Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism

Just want to say congratulations on the FA Nancy. Your patience and perseverance are a model for us all. Sure, you get a little tetchy sometimes, don't we all, but you bounce right back. You're one of my wiki-heroines. :-)

Not trying to add to your work load, but you might like to take a look at the disambiguation page for Ten Commandments (disambiguation). --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my congratulations! Good work! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like to take credit for this article, I have to admit that without Richard and Steve it would probably not have made it. Thanks for your congratulations you guys! NancyHeise ^talk 01:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bask in the glory. Now all you've got to worry about is your day on the main page. Enjoy. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that waits until after summer. I will be offline beginning next Friday thru August 10th. NancyHeise ^talk 01:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best not to be there. Enjoy your break. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malleus! I hope you have a good summer whatever you do. I was just telling my husband how much I enjoy certain people on Wikipedia, explaining that you have been one of them. Thanks for all your kindness and encouragement. God bless you! NancyHeise ^talk 02:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted with the promotion. I hope that you will enjoy your break and come back refreshed for the autumn. I've not forgotten my pledge to help with the RCC article; that will be a challenge to relish. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, You were a key part of Ten Commandments getting to FA. The reason why I won't put a star on my user page is because I have realized that, while I may have provided the raw material for the page, it was a combination of Brian's peer reviews, Richard's NPOV help and Steve's editorial skills that actually got the page passed. If I put a star on my user page, I would have to insist that these three others do the same. NancyHeise ^talk 22:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your generosity. I have proudly put my helper's star on my userpage. That's what I was, a helper. My contribution to the article was small compared to yours, so please put up your star, where we can all see it and share in your achievement.

Congrats Nancy! Now if only we could get the History of the RCC and the front page of the RCC up to featured article status. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is hopefully going to happen someday! Thanks for your congratulations! NancyHeise ^talk 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I only just noticed. Congratulations from me too! Xandar 00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xandar! NancyHeise ^talk 12:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

Have fun :) Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 26, 2009 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Sandy beat me to it; I nipped round to inform/congratulate/commiserate on the same thing! Have fun indeed. And make sure you take a look at Raul's suggested wording for the blurb; with a potentially tricky subject such as this, you'll want to be sure it covers the most significant points to head off any POV accusations (not that Raul can't do that, but you're the content expert after all). All the best, Steve ^T • C 11:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific! I did not know they went so quickly from FA to TFA. I will be travelling on June 26th so I won't be around to answer questions. I might have some computer access on Saturday though but don't count on it. Have a great summer! NancyHeise ^talk 03:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Raul's wording is perfect. I know I could not have done a better job. NancyHeise ^talk 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Nancy, I see that one of your articles is up as TFA today. I extend my congrats to you for have gotten the article here after two failed FACs. It was well worth the reading. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Nancy! I just returned to Wiki today after a two-week break and was pleased to see that the Ten Commandments article had passed FAC and made it to the main page already. Good work! Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me too! I'm delighted to see the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism article on the main page. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Nancy, I just realized that you probably did not receive my thank-you's, because I put them on my own Talk page, instead of yours. I have lots to learn about Wiki; it's exciting. Here are my previous thank-you's:

You're welcome. Thanks also for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I'm glad I found it. Eagle4000 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nancy, for your suggestion. Eagle4000 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nancy. This is very helpful. Eagle4000 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, for all your help. Eagle4000 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Christianity Barnstar
		For your incredible work with articles related to Christianity, I award you this barnstar. Showtime2009 (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 22:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Nancy. It is nice to meet you. I don't get on Wikipedia that often. I too have enjoyed editing on articles. It is an amazing project and at the same time, I am amazed at how much time some peopple find to edit. It is really fun to read different articles on any topic and to see the exchange of ideas taking place. At I am reminded of a saying "History is always written by the winners." In the case of Wikipedia, I think it is written by the people with a lot of free time. I am very glad that Wikipedia exists and I really appreciate your taking the time to say Hello. By the way, my part of South Dakota is the south east near Sioux City IA. Though it has been a long time, I am still proudElmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation result

I see you got your change to Catholic church. Does this mean I have to rename all of the dioceses from RC diocese of X to C diocese of X? Why do you have to make my job harder? :p Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben! You know I would never want to make anyone's job harder! I did not intend to rename Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami or any other Catholic article as a result of mediation. Even though the official name of each diocese never has the name Roman Catholic in it, I think it is OK on Wikipedia as it helps Reader know what is being discussed. Catholic Church article changed because two editors objected to the previous Roman Catholic Church article statement that Catholic Church is the institution's official name. The article name change was a result of a long mediation process to try and make everyone happy. NancyHeise ^talk 04:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually considerable discussion of this issue on the Project Catholicism talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Rationalizing_the_use_of_.22Catholic.22_vs._.22Roman_Catholic.22_in_article_titles. Views requested. Xandar 23:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you to everyone who commented on my talk page while I have been away. Actually, I am still away - in a hotel lobbey in Anchorage at present. I am flying home tomorrow and will try to squeeze in some Wikipedia time between loads of laundry. I hope everyone had a nice summer. I have some neat pictures to upload but they may have to wait til I get my kids back in school. NancyHeise ^talk 03:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to WP, Nancy! What's the weather like in Anchorage? Xandar 23:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xandar! I was only in Anchorage for a day and it was actually warm and sunny. How was your summer? I was hoping you were out enjoying the beautiful English countryside or doing something enjoyable like that. NancyHeise ^talk 12:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summer here's a bit rainy - but I don't like it too hot! Looking forward to your photos of the wilderness. Xandar 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We were on the Kodiak Archipelago which is usually rainy like England all year. However, we had two weeks of sunny days at the beginning of the summmer followed by two weeks of rain and severe storms followed by two weeks of a mix. Each type of weather invites different kinds of outdoor activities. Our best fishing days seemed to be the rainy ones for some reason. My son enjoyed hiking up the mountain in the severe storms (50mph winds) and the sunny days invited kayaking to remote beaches for shore lunches over a fire. One rainy evening I got everyone out of bed to come see a bear that was just outside sniffing around. I went on a particularly long and grueling hike with my kids one rainy and foggy day. When we got to the top of the mountain we found an incredible amount of cranberries, blueberries and bearberries along with the usual salmonberries. As we were gathering some of these to bring back, the clouds cleared up now and then to reveal the most spectacular views. I have some pictures of mountaintop flowers I will upload that I took on a sunny day. I showed them to some friends who run a lodge up there and they said the view looks like a postcard. I also got some neat pics of Dall's Porpoise who surrounded our boat on July 3rd, gave us a show of jumping and slowly swam by posing for their Wikipedia photos! NancyHeise ^talk 21:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. I'm not sure how I'd feel after six weeks of it though! Did you live on what you found - or tinned soup and baked beans? I presume you were in safe accommodation when you saw the bear. What was the average temperature? Hot - cool - cold??? Xandar 00:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiak avg temp 50 degrees. We were in a remote generator powered cabin with a restaurant grade propane oven and stove. We don't camp but are considering doing some hikes next year that will require camping gear so we can stay a few nights out. We buy about 2-3 weeks worth of food in Kodiak and head out to the cabin. There we hike, fish and kayak, vacuum pack all our fish and keep it in a generator powered freezer and come back into Kodiak every two or three weeks as needed to resupply. We return home afterward with several coolers full of fish that we check onto the plane and bring home with us to eat all year long. The generator runs on diesel fuel and has to run for two hours every morning and two every evening. Once the generator is off you can't open the fridge so I pack a cooler with whatever meat we are defrosting for dinner and lunch items for the day. I bake different kinds of bread from scratch and generally spend a lot of time experimenting with new recipes. For some reason, I gain weight every summer while my family all remain the same :o ! I am currently on a very strict diet so I can get back into my clothes! I will post my pictures as soon as I have time to do that, my kids are all going back to school and I am quite busy this week and into next week. My eldest is beginning college and moving into her dorm next week. After living at home with her own room, I think she is in for quite a shock - I have been conditioning her with colorful stories of my dorm roommates when I was in college. NancyHeise ^talk 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite cool then, even in summer. So its quite the ideal wilderness life. Grizzly Adams with good cooking. I certainly envy the peace and quiet.... Xandar 02:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xandar, I keep praying that you have some place, a beautiful place to go an enjoy God's good things. Perhaps you already have that place in your own way. Some people find it in music, others in art, for me its in nature. NancyHeise ^talk 19:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Gordon Lang

Hi, Nancy, good to have you back, I hope fully refreshed. Back in May I announced I was going to work on Archbishop Lang this summer, and I have done so. I have sent the article for peer review; when you are a little more settled perhaps you would take a look (you left a comment on the talkpage before you went away). When you have time, tell me what our own article plans are. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian! I will be very happy to help you in whatever endeavor! Can it wait until the latter part of next week? I am really busy until then - one child off to college and the others getting ready for high school and middle school! NancyHeise ^talk 16:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - this is not likely to leave PR much before the end of the month, so chime in next week by all means. Meanwhile, when that first child goes to college...I know how you feel! Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, do you have kids in college too? NancyHeise ^talk 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CC Rumblings

Nancy, for some reason there's been a sudden upsurge of argument on the Catholic Church page. Several people are wanting to make significant changes to the article - a lot of them on parts where you have had a lot of input. (Pope Pius, and Origins.) I know you're quite busy, but we could do with your input on these issues. Xandar 02:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xandar, I'm sorry but I can not devote a lot of time to this until my kids start school next week. I am popping in tonight before I have to go somewhere. I'll try to chime in a bit. NancyHeise ^talk 23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xandar 00:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Policy

Sorry nancy, but there has been an attempt to change the policy on self-identifying names by certain persons - which would re-open the whole Catholic-RCC argument, and many others. The policy is longstanding, and having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict) Kotniski and some of his allies have changed the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. I have now restored the original policy, extant since 2005. Not the attempted compromise version. We need a view from you on the Naming conventions page. Xandar 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These people are now trying to carry out two discussions : one at WP:Naming conflict. Also Some of the same people are attempting to hold another vote on moving the title back to Roman Catholic Church. This is against Wikipedia rules since at least six months should go by before another vote. Xandar 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nancy, as you can see from the talk page I've been pretty neutral between RCC and CC as names for the page. However Cody's latest post has made me think. Having been brought up as a practising Catholic, the Catholic Church has always been the one based in Rome headed by the Pope. The references Cody has produced do clearly show neverthless that the Eastern Orthodox Church refers to itself as 'the Catholic Church' in line with its belief that it is the one true, universal church. I'm a bit concerned that we might be unconsciously treading on some cultural toes by insisting that only the Western Church can lay claim to the title and it might therefore be better to rever to RCC as the name.Haldraper (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not insisting on anything except using the proper name. Some people in Orthodox and Anglican Churches make a big thing out of this, but they are a small yet vocal minority. Cody tried this stuff on his own Orthodox page and most of the people there told him they weren't interested in being called the Catholic Church. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources and a link to the mediation that Haldraper must have missed. Cody's sources were considered and rejected at mediation because they were addressing theological concepts, not claimed titles for the Orthodox Church which historians say claimed as its title, "Holy Orthodox Church" after the schism. Many of Cody's sources are from before the schism when the Catholic Church and the Orthodox were one. NancyHeise ^talk 02:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC

Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chimed in already in support of your position, thanks for notifying me. NancyHeise ^talk 02:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the naming conflicts page have been marked as essentially a result of canvassing, with the implication that they shouldn't carry as much weight. I think that's ridiculous given your history. Just a heads up in case you want to address it yourself. --anietor (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These people now seem to be flinging round slurs and accusations like mad at the moment. Which is rich, following their moves without consensus, edit-warring and forum-shopping. I think it shows their fear of losing the actual argument. Informing editors likely to be affected by the change (especially when the proposers have consistently failed to inform everyone of their actions) is perfectly valid. I've had to be told several times when new (secretive) moves have been made. Xandar 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting really nasty on the naming-conflict page now. M seems to be losing it entirely. Accusing me of stacking the votes etc. Of course he'd rather no one but him and his friends had any say in such an important decision. Xandar 03:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E --Rockstone (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstone, I went to this page but could not see anything related to Catholic Church renaming. It looks to me like whatever was being requested got declined. NancyHeise ^talk 03:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This actually emerged out of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict row, which still proceeds apace. Rockstone asked for Arbitration, but also included the CC page, which is not directly involved and would have made the whole thing unmanageable. Hence the decline. Some sort of mediation may be needed for WP:NamCon though, since those wanting to reverse the guidance without consensus are still in full cry. Xandar 22:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lang et al

Thank you for your comments an support re Lang. On another matter, I am currently deciding my Wikipedia tasks for the next few months. I remember that I said I would help you, if you decided to bring the Catholic Church article to FAC again. Can you tell me what your current plans are in this respect, and what timescale you are anticipating? I will have to refamiliarise myself, as no doubt the article has evolved from last spring. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, Lang is a terrific article. Sorry I couldn't find more to criticize. : ) I do want to bring Catholic Church to FAC. Problem is that I am very busy right now and am getting ready to go out of town this coming weekend and into next week. I'm not sure when to put Catholic Church up again for peer review. I am waiting until the name problem goes away. We had a successful mediation but the same editors who griped before the mediation are still griping after the mediation. Not sure if we can bring the article to FA with that still going on. I am wondering if there is any kind of Wikiprotection for articles like ours that have exhausted all means available to come to agreement but are still harrassed by the same editors who won't accept consensus agreement - even one that has been consensusly agreed over and over and over again. NancyHeise ^talk 01:26, 8 September 2009

Naming Conventions Attack

I am again being targetted by the clique for daring to oppose a vital change being made to the Naming Conventions policy to back up their assault on the Naming conflict page.

I have been reported for "edit-warring" (pot and kettle) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Xandar. This is part of the bullying policy to prevent me stopping thenm changing the policy without consensus. Could use some support again. Xandar 02:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Xandar. Sorry for all your trouble but your efforts are appreciated by me very much. God bless you. NancyHeise ^talk 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reichskonkordat

Hi Nancy, can you resond to my comments on Talk:Catholic Church. Thanks.Haldraper (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the page in an effort to help come to consensus but there is no clear discussion going on for one change. It appears there was one but it morphed into discussions about additional changes and so on. I am afraid I can not comment unless someone organizes the page and invites the various parties to come vote for some specific language. NancyHeise ^talk 18:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mit brennender Sorge

Nancy, I challenge you to produce a single direct quote from the encyclical that refers to Hitler by name or specific Nazi crimes, either cited in your academic books or from the official English translation. Having read the latter, I can tell you now that you will find neither.Haldraper (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the scholars contradict your findings Haldraper. Unfortunately, I can not cite you in the text, I have to resort to citing the scholars per WP:reliable source examples. BTW, the text does not refer to Hitler by name, apparently, in the German translation, the word used is "Fuhrer". There was only one of those in Nazi Germany. NancyHeise ^talk 18:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted three scholars with their quotes on your talk page. The books are listed in the bibliography of Catholic Church article. Thanks for your inquiry. NancyHeise ^talk 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Nancy but none of those fit the bill: I asked you for a single direct quote from the encyclical that refers to Hitler by name or specific Nazi crimes, not what later academics have inferred, interpreted, speculated etc from reading it. On the 'fuhrer/leader'/Hitler misunderstanding, see my comments on Talk:Catholic Church Haldraper (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haldraper, please read the policy WP:OR. We are not allowed to cite original documents, especially when the original language is not English but German. We are supposed to rely on scholars to interpret original documents. I am sorry that you can not see what the same thing that three of the most respected scholars on Church History can see but that is not a problem for the article. Maybe you can voice your opposition to the authors of the books and perhaps the multitude of universities that especially use the Bokenkotter book as a textbook - and have done so for three decades. While other books on the Church have gone out of print, Bokenkotter's book remains the most oft cited and used scholarly work on the history of the Church. I don't think that I can readily dismiss his scholalry work on Mit Brennender Sorge. NancyHeise ^talk 18:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, my German is pretty basic. I am not asking you to rely on my translation of it but the Church's own official one on the Vatican website!Haldraper (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMgosh Haldraper, I don't need to do that when we have four separate scholars saying the same thing! Wikipedia does not care what I or you or anyone else thinks, they only care what the scholars say. We have to have sources to support article text and we can not ignore a scholarly consensus on important issues. I am only placing facts on the page as they appear in scholarly sources - I must add that none of these sources have bad reviews either and one is a university textbook used by a multitude of universities with three reprintings over 30 years to the present day. Not a shabby list. NancyHeise ^talk 22:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]