User talk:Ritterschaft

My Talk Archives. Storehouse 1.Storehouse 2.

Perpetual virginity of Mary

Hi,

Thanks for some great work on this topic. I have taken the POV tag off, and restored just a little of the stuff you removed, but I think the article is so much better now. Regards Springnuts 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Becasue you deserve it for picking up a hot potato Springnuts 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragani

You restored material from a self-published web site, in violation of WP policy, with no policy justification on the talk page. Please follow WP policy. I reverted the material. Leadwind (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory moves

Please do not keep taking it upon yourself to move around Purgatory. There is a AFD discussion ongoing as to whether the current structure should be kept or whether it should be deleted. If you scramble the content, the people who are trying to evaluate the situation will be unable to examine what was done.

Maybe Abtract's change was a good one, maybe it was a bad one, almost certainly it was a bold one. But doing the same change, backwards, with an AFD discussion ongoing, accomplishes nothing but disruption. Remember there is no deadline, let the discussion play out, and if AFD decides to delete-merge the RC article back into main, it will require the assistants of an admin to get the histories right.

Even if you feel Abtract's change was an error, you don't have the power to correct this error, you can only exacerbate it. Please don't. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell me how to put it back like it was, or you put it back for me. I don't know exactly how to do it myself. But there is no excuse for what has happened, and I think its wrong to have the discussion on this side of things. The discussion should have happened first - that's what I want to put it back for; for our discussion. Ritterschaft (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, I've never done it, but I believe what has to happen is that an admin will have to delete Purgatory, then move Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching to Purgatory. In practice, I suspect any responsible admin will only take this step after the AFD discussion has concluded, and that discussion can only go forward if the AFD viewers get to see the two pages.

So, what you need to do, to make this back like it was, is not edit either article, but to argue strongly at the AFD discussion that Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching should be deleted and its contents copied back to Purgatory. A closing admin will come along, assess the discussion, and make the necessary changes.

I do understand your complaint about the controversial move. I think it may be a good idea, but I wouldn't have done it myself with quite the same manner and timing that Abtract did. If there were a simple revert button you could press to undo it, somebody could argue you'd be entitled to press it-- but the MediaWiki software doesn't have such a button-- it requires a complex move be performed by an admin. So just sit back, build your consensus at AFD, and let the higher-ups sort it out. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, I realize you might be skeptical of my assessment, since we have a content disagreement. In that case, I would suggest that you go to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and ask the same question there that you asked me, and see if I know what I'm talking about. I'm 90% sure that I do, but I've never been too involved with AFD, so it may be that I don't. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider, though, whether you really want Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching deleted or not. I'm not saying this as any authority, but speaking as someone who knows Wikipedia pretty well, if there's only one page, it's going to wind up having text that's a lot closer to the text that's on Purgatory than the text that's on Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching right now. I might be wrong, but enough eyeballs are focusing on this issue that I suspect the text currently at Purgatory is going to be the one that wins out.

Argue for deleting Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching and your liable to argue yourself right into deleting your own favored version of the article. Just a guess, but before you argue for delete, you might take a second to just make sure you really don't want there to be two articles here. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a "purgatory in RC teaching" would be a good idea, maybe it would be a bad idea. Right now, I'm just thinking about the audacious move, which I oppose for its own sake, other issues aside. The move is a separate matter from the content, since everything about it was wrong. As for you and I, I know we disagree on some things, but that's to be expected - people disagree. In the end it probably makes a better article. But neither you nor I have the desire to do anything disrespectful, audacious, or flagrantly inconsiderate. Ritterschaft (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two of our big things round these parts are Be Bold and Ignore all rules. Which is to say, whether Abtract was bold and audacious or not, there's no sense stressing over spilt milk-- we should make our decisions not based on the audaciousness of the action, but on the appropriateness of the outcome.

I sort of have mixed feelings about the whole thing myself, but I'm content to let the experiment breathe for a while, because having two pages will forestall a more pointed content dispute. Thus far, people have been pretty gentle with you and Lima, but many people (not me) are losing patience. To have to pages is to avoid a content dispute that would be heated, but in which your POV would almost certainly wind up on the losing end.

So, even though I agree that the move was more bold than I myself tend to be, ultimately, I think it may be a good thing. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)t[reply]

Purgatory

I have moved Userpage2 to User:Ritterschaft/Userpage2. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory

Ritterschaft, I'm distressed about what's going on with purgatory. You don't seem happy yourself. What's going on? I've lost track. Leadwind (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not look at this page frequently. I think it useful therefore to let you know, ahead of any action by Lw, of his declared intention to "get back into purgatory" (see User_talk:Alecmconroy&diff=prev&oldid=194663290 here). You may prefer to remove this, after reading it. There is no need to do anything about Lw's planned RfC (jargon for something like "Referral for Comment" - I haven't gone to the trouble of finding out what exactly it is) on me: it will provide the usual amusement that he keeps giving. Lima (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]