User talk:Marauder40/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome...

Hello, Marauder40, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! umrguy42 16:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, saw your edits to KofC, thought I'd just give you a friendly welcome! (Also a Knight here.) Best wishes, and happy editing, umrguy42 16:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for adding the info box to National Shrine of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton -- it makes the article look great! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello, and thanks for the smile! You are in Maryland, yes? If you are ever near the shrine, feel free to take a photo and bring it here. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, your input is most welcome. I hope to see you online again! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're being uncivil

Accusing people of making "unconstructive" edits is rather impolite. If you have a reason why you don't think it should be mentioned that the RCC particpates in rape and slavery, you can discuss it on the talk page.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when is adding "In recent years, the Church has participated in slavery and rape." without any cites a constructive edit. Especially when an article is up for FA review. Marauder40 (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[Removed my first vandalism] Marauder40 (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reverts

Thanks for reverting that IP vandal User talk:82.2.236.210. Do not let him upset you. He is a well knowm long term vandal user:Pionier and gets blocked out frequently. The poor fellow has some form of obsessive disorsder and focuses on Christians, Jews (specially Lithuanians) and chess players. Also vandalizes Lithuanian Wikipedia I hear. All you need to do is revert and post on the Admin notice board (I did today) and he gets blocked out - for a month this time. Cheers History2007 (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is/was so persistent I started to write a paper based on it. So some good may come out of it: User:History2007/Content protection. Everytime he vandalizes, I work on that paper some more.... And he actualy made me read more and learn more about Miguel Pro as he vandalized that page. He will be back, and we need to just keep blocking him. Cheers History2007 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping you a line to say well done on the Lourdes reversions. Good to know there's others on the team :) :) :) RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the well done. Marauder40 (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Marian pages

Hi, Thanks for your help. History2007 (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [1] but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 03:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Popes

Hi Marauder, I took a look at your list, but I'll have to go back and read the delist review, because I honestly don't remember a whole lot, lol. However, one thing jumped right out at me, the age column is "Age at election/death or resigned", which to me, means that the numbers would be Age at the time of election/Age at the time of death. If this is true, then there is a glaring error with John Paul II, because the numbers in that column for him say 58/64. He was definitely not 64 when he died.

Also, you have the legend after the first table, it should be in the lead so it is understood that there are caveats prior to reading the table. Also, the third entry's formatting is different for the "Common English name", so it doesn't match. For those who are not Catholic, and have no knowledge of latin, some sort of explanation for that third entry is needed. (Readers will ask: What does "interregnum" mean? The link goes to another page called "Sede vacante", which also is not a term most people know. Not everyone wants to have to read an article to understand that the column means there was no pope for that time period, it should be explained in the notes column, and the reason why there was no pope during that time given.)

Something about this list isn't pleasing/easy to read (to me), but I can't say what it is. I think that the notes column is too narrow, for one thing, but I'm not sure where you can remove space to make it bigger. I'll have to take a look at the original delist conversation to remember the issues, but for now, I suggest that you either change the wording of the age column to explain what it is supposed to mean (if it doesn't mean what I thought), or you check all the numbers, because at least one is very off. Ariel♥Gold 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

One last vote please

Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: [2]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise ^talk 15:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

smiling right back at you Marauder40! Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's who

Greetings - just in case you haven't noticed, this guy seems to be the current manifestation of the person discussed here. Best, CliffC (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the info. I noticed that after I made the comment on the EWTN talk page. Marauder40 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Eternal Word Television Network —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.76.165 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Anon blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Marauder40 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dec 2008

Merry Christmas

History2007 (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RFM

I began a Request for Mediation here [3] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [4] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

GSCNC

THANK YOU for your help!

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thanks

Thanks for your help on Order of the Arrow. I haven't had much time to get to it, so I'm glad you jumped in! --Eustress (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church

Hi Marauder, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here [5]. Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the webpage

Thank you a million for restoring the webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnarendr (talk • contribs) 15:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Article Poll

Hi Marauder. I note you voted that you would accept Option 1 in the poll. To explain my position, I do not support this, since I think it would only postpone the debate until the article came up for Featured staus again. Breaking the Wikipedia guidance that the title should appear first will mean the whole row being raised again. Xandar 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My take on the issue is that the name appear first is a guideline, not a rule. As long as it appears in the first sentence it shouldn't be a problem. There are other FA that don't have the article name as the very first item.Marauder40 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, FYI, new rosary related page: Rosary and scapular. It got many pageviews, because on DYK, but no vandals yet. Cheers History2007 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

thanks, Tom B (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [6]. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 11:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OA Ceremonies

Do you have a copy of the 2007 printing of the OA handbook? If not, use special:emailuser and I'll email you a copy of the relevant page. The rule has been changed - non-members are not permitted in ceremonies. The remedies available for a parent or other interested adult are (1) read the ceremony text, (2) view the ceremony training DVD, or (3) not permit their son to attend the event. The second paragraph of the operations update - http://www.oa-bsa.org/annc/opup/opup-06-05.pdf - affirms that this was the intention of the policy change - non-member parents are no longer permitted to attend ceremonies. Any lodge still allowing them to is incorrect. That is not contradictory with the secret organizations portion of the youth protection policy - "all aspects" being open to observation doesn't mean that a parent has an unqualified right to be anywhere at any time with no restrictions. For example, nobody would suggest that parents have the right to personally observe a private meeting between the Scout Executive and a subordinate employee of the council. Allowing parents to be anywhere at any time is a silly interpretation of the policy. This is new language - previous editions of the handbook contained language that allowed parents or other interested adults to attend the ceremony. --B (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC Mediation

Your input is needed here [7] to decide on one of three options. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? [8] Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 18:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church mediation outcome

Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here [9]. Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise ^talk 14:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's

Hello Marauder40, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [10] Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 01:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your religion suggestion

I saw your suggestion at the CC page and wanted to comment. I have been lurking there lately with considerable disappointment at the direction the tone and tactics of the recent discussions have taken (suffice it to point out the uncharacteristically snippy reception Richard, the most level-headed regular there IMO, gave you, and I won't bother to mention the churlish behavior of otherwise three of the finest editors the project has). Thus, while I haven't chimed in there, please trust that I have plenty of well informed opinions.

Your suggestion is a very good one, and I fully support the effort. It is interesting you brought it up, because NH had actually used the Islam article as a template during one (at least) of the failed FACs, and the pushback she got on POV grounds was nothing less than extraordinary. I am not saying that none of the pushback had merit, but the overall amount clearly demonstrated that in some sense there are more than one set of standards in play, as you point out. I recall she got very frustrated by that phenomenon, and (IIRC) took a long wikibreak because of it.

I should point out however, that it might be better to bring it up on say Wikiproject Religion or somewhere similar, as there is not much the editors of the CC talk page can do in a vacuum. But to reiterate, your idea is great. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I haven't wandered into the Wikiproject Religion area yet, but will start looking over there to see if there is a good and charitable way to bring this topic up. Even though I am Catholic and participated in this "discussion" for a long time I took a break for a couple weeks for personal reasons (not related to this discussion or even anything on WP) and feel that I am looking at it through fresh eyes, yet have knowledge of the history of the discussion. Hopefully things can get back to a charitable discussion soon. Marauder40 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting elections

You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting
---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Hi Marauder40, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here [11]. I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 19:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady of Guadalupe

Hi Marauder! I'm on my anual pilgrimage to clean up this article and try to have something presentable for the December 12th commemoration. Regarding John Paul II's Canonization of Juan Diego, I do believe something needs to be said about the strong controversy that arose regarding the canonization of a man that has been recognized as fictional even by members of the catholic church. How would you word it to avoid a POV sentence? Schicchi (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence you tried to add was that it didn't abide by many WP standards. In addition to be POV, it only said that there was contraversy, didn't say from who or what it was. In that paragraph you should just stick to the facts, the canonization took place on that date. If you want to address the fact that some may not think that Juan Diego even existed you should probably put that either in the Juan Diego article or in the contraversy section of the Our Lady of Guadalupe article. Of course you will need to provide the proper sources to support that. Marauder40 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not delete my article

It is not vandalism what is wrong with it. The Maximilian sum up part! --Jacobgreen35 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the information on the article talk page and on your talk page as to why your edits are being removed. Marauder40 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, History2007 (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Bishop Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige

Hello, you are a member of the Wikiproject Catholicism.We would appreciate your help. Please take a look at this article about the catholic bishop Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige . Users deleted sources and tried to force their anti-catholic POV on it. They banned many people that tried to add sources. They didnt block me or Eastmain, but they deleted our sources we gave too. It appears that they don't like this catholic bishop.

Best version until now with 13 sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=343039227&oldid=343037941

And after deleting the sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&action=historysubmit&diff=343481960&oldid=343039227

(At first they had planned on deleting the whole article but it didnt work)

Check out at the information on these other wikipedia articles about Seiwert Fleige and compare them to the info that is on there now. You will notice that its quite the oposite:

Pierre_Martin_Ngô_Đình_Thục

Palmarian_Catholic_Church

Sedevacantism

Clemente_Domínguez_y_Gómez

Thank you --Michelle cannon (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

FYI, The following was copied to you from my talk page. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 02:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

William E. Lori

Would you mind taking a look at William E. Lori? It had a tag on about having enough references. Tonight while providing references for the article (time flies), it appears to me that whole paragraphs were lifted out of these references and inserted to create his article. It could probably use a good copyedit or rewrite.--Morenooso (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RFC

I noticed that you commented on the Catholic Church RFC and endorsed the comments of NancyHeise but not that of Xandar. For the most part, NancyHeise and Xandar have common views of the dispute and thus it is surprising to find an editor endorsing one and not the other. Would you care to explain to me what the difference is between the two opinions and why you endorsed NancyHeise and not Xandar? Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning was that Nancy tended to address the meat of why certain versions were better then others, Xandar addressed the cause of the issue and I feel that is beating a dead horse. Marauder40 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Essentially my thinking, as well. Student7 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Marian Apparitions

I'll read the WP:Reliable and get back on this. In the meantime please note that a permanent structure has been erected on the site, marking the site of the apparitions, pilgrims are locating to the site weekly. And they have put up a very exhaustive official web site... Thanks Alan347 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just pilgrims attending and a cross erected on the site doesn't make it notable. If you read the first paragraph of the section you keep trying to add the paragraph to it says the following "There are hundreds of other reported apparitions around the world without major references or church investigations and they can not be included in this section, due to their lack of notability." It can be hard for a new user to understand that something you may be passionate about may not be notable enough for an article, but that is part of the process. You must meet notability issues before you can add it. You need to find the proper references and fight for what you believe in, but realize that you may be wrong. Marauder40 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Just FYI, a few new pages are appearing about list of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels, e.g. Denial of Peter and Road to Emmaus appearance. I will keep adding more from that list as time goes on. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will keep an eye out on them. Marauder40 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring (3RR warning)

I won't template you, but you clearly violated WP:3RR on Jesus, and I'm shocked that the admin who blocked your opponent didn't block you as well. Edit warring is never appropriate, even if you believe you are in the right. Please try to avoid edit warring in the future. It takes two to tango, and the world won't end if a version of the article you don't personally like is left up for a little while.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I just found out about the existence of this document, A Christian reflection on the New Age. One learns things here. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Greyfriars

Hi Marauder40, you removed ‘Greyfriars’ from Conventual Franciscans, remarking ‘not needed in lead’. So maybe you put it in somewhere else in the article? For nearly 500 years now, the Conventual Franciscans in Britain and several more countries have called themselves ‘Greyfriars’; please compare this portrayal. Thank you --BoyBoy (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is only supposed to contain things that are mentioned in the article. Greyfriars is one name given to a local (primarily in Britain and Ireland) group of Conventual Franciscans. It is not the primary name of the Conventual Franciscans, it started out as a nickname for a particular fraternity then was adopted by them and their offshoots. To put it as equal weight as the official name to the entire group is giving it undue weight. If you want it mentioned you can add it to the main article. It isn't my job to add it there.Marauder40 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, neither is it my job. --BoyBoy (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you get the idea of Wikipedia. If you want to make a change be Bold and do it. If people don't like it they revert it. If you still think your edit is appropriate you can look at what they say and add it in that manner or discuss it on the talk page. If you think it belongs in the article go through the process. If not don't. That is what Wikipedia is about. It is not my job to add something to an article that you feel is appropriate. Marauder40 (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, FYI, I actually setup a specific section for the persistent IP fellow: User_talk:150.199.97.75#This_account. It has many references that show the IP is not correct. But correct or not, he is persistent - we have to give him that. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Marauder40 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation of Benedict XVI.

Hy can you explain me, which sexual orientation Benedict XXV. has ? As i know, he never married and had never a girlfriend in his whole life. And in many Internet Blogs i read, that the pope is gay. 92.252.88.157 (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what sexual orientation Pope Benedict has. BLP on WP doesn't allow for speculation in either the articles or the talk page. He is a priest, as such it would be inappropriate for him to have a girlfriend. It doesn't matter what Internet blogs say, unless you have a reliable source and it has been confirmed you can't talk about it on here. Marauder40 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Sorry I have been quite. I was busy with Consecration and entrustment to Mary among other things. But I am glad you have come back to do some edits. Regarding the concluded Brouhahas, we always face challenges in life, but we can face them and with grace, succeed in most cases. Anyway, I am glad you came back. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back. Was going to email you something but it appears you don't allow email from WP users. I just needed some time off. I get sick of some of the things that go on, on WP. I just get sick of the people that take advantage of the system.Marauder40 (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not worry about people. Believe me, the corporate world is 100 times worse. One just has to face situations, say a prayer and go forward. In the meantime, life goes on and the best usually happens. Not always, but in most cases. But life goes on regardless of what people do. So do not worry about them. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Yes I realize the corporate world is 100 times worse. I know all about saying a prayer and moving forward I am a Franciscan after all ;). Sometimes it is better to remove the dust from the sandals and move on for awhile.Marauder40 (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. So let us let bygones be bygones and be happy. History2007 (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I am always happy. I don't let this stuff get on my nerves. If it did I would give it up totally. I only hope to become totally like St. Francis and actually enjoy hearing bad things said about me, but I haven't made it that far yet. But the past is just water under the bridge. Pax et bonum.Marauder40 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome!

Guess you saw my edits on the Secular Franciscan Order article; I'm "easing into" editing mostly with copy edits, but replaced the no-references tag with one reflecting that someone had begun adding sources. Thanks for the suggestions; I appreciate them! -- Wi2g 21:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas (Col 1:16) History2007 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1