User talk:Xandar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Xandar/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Joelito 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.

[1] Rumpelstiltskin223 12:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 3 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on Goa Inquisition. Please discuss the matter on the talk page and reach consensus before editing the page again. Thank you. --Tango 13:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 16:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be your last warning. If you keep vandalizing Goa Inquisition you will be prevented from editing any wikipedia article.Rumpelstiltskin223 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

Hi Xandar, are you editing as User:212.140.128.142? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Xandar, by now it should be obvious that your edits on Goa Inquisition are not leading anywhere productive. Instead of removing material from the article, I suggest that you place the {{fact}} tag after sentences that lack citations. I would also suggest trying to pursue some form of dispute resolution, such as mediation, because the current situation is a waste of everyone's time. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Xandar/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! --Thw1309 (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Xandar, I hope you don't mind that I eliminated the sentence you just put into the Belief section talking about the Roman Catholic church sees itself as the original church and all others as breakaways. That issue is discussed in full already in the section on Church and Papal Authority where it is referenced and expanded upon in depth. I didn't think that the opening paragraph of Beliefs was the place to put the issue since it is a church issue and should go under the section discussing church. The opening paragraph of Beleifs needs to contain the information it currently has in order to satisfy certain Wikipedia standards that require the article to give the reader a NPOV perspective. I thought the opening paragraph concisely shows how Catholic belief differs from other Christian churches. I hope you are OK with this - we are trying to bring the article up to FA. If you would like to vote on whether you think it should be promoted please go to the discussion page and click on "leave comments" on the Featured Article tag at the top of the page, then post either "Support" or "Oppose" and give your reasons for your vote. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I am OK with your edit to the Beleif section of Roman Catholic Church if you can add a reference. This article is going to get run through with a fine tooth comb when we submit it for Featured Article review after fixing some issues in the history section and your sentence might get tossed if it is not referenced to something. Can you find a reference and make that addition to your edit? Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, thanks for your offer to come help with history section. There is no rush now since it already failed FA so we have all the time in the world. I am going to go through this section little by little to address the comments as I have time (between loads of laundry usually). I was wondering also if you think maybe we should put a couple sentences in the Church section about the liturgical calendar and list the seasons. I might stick this in there since I have an appropriate reference. I hope you don't mind but I changed your edit in the Beleifs section to what I was able to find on the internet and put a reference after. Your sentence is still in the article but it is in the Beliefs section under the subheading Church. Let me know what you think about that. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I just saw what you did to the opening paragraph - EEEK! The paragraph was lengthened to meet FA rules - we wont get FA if you delete that information. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. The information you deleted is talked about in the body of the article and must be in the lead - summarized as it is. I am reverting your edit because I think that maybe you did not know that. Please come talk to me about it if you have a problem with my revert. Peace! NancyHeise (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are a history genious

I love what you did with Age of Reason at Roman Catholic Church! Please feel free to spread your genious around the entire history section. Also, in response to your question about the brief opening paragraph. The admins who were voting on the FA nomination were the ones who told me to expand the opening para - they even helped expand part of it. One of the FA critieria is that your opening paragraph summarizes the entire article. Thanks again for the help in history section. Really great job. NancyHeise (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I am going to nominate this article soon for Featured Article if there are no more concerns from other editors. Once it is nominated I think it has a week or so for others to vote on it. The nominator has to address concerns from those who have voted in a timely fashion. I am writing to ask if you would be willing to help me check the nomination page each day and address any comments from voters. I would like to know when you would be available to do this - maybe during the week or over the weekend let me know if you are willing to help. I am very happy with your work on the history section, it was really superb. I hope you will be able to help with any FA comments. Let me know. Thanks, NancyHeise (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about unity of style on this page. I am going through to try to correct some of these tough places but honestly, I think you are better at this than I am. Can you please also go through the entire article and reword things that could be worded in a more smooth way? I was very impressed with your prose and style in the history sections you added to the article. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For brilliant contributions to Roman Catholic Church history section

Thank you for improving the prose and content of this important top article for Wikiproject Catholicism. NancyHeise (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

copyedit complete for RCC up to Church History

Dear Xandar, another editor and I just finished the copyedit of the Roman Catholic Church article up to Church History. The areas that you improved in this section I think are perfect. The areas of Church History written by me and Karanacs could use a little of your majical prose to make them flow a little better. Could you please take a look at the sections not written by yourself and consider a little rewording to make them flow? NancyHeise (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll have a go tonight, and hopefully put something up by tomorrow, Feb 26 Thanks for the star :) Xandar (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I am not going to nominate this for FA until you think the history section is OK. Let me know if you think there are any more changes that need to be made. Since I am having company at my house this week, I'm kind of busy so I dont think I'll nominate it anyway until maybe this weekend. Thanks for all your great editing, you really deserved that star. NancyHeise (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to be making a lot of changes in the history section right now? I am wondering because I am addressing an issue with the citations and I don't want to do it if you are still working on that section. Let me know. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I have to go through the entire page and change the references into a different format per discussion on the FA page. Can you come back later and copyedit after I get through with the refs? Be careful not to insert new information into a sentence as it must contain only the information in the reference. I have reworded some of the sentences that are attached to the references as I am going through to eliminate some content or insert some content per the reference. Your copy editing is terrific but the page will fail if I don't get through all these refs in a timely manner. I have started on the Church history section and am just about to finish with the Roman Empire section.NancyHeise (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xandar, I had not idea it was going to be so difficult to get past FA, I thought the article was perfect. I am learning as I go along and I feel it is worth it to take the time to complete the issues since I have all the materials and most of the day. I would hate to get this far and not get our FA when I could have done something about it. Thanks for all the help you have given us so far on this page. You really are a great editor. NancyHeise (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BRoriginalbadge.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BRoriginalbadge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC Copyedit

Hi Xandar, I saw that you did a lot of the copyediting to the history section in the Roman Catholic Church article. It reads so much better now than it did before. I know you think I am nitpicky, but would you consider doing a similar copyedit on the rest of the article? The prose in the other sections tends to be too choppy and preachy and not up to the quality of the history section. I really think the rest of the article fails the "compelling prose" part of the FA criteria. Karanacs (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind your copyediting at all - you are the possessor of the "compelling prose" gift so please use it on the rest of the article at will. Please be careful not to add facts that are not already in the sentence or take away facts because we need to be careful of the references. Also, I have found a couple of refs that were at the end of the wrong sentences in the history section and I was wondering if maybe that was a result of the copyedit process. Just be careful about the refs (please) I have really spent myself making them perfect and just finished at 4AM this morning! Thanks for your great efforts that I am sure take a lot of your time too. NancyHeise (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a genius. I love the copyedit you just did for RCC, it is really brilliant. I realize this is probably the tenth time or so that I am commending you for your work, if you were here in person I would be hugging you but since I only have words, repeated praises will have to do! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyHeise (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, that was me who combined the history section, I was trying to clean up the table of contents in response to a comment by SandyGeorgia. You can put the sections back if you prefer but please dont use the word "The" in the section heading, its not allowed per Wikipedia policy. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Xandar, I just saw your comment about Ealdgyath. Are you not OK with the changes I made to the Roman Empire to satisfy his concerns? He is OK with the revisions and I think they are fine. What are your true feelings on this? NancyHeise (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for constantly helping in all areas of this article and for the great contributions you made to bring it to this point. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NancyHeise (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.

Thanks for saying the things that need to be said on the FA page! If I could hug you I would but you'll have to do with this smiley face (which is what I was doing after reading your comments on the FA page!)NancyHeise (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicene creed

Thanks for your comments... please see revised version. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

Xandar, please try to help keep the Roman Catholic Church focused on WP:WIAFA by avoiding off-topic personal commentary that may only inflame and detract from the work needed. I've moved several sections to the talk page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, are you supporting my revert? If so, please state otherwise people might think you are supporting the other one. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with your comments on my talk page about getting a really stable article ! NancyHeise (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex abuse scandal

Xandar, I understand your feelings about this, it is painful for all Catholics and really hurts when people ignore the vast amount of good done by the church throughout the centuries and put an overemphasis on the sex scandal. I dont think Lingnut is doing that. He is following the Wikipedia guidelines that specifically call for mention of notable criticism - the sex scandal is very notable. We need people like Lingnut's advice to help make the page not only conform to Wikipedia policies (which I find very fair) but also to help us see the things that need tweaking in order for the page to be understood by non-Catholics. I welcome with great joy, an editor like Lingnut who is not only not Catholic, but helpful and neutral in his POV. There is another editor on the page who is not Catholic and is very POV and is really a pain sometimes. We have to be able to clearly present our side soley on conformity to Wikipedia policies - not on whether we are getting the same treatment as other religions - like Islam. Please stay with me here on this article, I really need your fantastic help but I also need you to be OK with people like Lingnut. I really like that editor and would hate to see him not visit us anymore or give his expert advice. Thanks and God bless you! NancyHeise (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to check your facts before spreading calumny

I never made any post resembling anything what you are saying on the RCC Talk page. If you're talking about my post beneath the links posted by User:Wassupwestcoast then you need to learn how to recognize sarcasm.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I've seen no threats from Ling.Nut. Whether you believe it or not, we've all been trying to work toward the good of the RCC article. I've about had enough of being accused of all sorts of things (anti-Catholicism, being a POV-pusher, atheism, etc - and granted, not just by you) just because I disagree that the previous form of the article was perfect. I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion now. Good luck, and I guess I'll see the article again the next time it comes to FA. Karanacs (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse in RCC lead

Thanks for your support here. Although the present wording is fairly innocuous. I am concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge, and if the principle of this going into the introduction is accepted, the wording will change and expand, and it will gain undue weight. This also sets the RCC article apart from those on other religious groups, who all have negatives that could go into the lead on this basis. I think this issue needs being firm on to prevent more trouble later. Xandar (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is already undue weight, but that the bias among WP editors is so pervasive that it is best to have a well-written, brilliantly prosaic, accurate sentence there rather than someone's shooting-from-the-hip-with-intent-to-tarnish remark going there. SandyGeorgia is right to dismiss arguments that appeal to other articles; not fair, but it makes WP better. Catholicism should be held to a higher standard than Islam, and I'd support any move to raise this issue with FAR for the Islam article. On RCC, I think if we are vigilant about the present wording, and continually bring up the fact that it is already undue weight, that we're already violating WP:UNDUE, we can hold the line. Thanks for your edits and work on the article-it is getting much better! The.helping.people.tick (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Xandar, I am finished with any changes I was going to make as a result of the last FAC. I have added the new refs and info that was needed. The article is already 63KB and should not get any bigger. The prose needs to be polished in the areas that saw changes like in Beliefs and in History and I was hoping you would do that important task with your lovely British english way of speaking. I am going to be going through making sure refs are in proper form and correcting any spelling or capitalization, puctuation errors etc. NancyHeise (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to ever make all people on Wikipedia happy! We have to shoot for making a concensus happy and I think your prose is absolutely wonderful! NancyHeise (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I saw that you replaced the wording and reference for the missions into the northern european territories that names the peoples who were evangelized. I eliminated that since my source did not name the peoples. I am OK with your reinsertion of the material but the book has to be in the Bibliography. Can you add that book to the bibliography (The Story of Christianity) so the ref will be complete? If you dont want to do it, just put all the book info on my talk page and I'll make the edit - remember to provide isbn and publisher. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

need your help on this item

Xandar, The sentences on married priests in the Community section are not referenced to a book. The peer reviewer says these should be easily refd to a book. Does you know where the code is for this item. It should be in Code of Canon Law shouldn't it? If you can help me I would appreciate it here. Right now, I refd these sentences to newspapers. Im not sure if that will pass FA. Thanks in advance for the help. NancyHeise (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nancy. I have found the law of celibacy is in the Western Code of Canon Law in the following canons:

Canon 277 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PY.HTM

Canon 1037 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3R.HTM

Canon 1042 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3S.HTM

The Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Catholic Churches, The Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, Is available in Latin at http://www.intratext.com/X/LAT0758.HTM

An English translation (unofficial) has canons on married priesthood linked below:

Canons 285, 373, 374, 758 http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

On married priests from other denominations, there is this article from the Vatican website. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

The final paragraph says that it is an exception set by papal precedent. Xandar (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - your help is truly extremely valuable and I really appreciate all of it! NancyHeise (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I used the Vatican article but I can not use either the Latin language Eastern Catholic Church Code or the English translation website since it is unofficial. Right now, the other citation that I was worried about is cited to a New York Times article which is considered a WP:RS reliable source. I think it is enough citations. Thanks for finding these. NancyHeise (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I dont like your rewrite of the lower sentences of the Inquisition paragraph. It is longer and is really incorrect. The Spanish Inquisition was fearful and did execute 3-4000 people. The propaganda part was about Protestants using secular inquisitions over which the Church had no control to villify the Catholic Church. The sources say that the Spanish Inquisition was the worst of all of them in part because of the threat of Islam they were dealing with. NancyHeise (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, do priests in the UK have to have 8 years of post high school training like US priests? Do you know if this is standard worldwide? I am going to try to find some kind of authoritative book that would help us with the preist education paragraph, if you can ask your parish in UK that would help too. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I am going to try to find out if there is some book that is used by our local seminary that will help us with this section. The FA people like books so give me a little time on this one to dig up a really good source. Thanks for the websites, if we cant find any books, I guess we will resort to web sites. Thanks for your hard work! NancyHeise (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Splitting articles

When you split out part of an article into a new article, as you did with Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Christchurch, you need to acknowledge the original article the material came from, so the original authors can be credited. This is a requirement under the GFDL. A note in the edit summary is enough. I've added such a note to this article for you.

BVM

Hi, I left a note on the talk page of BVM RC. I apologize for not contacting you before the change, as you are a serous contributor with judgement I do not mind your reverts. fine with me Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, sometimes I want to reach through my computer and hug you. Thank you for sticking up for me on the FAC page of RCC - your argument was really great and I really needed it, I was very discouraged after reading that last oppose. Thanks again. NancyHeise (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, the Dussel book is not written by a scholar and is not a university press. The other book by Bruce Johansen is OK but I would get rid of the Dussle one. I like the words you included but its hard to stand by sources that are not written my scholars. We already have top sources by scholars and univeristy presses on the page already. Dont do too much changing or they'll say our page is not stable. NancyHeise (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to add a ref, dont forget to put it in the Bibliography section too with the ISBN number. NancyHeise (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK Xandar, you are OK with Dussel, he is a scholar, see this here [2] if anyone gives us a hard time about Dussel, we can just show them this link. NancyHeise (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I tought Dussel was an academic. He has a (small) wikipedia page too. Xandar (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I was just finishing the recheck for High Middle Ages but I dont have three books. Ref numbers 206, 207, 209, 211 and 213 are to Black, Casey, and Kamen authors. Do you have those books and can you check for any quotes that need quotation marks? Also, I think it was Karanacs who had Samora, Schama and Jackson books but maybe you had them, Im not sure. Can you tell me which ones were yours and check your refs? NancyHeise (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if i can find them all, (Kamen, i can get,) but I'll see what I can do. You'll have to give me a day though. Xandar (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Heaven

Just a friendly courtesy-"head's up!" re. the Queen of Heaven article...
Peace! --Wikiscient 01:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there! (I was starting to worry that maybe all the wiki-Catholics out there had disappeared or something! ;)

Just out of curiosity -- and because I'm still learning the editorial ropes here, myself -- may I ask about your comment, "...I've removed a very POV edit linking to some sect ministry..."? You are referring to the edit made by 24.113.136.165, right? How is that IP linked to "some sect ministry," and may I ask how you know that? The WHOIS, DNS, geolocate, etc tools I have available to me, plus a Google search, don't indicate anything like that...

Thanks again, and also for any additional contribution you may wish to make to the article (eg., see my response to your comments on the talk page there...)! Wikiscient 05:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Relato, we cant put people's opinions in the article just because they have opinions, we have to have some sort of documentary evidence to back up especially extraordinary claims like Relato's. NancyHeise (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have Norman and I already checked his cites. Thanks for checking. Karanacs already struck her comment after I finished with my check. NancyHeise (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, thank you for all your hard work and help through this process. I to know if you are OK with my inquisition changes. this link Medieval Inquisition has all that info about the bishop's inquisitions and the papal bull by Innocent III that established the first inquisition complete with a wikilink too. It is all we need to have in the article so we dont need to go into all that detail about the bishops. Let me know if you are OK with this. Sorry for wrecking some of your prose, I was trying to smooth out some of the areas in the article to address the FAC comments. Thanks for having a go at it too! Remember that we are doing this because it is fun as well as interesting and dont let the opposers get you down! NancyHeise (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, re inquisitoin: "Abuses committed during the crusade caused Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses and to root out the remaining Cathars.[211][212] Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition executed an average of three people per year for heresy at its height." This is technically correct and matches our references. NancyHeise (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

Xandar, I have supported the RCC article after a fresh read-through today. Be sure to bookmark the page so later, if I oppose an FAC and you disagree with me, you can cite it as evidence of my incompetence. --Laser brain (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA opposition

Hi Xandar. I saw that you had already entered an objection to the RfA in my name.[3] The RfA is not active yet; I have not answered the questions or officially listed it on the RfA list. Because of this, any support or oppose !votes are invalid. At the advice of User:Malleus Fatuarum, I am removing your comments for now. I anticipate listing the RfA the week of June 15. Please feel free to add your comments back after the Rfa has been officially listed. Karanacs (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, can you read my note on the FAC page? NancyHeise (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, thanks for your edits. I am tired today and I have some things to do to help my husband and son get ready to go out of town. I can not address Tuf Cat's comments on prose and I disagree that any sectional rearrangment should be attempted. I see that you are already addressing one of his comments and I encourage you to please see what you can do for him and respond to his comment. I am fine with whatever you decide. Thank you! NancyHeise (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Weird edit

Xandar, something is drastically wrong with this edit: [4] Other editors' text was deleted; can you revert and start over? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, not sure you've gotten the note; your previous edit had some weird conflict that deleted another editors' text, and you've now added another edit on top of that. IF I don't hear from you, I'll need to revert it myself. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it happen before; pls let me know when you're done so I can doublecheck everything ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; I'll make a null edit so subsequent editors may see the edit summary and not freak out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC Q

I tried to make sence of 'As a result, the Church soon saw the conversion of the Visigoths and Lombards, who were abandoning Arianism for Catholicism here Maybe I'm missing something but can you check pls. Ceoil (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, thanks for your great comments under the summary of oppose votes on the FAC talk page, excellent analysis. Thanks for your post under Tony's comment that has been removed by Sandy once but somehow will not go away. Maybe it is put there as an advertisement to any person who wants to come support the page as a warning not to do so or else - I was told that no article gets passed without his support. That would make it very intimidating for anyone who wants to come and support the page to do so. I consider it vandalism. I am amazed that it has not been removed but maybe Sandy has to sleep sometimes like the rest of us. NancyHeise (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are perpetrating vandalism

I will have to report your actions as vandalism to my talk page if your persist. Last warning. TONY (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, you might not realize this, but you've already violated WP:3RR on Tony's talk page. I hope that no one reports this to the 3RR noticeboard, as you being blocked for edit warring will not help this FAC advance forward; what has been needed all along is for the personalization of issues on the FAC to simply stop and for nominators to work towards resolving unstruck opposes without personalizing issues and further inflaming the FAC. (By archiving your post and no longer responding to the personalization, Tony has already stepped up to this plate; I'm hoping you'll do the same.) I'm only posting this note to make sure that you're aware that 3RR also applies to edit warring on user talk pages, as you might not know policies and guidelines in this area. Tony1 has archived your post once and noted several times that further such posts will be removed; multiple editors have attempted to keep this FAC focused and to orient you and NancyHeise regarding the process and your edits. I'm asking again that the personalization of issues on this FAC cease, not because of the 3RR violation, but in the interest of the article and the FAC. I hope that you and NancyHeise will come to realize how many editors have tried to advance this FAC forward and save the article from what it could face if it ever appeared on Wiki's mainpage without thorough vetting, where it would be attacked and marched straight to WP:FAR if a broader and less sympathetic audience perceives any sourcing or neutrality issues. I'm no longer going to try to keep that FAC on track (I've never had to do this much work before on any single FAC), as my constant efforts have produced no discernible difference in the FAC progress or the tone towards resolving opposes, but I do hope you realize how many editors have attempted to help advance this FAC. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2