User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Talk Page Archive 2001-3

Murder of Huang Na and other Singapore-related articles

Hello, Richard! I have come a long way from the young Singaporean editor you mentored several years ago and have since written 6 Singapore-related GAs. Perhaps I was overly cautious in my application of BLP on Murder of Huang Na having just rewritten Xiaxue, which has an extensive history of BLP violations, notably additions of rumours and attempts to put her in a bad light. The article does include controversial, reliably-referenced information (such as the rumours) but I only mentioned necessary details.

Perhaps you could help monitor Xiaxue for vandalism and BLP violations, protecting the article if doing so would be appropriate? The article is currently on peer review in preparation for a GA nomination. I have also written an article about the Singaporean movie Money No Enough, that is also on peer review. Constructive comments at the peer reviews would also be most appreciated. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, any ideas on how to make Catholic religious order less dry/stiff will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

formatting

Can you fix up your edit on Papal infallibility as the text now contains a lot of '}' symbols such as

The opinion of the English remonstrance to Parliament had first been approved by several Catholic universities in Europe. It was sent to the Catholic Universities of Paris, Louvain, Douai, Alcala, Salamanca and Valladolid. This was at the suggestion of Pitt.[28]}}

regards Montalban (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

French Revolution and Democracy

Hi Pseudo-Richard - on 5 May 2006 you edited the French Revolution page, calling that event "a major turning point in the history of Western democracy—from the age of absolutism and aristocracy, to the age of the citizenry as the dominant political force." This later evolved to "Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship, inalienable rights, as well as nationalism and (briefly) democracy," and now, reference to democracy in the introduction has been taken out. Am wondering, why did you include statement about democracy in the first place? I've been in a discussion about it with other helpful editors, and think that perhaps I'm not correctly interpreting what the term means. Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

East-West schism

I think he doesn't work from sources when he depicted that map. There aren't orthodox churches and archeological founds in Great Hungarian Plain and Transylvania in the era. There were some greek-speaking churches in Transdanubia, Therefore it's interesting that he depicted Transdanubia as fully catholic until the great plain is depicted as orthodox and catholic. Archeological foulds of Christian Orthodox churches in Vallachia and Moldova in the contemporary (600AD-1200) era would be a great sensation for archeologists until this day. That really serious errors made it unreliable map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.170.246 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC) The book was constructed for Serbian schoolboys (not for university students), Don't forget that there are DE IURE "religious freedom" in Serbia and Romania, but de facto: Orthodox church works as state religion in this countries with privilegies, and they are central parts of the official Serbian state celebrations until this day. The orthodox faith is a strong power and the most influental part of the etchnic identity of Serbians until this day. Don't forget the teach of orthodox faith: "chosen heavenly nation ideology". The attacks and intolerance again western christian (various protestants and catholic) church-buildings are very frequent events in Serbia until this day. So the impartiality about orthodox faith is hardly expectable for a school book in such a circumstances and society.

Thank you. I suspected as much. I have already responded to this point at Talk:East-West schism. Please don't discuss article-related issues on my Talk Page, especially please don't bother repeating points that you have already raised on the Talk Page of an article that I have commented on. One advantage of having a Wikipedia user account is that registered users have watchlists. My watchlist has well over 2000 pages on it; East-West schism is one of them. Thus, I was already aware of the fact that you had raised this point on that article's Talk Page. If you like working on Wikipedia articles, I invite you to create an account. It's free and there are many advantages. See Why create an account? for details. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If you feel like more vigorous discussion

I have a thread here http://www.christianforums.com/t7602448/ Montalban (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you but no. I spend too much time on Wikipedia as it is and I don't care to spend more time on a forum. Besides, I'm not so much interested in defending the Catholic doctrine as I am in presenting it AND the Orthodox objections to it. I'd rather work on improving your text (which may mean shortening it) than spend time on a forum. I think most forums are a waste of time since everybody spouts off and nobody's mind is changed so what was the point? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nordisk Tonefilm

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nordisk Tonefilm requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. noq (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

GAN

Congratulations! The article you nominated for a GA review has passed and is now an official good article under the Theater, film and drama section. Wish you all the best for any future GA-promotions, and continue your good work. Hope to have a great collaboration in Wikipedia. Regards, AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 16:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Deletion of Söderbaum.jpg

Yes, the whole "logo" thing is clearly a mistake; the image was obviously uploaded by someone who knew next to nothing about our non-free content guidelines. The image is certainly not acceptable in the article on Jud Süß, as per non-free content criterion 8, but it may be usable in the article on the actress. Basically, in order for a use of a non-free image to be acceptable, it must meet all of the non-free content criteria. With regards to the usage in the biography, the question must be asked as to whether there does exist, or reasonably could exist, a "free" (usable under a free license or in the public domain for whatever reason) alternative (NFCC#1), and, if we are certain that there does not and could not, then we would need to replace the logo copyright tag with an appropriate one (NFCC#10b, see this page for a list), update the sourcing, author and copyright info if possible (NFCC#10c) and, as suggested by the deletion notice, add a detailed usage rationale (NFCC#10c). However, even if no free replacement is possible, because of the uncertain provenance of this image, the easiest thing to do may be to find a new image altogether. If you have any further questions, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau Foundation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Attribution

Hi, Pseudo-Richard. Thanks for translating Hermine Körner from de.wiki! When you do that, please could you add {{translated|de|Hermine Körner}} to the article's talk page in order to comply with the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL? Thanks and all the best—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Criticism of Religion

Template:Criticism of Religion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Ion Zone (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Stockton College - maybe you've heard of it

Anyone is welcome to rubbish me or my book - it is a right I would in no way deny. However, judging its validity based on your low opinion of my college is both a logical fallacy and, to put it plainly, a bit offsides. That being said, as someone interested in the filioque I must admit I enjoy following the discussions and look forward to hearing more. Cheers! - Ed Siecienski

Ugh... I'm truly sorry if I have offended in any way. It was not my intent. I have found the portions of your book that are available via Google Books to be quite interesting and valuable. In fact, I am seriously considering purchasing it. My comments on the talk page of the Filioque article were simply meant to say that there are many books published by many relatively obscure scholars and I had not been able to ascertain your credentials enough to assert your expertise. I myself know very little about the topic so I was trying to be modest in my claims regarding assertions made in your book. I am glad that you are following the discussions and I invite you to register an account so that interested parties can send you email (you can always turn off the email feature if it becomes a problem). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No personal offense taken, although you may get a nasty e-mail from the college's public relations people (just kidding). For the moment I'll just follow the discussions from afar, although I always welcome questions from people interested in talking filioque. For the record, addressing the original issue, I did not say that Hilary necessarily supported the filioque, only that for centuries his writings were used as a chief source for pro-filioque theologians. As is the case with so many of the fathers, certain writings can be(and have been) interpreted as favoring one or the other side, although (as I point out in the book) many seemingly pro or anti filioque statements have to be contextualized to be properly understood. All the best, Ed Siecienski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.210.111.16 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Jud Süß (1940 film)

Hi, any objections if I tag this article as relevant to the military history project? Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no objections. I think the relationship is tangential but the more eyes on an article, the better. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if military history is things that go "boom", then the relationship is tangential. Academic military historians write quite a bit about the causes and consequences of conflict, including Nazi anti-Semiti:c propaganda. One of Milhist's task forces is devoted to films. But seriously ... it's up to you, I'm not going to push it, it just depends on whether you want military history types tramping on your article :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I'm OK with it. Who knows? Maybe someone on the task force can add something about how this film was used to build up morale among SS troops about to be sent out to implement the "Final Solution". I'm sure there's more material out there than the line or two that's in the article now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Who knows indeed, hopefully we'll find out. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

Merry Christmas

History2007 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

3rr vio on filioque

You have been reported for 3rr vio on the filioque article [1]. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Filioque reported at the edit-warring noticeboard

Please see the complaint about your edits at WP:AN3#User talk:Pseudo-Richard reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The film Jud Suess

Hi there,

I was reading the page on this film with great interest and was shocked to see that in 1940 it won a Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival.

I clicked on the link to read about the history of the Golden Lion award, wondering if any other racist films had won it, and it says it began in 1949. Jud Suess is not listed as a film that has ever won it.

Is this an error on one part or another I wonder?

Industhames Industhames (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I noticed the same thing but a number of sources says that it won the Golden Lion. I suspect the truth is that it won the top award at the Venice Film Festival that year but the award was not called the Golden Lion until later. Unfortunately, this is just speculation on my part and I have not been able to find any sources that shed more light on this puzzle. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK... I did a bit more research and it seems that Saul Friedländer says that it won the "Golden Lion"[2] but Lothar Kahn says that it won the "Gold Crown"[3]. Based on the fact that the "Golden Lion" didn't start until 1949, I suspect that Kahn's use of "Gold Crown" as the name of the award is more accurate. Given that Friedländer was 76 when the book was published, it's possible he wasn't paying close attention to those kinds of picayune details. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Erich Lüth

The article Erich Lüth has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 07:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church and abortion

And you thought this wouldn't happen if the article was renamed...I hate being right. :/ –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, you've got the British survey in your "United States" section and I was about to add an Italian survey - would you reconsider the reorganization in this way? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I was trying to figure out which text was U.S.-related and which was not. Looks like I blew it with the British survey. I would suggest broad categories: Europe, U.S. etc. I am unsure at this time as to whether we should have a section on North America or just do it by countries: U.S., Canada, Mexico. One of the sources you cited in the RFC was written from a Canadian perspective. I wanted to go back to that source and mine it for information about the debate in Canada. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to split the opinion stuff geographically in the main article (although certainly we could discuss it in sub-articles like your new one) - it just seems messy to me to have opinion stuff all over the page, particularly since I hope to find more material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WRT keeping all the survey stuff together, I agree although I think it would be better to see if broad assertions could be made (e.g. U.S. vs. Canada vs. Europe vs. Latin America). If there are sources who make comments about lay opinion in large geographic regions such as these, that information would be more useful than just providing info on U.S. vs. Italy.

My idea of having different sections for different geographic regions was more for the non-survey info. I think the article should describe the Church's position and the opposition on a global scale in broad brushstrokes and then go into detail on a country-by-country (or region-by-region) approach.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, agreed. Other than splitting up the opinion things I'm in favor of geographical subsections. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: IDHT

*shrug* I made it perfectly clear that it was possible that VOA was in error. Unlike FCV, I didn't edit-war to get my preferred version of the article in. I restored the content because FCV's removal was based on a source that has been soundly rejected at RSN. Other sources and other reasons for removal have since been produced, and I haven't done anything. This isn't IDHT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, mentioning WP:IDHT was perhaps too harsh. FCV commented twice, once in an edit summary (Jan 3) and once on the Talk Page (Jan 4) that the point about contraception wasn't relevant to an article on abortion but, upon reviewing what he actually wrote, I see that he did not spell out exactly what he meant. I grant that, in a general attitude of siege and combativeness, it's easy to miss the valid points of those that you perceive as attacking something you're defending. I saw FCV's point right away and was annoyed at you for not seeing it as well. However, as I said, it's easy to focus on the wrong thing some times and you only failed to hear it twice so perhaps it's overly harsh to accuse you of deliberate tone-deafness. Assuming good faith might suggest that you just got carried away with the heat of the moment, especially if as you indicated below, you had previous history with FCV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And likewise, it's nice of you to allow that "emotions run high" sometimes, but FCV had been warned before for the exact same behavior. (In future, it would be nice to notify me if you're complaining about me elsewhere.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh... I'm not sure what you mean by "exact same behavior". I'm not familiar with your previous history with FCV. Perhaps you had a problem with him on a different article? I took FCV's word at face value when he said he didn't know about the 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles. I myself knew of the restriction but had forgotten about it because I am not a regular editor of these articles. Gentle reminders would go a long way with most editors. The others deserve smackdowns.

As for notifying you when I complain about you... sorry but no. Too time-consuming and it wasn't meant to be a comment of which a federal case should be made. Hopefully, this will not be an important issue because I hope I won't be complaining about you much in the future. Life is too short. There are more productive things to do in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bruno Mondi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bruno Mondi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno Mondi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi Pseudo-Richard,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests

I have suggested to Cymru.lass that she now remove the RfC comment tag that she placed here. There has been unanimity minus one alone and the material that was being deleted is back in the article. Cymru.lass is inactive at present. As I was one of the two principal editors involved in the dispute, it may be inappropriate for me to remove the tag, placed neither by me not by the other editor. Would you care to remove it?

I notice that you too have been less active on Wikipedia recently. I hope it was not because of any personal or family difficulties.

Would you also, again in relation to the Baudouin question, consider this request of mine? (Perhaps there is no need to link "parliament" to "Belgian Federal Parliament]], any more than there is to give a link for "government"; but that is for you to judge.) Esoglou (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for disturbing you with the second of these requests. Esoglou (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ie Shima

I see you did some editing on Ie Shima. My wife and I are retired now and we have turned our attention to plotting our family histories. I have been researching the genealogies and my wife has been sorting a large collection of family photos. In any event, my wife's father (Donald Lee Ross 1924-1985) was a member of a bomber aircrew stationed on Ie Shima (403rd Bombardment Squadron) in August, 1945. We have official Army Air Corps photos of the Japanese peace delegation standing under the wing of the C-54 mentioned in the article.

I thought I'd upload them, for posterity, as attachments to the article. However, after spending quite a bit of time reading the copyright and titling instructions, I decided I'd just offer them, if you're interested :)

I am: skiphess@yahoo.com

Thanks, Skip Hess Skiphess (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Additions to CC & abortion in the US

Can I recommend that you add the material to Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication and summarize it at Catholic Church and abortion in the United States in whatever manner you see fit? It looks like good information, but I think the best place to put it first is in the very specific article on the subject, and then see how much detail of it should go in the higher-level article. Good find! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well... you know we disagree on whether Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication should even exist. I have decided to hold off on floating a merge proposal for now to see how things develop. I'm not interested specifically in the question of withholding of communion or threatening of excommunication. I'm interested in the more general topic of how the Catholic Church has inserted itself into the abortion debate, specifically into the politics of the abortion debate. The threat of withholding of communion or threatening of excommunication is just one tactic in the overall campaign being waged by the Church. (an inappropriate tactic, IMHO). For these reasons, I have been expanding Catholic Church and abortion in the United States. I've been tempted to create Catholic Church and the politics of abortion in the United States but that seemed excessive in light of the existence of Catholic Church and abortion in the United States and Catholic Church and the politics of abortion. So, for now, I am making do with the existing articles and stifling my urge to create yet another article.

As for your specific recommendation, I think I would like to expand Catholic Church and abortion in the United States for now and then move stuff that is too detailed into subsidiary articles as necessary.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, we'll see how it develops. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Richard, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in doing a peer review, or if you had any comments on this article?

Best Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Margaret Cho: Assassin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warner Theater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Siecienski

I believe, and I may be wrong, since I haven't checked, that it was you who put in Filioque the statement, attributed to Siecienski, that "These writings (those of the early Fathers who speak of the Holy Spirit coming from the Father and the Son) can be used to support either the Latin idea of the procession of the Holy Spirit, or the Orthodox idea." What did you mean by "the Orthodox idea"? I did not want to question this while the article was the subject of vigorous dispute, but I think we two can discuss it quietly now.

I think the terms "the Latin idea" and "the Orthodox idea" sorely need specification.

By "the Latin idea", I presume you mean "from the Father and the Son". As you know, this is not "the Catholic idea", since the Catholic Church declares that "from the Father through the Son" is a perfectly orthodox expression also. And it would be more exact to speak, rather than of "the Latin idea", of "the prevailing expression among the Latin Fathers", since "from the Father through the Son" can be found also, though very rarely, among them. Since they did not reject the idea of "through the Son" - and I think Siecienski must be saying that too if, as I suppose, he is saying that their writings can be used to support "from the Father through the Son" - it would be much more accurate to speak of "the Latin expression" rather than of "the Latin idea".

By "the Orthodox idea", I think you must mean the expression "from the Father through the Son" (which I have said is a Catholic idea also). Rather than "the Orthodox idea", this is "the Greek idea/expression" or "the Eastern idea/expression" or, more exactly, "the prevailing expression among the Greek-speaking Fathers", since at least one of them, Cyril of Alexandria, did repeatedly use "from the Father and the Son". The only specifically Orthodox idea is that the Holy Spirit comes "from the Father alone", an expression first formulated by Photius but claimed to be Orthodox belief from long before. It seems evident that the writings that speak of the Holy Spirit coming from the Father and the Son cannot be used to support this Orthodox idea of "from the Father alone". Esoglou (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A minor edit on the page (separating two words by a space) has reminded me that there is a fourth expression, that in the Nicene Creed: "from the Father". As is obvious, that too is accepted by the Catholic Church, as shown also by the Popes reciting the Nicene Creed in Greek without "and the Son". The only expression that the Catholic Church does not accept is: "from the Father alone".

(If I were free to do so, I would also add my explicit congratulations on something touched on below.) Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words. I apologize for not responding to your initial note above. I will try to take a look at it soon. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I plan to go back to the source and provide you with a direct quote so that we can craft a mutually acceptable phrasing. In the meantime, if there is a change that you feel should be made more rapidly, just be bold and do it. We can discuss and refine it later. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Catholic Church and the politics of abortion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Hickey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the excellent research you've been doing lately on the RCC/abortion/politics articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Bet you can't tell from reading my article contributions whether I am pro-life or pro-choice. (At least I hope you can't.) I try heard to maintain NPOV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As do I, although my comments probably make my political views more evident. I don't know what your position is, nor does it matter to me since your edits conform to WP policy. :)–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Relatedly, I know you're skeptical about the existence of the sub-article Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication - we never did find a snappy title for it - but since you're finding all this material on the subject for Catholic Church and the politics of abortion, would you consider copying some of it there? I've copied over some of your material, but it might be better for you to make the relevant additions there and then summarize at the broader article.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese :

I would prefer that you do the copying of any material you find useful. Feel free to do so; I have no objection to you doing so.

My current concern is that the section on the United States in Catholic Church and the politics of abortion is growing so large as to dominate the article. I have weighed the advisability of an article titled Catholic Church and abortion politics in the United States for some time. What do you think of creating such an article using the current text of the section on the United States?

Also, my research has run across a lot of text describing the history of the pro-life/pro-choice debate in American politics. Note that much of this history is written without reference to the Catholic Church (i.e. the sources use terms like "pro-life advocates" without qualifying those people as Catholic. This suggests an article titled something like History of abortion politics in the United States. Such an article would cover the efforts to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. Assuredly, the Catholic Church was a major proponent of such an amendment but it was not alone in this endeavor.

What are your thoughts on these two proposed articles?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think they could both be good articles! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Gibbet of Jesus

Some time ago, you participated in Talk at an article which has been variously named Torture stake, Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died, Historical disputes over the shape of the Crucifix, Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus, Dispute of Jesus' execution method, and Dispute about Jesus' execution method. Editors are considering another name change; I thought you might participate in that discussion.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Pseudo-Richard. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Early Christianity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Richard,

I'm writing to you because i don't know how to correct an article, or who to contact.

In the article, "Catholic Church and Abortion", there is a factual error under the subheading "India".

When talking about Mother Teresa, there is a phrase, "...she repeated this in 2004, adding......."

Mother Teresa died in 1997, so she couldn't repeat anything in 2004. I hope you can get it corrected, because I don't know how to do it.

Thanks,

Donald L. Engel bdengel@msn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.20.137.141 (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your fix at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormonism and violence (2nd nomination). Shadowjams (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. When you recently edited Mormonism and violence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nephi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

North Carolina Community College System

I have fixed the update you asked to be expanded on. I write the NCCCS Policy on Undocumented Students. Thanks for the advice. I hope you enjoyed the article.Catamount800 (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SCOTUS-recentcase-outline-1

Template:SCOTUS-recentcase-outline-1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Merging from

A tag has been placed on Template:Merging from requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"CMBLA"

Isn't that the name of the church hierarchy's group to counter SNAP?...I kid, I kid... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Christian heresies

Sorry about the mistake. For what little it might be worth, the nomination was basically a knee-jerk response to the fact that the subsequently deleted Template:Heresies in Catholicism was created on the basis of it, and the template was then added to each of the articles listed, whether they were Catholic or not. I had basically, erroneously, assumed that the editor who created the template had also been involved with the related article that has since been moved. At this point, I'm not sure if I actually checked the record to look for the page creator or not. That isn't intended as an excuse, because it clearly isn't one, but it was the reasoning behind it. My apologies for having not sent you the message as I should have. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)