraph. The inchoate condition of this paragraph was not the way it was two months ago. It needs some serious editing. I share your concern about the Roman Catholic Church being misrepresented at times on this website, BTW. The opening paragraph should be a general ecumenical statement followed by the manner in which this doctrine is viewed in the various faiths and traditions.--Drboisclair 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with the text now is not only that it has unsubstantiated statements, but it is filled with stylistic and grammatical errors.--Drboisclair 02:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the discussion page of Original Sin: Is this sentence (Those who deny the existence of original sin thus profess belief in the immaculate conception not only of Mary but of every human being) verifiable or is it simply a "original research" surmise of someone? I think that it should be removed if it does not have support. I think that it is a veiled polemic against the Roman Catholic faith.--Drboisclair 06:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should rethink the argument that if there were no original sin, then all people would be immaculately conceived. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception presupposes the existence of original sin, and the state of the blessed Virgin by the singular act of the grace of God is something qualitatively different than the states of, say Adam and Eve before the fall. Even Pelagius might not be wont to say that all people are immaculately conceived even though he virtually denied the existence of original sin.--Drboisclair 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Sin

Hello Lima, You may want to respond to this. I have made a statement in that I think that the theology of St. Augustine is not properly understood by some.[1]--Drboisclair 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Twt"?

Can I ask why you refer to me as "Twt"? That's a strange way to abbreviate my last name, and I've never seen it before. It's like the old Hebrew version of my name (no vowels). Jonathan Tweet 13:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance I could prevail upon your Christian charity and ask you to stop referring to me as "Twt"? Jonathan Tweet 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious how you would translate...

"fabri aut quaestuariae filius"?

Discussion is here. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always for your expertise. I should probably bookmark Persueus. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation

A request for informal mediation has been filed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28 Purgatory. I have reviewed the general history of the article and talk page. Please indicate on the case page if you will accept my assistance as an informal mediator. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Vassyana 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us on the case talk page so we can define the scope and issues involved. I have posted a few questions to be answered to help us towards that end. Vassyana 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

too much credit

I think you're giving me too much credit. I was trying to make a usename akin to Richard I, but every possible name was taken. I had to get creative. I then needed to make a user page, so I typed something quickly, substituting eum for id (a slip, since I was thinking of a person) and forgetting that Gaudeo does not normally take an accusative. But thanks for thinking so highly of me =). Sanctum Cor Leonis 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant POV pushing at Template:Books of the Old Testament

Just thought you might be interested in User:Alastair Haines attempts to push a Protestant POV at Template:Books of the Old Testament, see for example [2]. 75.14.208.224 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy See vs Holy See of Saint Peter

Lima, can you please offer an opinion on the Talk Page for Holy See? An anon user has renamed the article. Thanks. Majoreditor 01:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Christianity

I did the revert/expand-by-sources thing again at early Christianity. Please check out the recent edits and talk page comments and let me know your thoughts, so I can adjust anything if there's need. Be well! Vassyana 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to engage in an edit war with an IP user. Could you look over this diff and tell me if my changes were appropriate?[3] Of course, if some things still needed to be worked out, we could do that as we've been. Thanks! Vassyana 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent behaviour

Please stop engaging in original research. Please stop making uncivil and snarky comments, especially as editor notes in article space. Also, please do not make edits to prove a point. I implore you to deal with me politely and to work productively towards article improvement. If there's a content conflict we cannot resolve, we can take it to dispute resolution. However, the disruptive and rude attitude you've taken is not acceptable. Vassyana 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [Best not to respond to this objection to counter-arguments being inserted in "editor notes in article space" () to balance the arguments inserted in the same editor notes by the objector. On alleged Original Research, see below.][reply]

Subsistit in Lumen Gentium subheading Traditionalist Reaction

I just wanted to ask you what specifically you object to, since most of the content of my edit was already mentioned. The remaining components are just logical deductions from the rest. If there is no room for divergence on the issue of traditionalist reaction, what is purpose of it existing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunchoming (talk • contribs) (to whom I have responded)

Bishop of Rome

It has nothing to do with the title "pope". In most of the cases in the catholicism article, "Bishop of Rome" needs to "bishop of Rome", as well - assuming "archbishop of Canterbury" is correct. That is the usage I was encouraged to employ throughout the Thomas Cranmer article for FAC. What standard have you based you capitalization on? -- SECisek 09:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly I should put this elsewhere, but Secisek, unless I'm missing something, it was only suggested that you be consistent with your capitalisation, not that bishop of Wherever whould always be lower cased. To my mind, Bishop of Wherever is a proper noun as a tile, but I'd write "the bishop said", or whatever, where the word bishop is being used in isolation. See for example, this from The Guardian's style guide

“

archbishop

the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at first mention, thereafter Dr Williams or the archbishop (he is the Most Rev but not normally necessary to say so); the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, on first mention, subsequently Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor or the archbishop

bishops

the Right Rev Clifford Richard, Bishop of Wimbledon, at first mention; thereafter the bishop or Bishop Richard

”

David Underdown 10:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me, this is then the rule for all titles, king, duke? -- SECisek 12:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth at this point, the League of Copy Editors informed me that unless it precedes a proper name, pope, bishop, king, et al are to be lower case. -- SECisek 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make this stuff up. Yes, they want ' archbishop of Canterbury' and 'the pope ruled': [4]

I am not saying you are wrong, but that is the style they want inforced for an FAC support. Best, -- SECisek 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They seeem to have missed the fact that in this case (arch)bishop is being used as part of a title. Which of the copyeditors was it that suggested this? I think it's just plain wrong. David Underdown 15:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask. Bare in mind I do not have a position on this, really. I just want to know what is correct. If you search the revision cited above for the word "pope" you will see the original comment. -- SECisek 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Original research is prohibited. You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible, to argue against secondary sources. You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. You must cite reliable sources to put forward such arguments and discussions. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Please take the time to read and understand our content policies. Vassyana 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC) [This seems to have been settled with this response][reply]

Baronius Press spam

Thanks for removing a couple of instances of Baronius Press spam from User:Johnhumphrey1947. I removed the other spam from this account, but most of these articles are outside my normal interests, so I appreciate your vigilance if you should see any more of it! As it is now, baroniuspress.com is only linked from the article on the press, which is how it should be. Wareh 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English langugage

Hello Lima, I was certainly not attempting to start any type of dispute over what spelling is most appropriate, but I do make an assumption that use of both styles in the same article is not ideal. When I am on a spelling "kick", I look for the most prevalent style and correct to that preference. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

Please read the talk page of the article. All I'm asking is if these were the only nations Christianized back then. Wouldn't it be important to mention all peoples/nations involved or rephrase the sentence like 'Catholicism spread all over Europe these times'?
And also please don't write this kind of edit summary, I did no wrong to the article, I'd like to improve it. Squash Racket 15:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to use Slavic peoples instead of mentioning them one by one, but I don't know if that is exact enough. Although having Germanic people in general and then all little nations mentioned is a bit strange, don't you think? For example as far as I know you can't use the term Slovak for these times, see the history of the nation and the name. Perhaps that's why it would be more simple to concentrate on geographical terms. Squash Racket 16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I understand your reaction now. I see the page is vandalised constantly. Squash Racket 16:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infant baptism

In Infant baptism your bot has merely capitalized the word "fact" where the date was already given. "fact" works just as well as "Fact". An alteration merely from "f" to "F" wastes the time of anyone checking what change has been made. (At least, that is my opinion.) Lima 03:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are quite right. It should have dated a tag on the page. Note that you can suppress both bot edits and minor edits from both recent changes and watchlist. Rich Farmbrough, 10:43 30 September 2007 (GMT).

Baltic peoples

I also thought that based on common sense, but I could not find Estonians among Baltic peoples. Look yourself. Squash Racket 11:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Policy shortcut: WP:SYN Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoir (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eucharistia vs. The Eucharistia

There must be some meaningful way to distinguish the Koine usage of eucharistia in the NT from The Eucharistia (rite). I imagine Latin writers would just quote the Greek, but is there a way to express the difference the defininte article makes in English, but in Greek? Otherwise November 22 becomes American Eucharist.

It has become interesting to me that the thanksgiving aspect of Thannksgiving withered so early in comparison with the dominance of the rememberance aspect.Eschoir 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polytonic Greek

My well-learned, fellow scholar Lima! I think that the Explorer 7 is the cause of your being better able to decipher the Greek. I imagine that my backward software is my problem for still seeing all of those boxes (default symbols for indecipherable characters). Do you think that posting that Greek text of the Apostolicum is helpful? Perhaps now it can be read with the requisite software. I await your reply.--Drboisclair 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I happen to have this page in my watchlist and noticed the subject.

Polytonic Greek text is supported on older versions of Internet Explorer via the {{polytonic}} template. When transcluded, the text containing polytonic diacritics should be the parameter. So first try adding this template where you're seeing improperly rendered Greek.

If that template is in use and you're still seeing the boxes, then you lack an appropriate Unicode font. There may be updates available through Windows Update that can help you. (In the "Optional" section.) The fonts the template causes your browser to look for in order are: Athena, Gentium, Palatino Linotype, Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, and Code2000. So try downloading and installing Athena. This a new version, which I am not altogether confident is recognized as the same font family, so you can also try Gentium. As a last resort, Code2000 supports a very wide selection of Unicode ranges. But I'd suggest this only as a last resort; many of the glyphs are unattractive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lima: I might be able to track down the answer to your question if I knew when polytonic text stopped working for you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see two changes to the site that might possibly have caused a problem. One, around April of this year, is when they changed the implementation of how fonts are selected in order to standardize the treatment of languages with poor IE6 support. The other, in late December of last year, is when they fixed what was actually a bug in how the font selection list was laid out.

There's no reason why the April change should have broken this for you, but the December change may well have. I have to guess because I don't know what IE6 does with this kind of syntax error, but if it was formerly selecting the first font it could understand -- and this font happened to have the Unicode range for polytonic glyphs defined -- then it would display correctly. Then, once the bug was corrected and it could now properly understand all the fonts in the list, it selected a font from earlier in the list, but one where you happened to have an old version installed without that Unicode range defined, and you got the squares.

If that's the case, for Drboisclair installing Gentium should take care of the problem. Athena Unicode is a more attractive font, but the list currently calls out an old version no longer supported by its maker. I've asked for it to be changed to request the currently available version -- you have to be an admin to do it, and I'm not -- and once they do then Athena Unicode will be the preferred font for rendering polytonic Greek text on IE6.

Because IE7 correctly supports Unicode, these shenanigans aren't necessary for it, and it will render the text correctly with or without the template. Actually, the template is totally ignored for IE7 and CSS 2 compliant browsers. The font list is set according to a scheme supported even in IE6 -- but then it's reset back to the way it was using syntax only supported by later browsers.

(advertisement) Had everyone been using Firefox, none of this would be necessary. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eucharist

I like your revision of the "received of the Lord" section. It seems an honest middle ground. I would prefer it not in a footnote, but it is an imperfect world.

I have a primary problem with the article, besides obvious Catholic bias. It is organizational. I really don't know what the article is supposed to be about, is it limited to those things calling themselves eucharist, and therefore strictly parochial, or does it claim that all final meal rituals are actually eucharist, and deserving of analysis. Also, isit about the PHRASE, or the WORD (a noun that is used sometimes adjectivally)? The article is way too long, and after reading it, I still have no idea of the antecedant for "this" in "do this in remembrance of me."

Forgive me if I seem fundamentalist on accurate quotes, but if you use the quote marks, it MUST exactly reflect the source.

I don't see the problems refered to in the matrix table, and can't find the objections.Eschoir 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it.Eschoir 02:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courteous reply. I find it hopelessly confusing as to goals. However, if you can get language to stick in the first paragraph stating that this article is not a critical or scholarly examination of the history or origins of the liturgy or liturgies, but merely about what is normally understood by "the Eucharist" in snapshot form across the denominations, I wiill fold my tent and steal silently away. That is a useless article, and one not deserving of my time.Eschoir 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how the Eucharist is not ritualistic cannibalism.--67.133.194.125 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papal emblem

On your request I have created a Papal emblem with the keys on the correct side. I'm sorry, it took some time. It's used by Portal Catholicism now. I hope, you like it. Thanks for telling about the mistake.--Thw1309 10:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Fact

Something you might be interested in. Have a look at the edit history page for 75.14.218.110 and for Leadwind. Both edit the same exact set of articles, during the same time periods, yet not overlapping. More interesting, the anonymous IP address has recently begun to edit articles which both you and I were first contributing to. My conclusion is that Leadwind has looked at our edit histories and sought to alter our work on other pages (related to Christianity), as so has done so anonymously. I bring this up because I would like the difficulties on the purgatory page to end quickly so I can go back to editing articles mostly of Frankish interest, but I am troubled over this. It looks like this editor has quirky views and seeks to spread those views on a free encyclopedia, which means I will be bogged down on these articles of Christian interest and I'll never get back to the Franks. Ritterschaft 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe it was me. Sometimes I don't notice when I've logged out. But I checked, and it's not me. I've never been to the "Cafeteria Christianity" page. Obviously it's someone who's interested in the same sort of articles as I am. Leadwind 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church Membership Stats in Infant Baptism Article

Thank you for tightening the wording of the disclaimer on church membership statistics in the Infant Baptism article. I added a line to the footnote that mentioned that some European churches include large numbers of people in their membership rolls who do not actively attend church; in fact, comparatively few people in Western Europe attend church, but most are officially counted as Christians. It is undetermined whether the larger number of practicing Christians are paedobaptist or credobaptist, and I thought that the reader should be aware that this uncertainty exists. It also encourages the reader to think for themselves about whether individuals who have no real involvement with a Christian church should be counted as "Christians." --ManicBrit 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]