| Revision as of 03:23, 14 August 2006 editDragonHawk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,370 edits →Footnotes: close← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:04, 14 August 2006 edit undoGimmetrow (talk | contribs)Administrators45,380 editsm archNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| See ] for the userpage. (Warning: may contain test scripting) | *See ] for the userpage. (Warning: may contain test scripting) | ||
| * | |||
| ==McKenna== | |||
| Gimmetrow, why did you pull out from the Talk:Robert McKenna discussion? If you are into syllogisms please tell me how logical it is that consensus was reached there without input from me? Why would you just pull out and keep silent? (] 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| == Goitein article == | |||
| Hi, I appreciate your fixing the Goitein quote in ]. I've seen this article by Goitein referenced in many works, but I don't have access to the relevant archives so that I couldn't check it myself. Do you know of any way I can get the article other than from PAO? ] <sup>]</sup> 07:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Many thanks for the link, I've downloaded the article. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Early Christianity == | |||
| In a matter of hours, I leave on a journey of just a couple of days. Perhaps you would like to keep an eye on ]. ] 13:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Gimmetrow, hi, I dont think we have met on here before. I noticed your note on ]'s talk page and realized you and I were left the same message. It appears that there is an attempt by "Jesus Seminar" advocates to take over the Early Chrisitianity page. I have not followed it much but am glad to help you rv such major edits to Lima's last. --] 16:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Not anti-cult== | |||
| Hi Gimmetrow the website saiguru is not ] (part of the amalgan of groups that embrace the ] theory). ] 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Also I think that the classification of a whole website authored by many authors (incl. me) with widely divergent viewpoints on the matter as "anti-cult" would always be a gross simplification. It is possible to say that a particular article on that website is either anti-cult or not ant-cult, but it is wrong to make generalization about the website that is compiled from so many sources. ] 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You're right, I just briefly glanced at the site. Still, that particular article has a different standard for sources than just a reliable source. ] 21:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, what do you mean? Are you saying that for the article ] reliable source are not sufficient for inclusion? ] 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, the standard is basically mainstream media or journal - sources which go through fairly good fact-checking, so the statements do not represent a single person unchecked. Scholarly book should be fine. ] 21:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But I provided a quote from a scholarly source. The scholarly source by the way is lousy. ] 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here is a good review by Brian Steel of Chryssides book entry on ] | |||
| :::::"The section dealing with SSB shows signs of hasty composition: basic factual errors and uncritical quotes or paraphrases of the sort of official handout material issued by SSB Centres and the standard hagiographies of SSB. | |||
| :::::Chryssides' sparse Bibliography quotes a few hagiographies, including one by a local devotee, but does not offer readers the stimulation of previous academic studies on SSB like those of White, Swallow or Babb nor, more seriously, does it acknowledge the existence of his transatlantic colleague Beyerstein's 1993 scholarly critique of the paranormal claims of SSB. | |||
| :::::Here are a few examples of misleading or incorrect statements in this article: Statements like "Sai Baba is reckoned to be an incarnation of a previous holy man" (p. 180), although common in work on SSB, show a basic lack of familiarity with SSB's Discourses, since it was SSB himself who claimed this (and much more) at the beginning of his Mission, insistently and frequently; his devotees believed him. | |||
| :::::Similarly, "Devotees sometimes regard Sai Baba's life as falling into three stages ..." fails to acknowledge the fact that the origin of this belief comes from a well-publicised Discourse by SSB himself. Also, although Dr. Chryssides briefly acknowledges that SSB has been criticised by the Indian Rationalists as a "spurious miracle worker", the following wording seems to endorse one type of alleged miracle: "Sathya Sai Baba can materialize the sacred lingam from his mouth." (p. 184) The conclusion that SSB "has lived true to his teachings" also seems out of place in an impartial presentation aimed at university students and others." | |||
| :::::All these blemishes, and the extraordinary 'howler' that "He no longer gives discourses" appear to be the result of insufficiently wide reading about SSB. But it is also interesting to read in the Acknowledgement (p. vii): "Thanks are due to students and staff at the University of Wolverhampton" and for updated information from several students "while studying the module on New Religious Movements" which "helped to stimulate ideas." | |||
| ::::] | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| You're welcome. Probably the first time I've for closing an ] day. ] 04:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | You're welcome. Probably the first time I've for closing an ] day. ] 04:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Pictures == | |||
| Dear Gimmetrow, | |||
| "You have uploaded a few pictures saying you are the creator of them. Were you really at Bishop Thuc's Mass in 1982, and also at that traditionalist ordination listed as 2002?" I have edited those photographs, yes. I was not there. But I have them from non-copyrighted private photographs in my possession. So I can place them online. There is no copyright attached to them. | |||
| "Also, the Roman Catholic Church article is about the Church as a whole. The particular ordination picture looks nice and has a place somewhere (if it's yours to give), but it does not represent very well the face of the Church today. I don't push to have Eastern Catholic pictures there." | |||
| The picture was taken at the Abbey of Fontgombault, an Abbey, which the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger called "the future of the Church". It's an abbey of Papal Right directly under the Holy See. It yearly hosts many liturgical conferences. It uses the revised 1965 (not-1970 Novus Ordo) Tridentine rite. If you delete áll references to "the Church of yesterday", you may as well delete the pic of St. Peter's Basilica. It was built before the Council, you know. The Church today is the same as the Church of yesterday. No, Eastern Catholic pics have no direct link, but I did not put the image there to stress "traditionalism", but merely because it is a reverend ordination ceremony which fits into the article. It's the centre of the Roman Catholic Church happening there. So no, I beg you not to remove it. The only reason to you for doing so, seems to be unease with "traditionalist" pictures or a Roman fiddleback chasuble. Ordination fits into the article. And that's it. I do not allow for removal for a non-reason. | |||
| Kind regards.] 14:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You say you have taken offense from my post about the pictures? What part do you find offensive? Your own entry at my talk site made me understand, that you think the Abbey of Fontgombault is not part of the "Church of today", but merely of "brand". How so? I do not remember Benedict XVI saying that about Fontgombault and its ordinations. Must a picture convey the "face of the Church of today"? Should we post a photo of a clown mass? Or of clerical abuse caught in the act? The picture conveys the image of the objective Roman Catholic Church of all days. Not of today, not of yesterday, but the Church as it ís. The Church and its "face" is not private property. I did not mean to criticize you personally, I merely wrote what I felt you were saying, that is: that Fontgombault and "traditionalist" fiddbleback pictures are out of touch with the "Church of today".] 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, a picture of an Eastern rite baptisme applies also to an article on baptism. There is no problem with that. And Fontgombault is in the Latin rite Catholic Church. Note that.] 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A final note: priestly ordination is part of the hierarchy of the Church, the ordaining bishop is an old French diocesan bishop, Fontgombault is under protection of the Holy See, promises liturgical renewal, and is representative and normative according to the words of Cardinal Ratzinger. So let's not dispute it further on. It's fitting in the subarticle of the main article Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise we could eliminate Mass pictures, and pictures of the assumption too. Couldn't we? After all: it's Baroque art, why not frescos or Gothical art, which is more like English see mainline architecture of the Roman Catholic Church. I opt to leave the ordination pic in RC Church article.] 20:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Since the History section has been hived off to another article, the pictures you mentioned to me (perhaps two, rather than three) are, to my mind, as out of place in the article as pictures of a paddle-wheel boat and a Pony Express rider would be in an article on the present-day United States of America. Besides, the picture of a 1962 Mass in St Peter's has much less to do with the Second Vatican Council, which it is supposed to illustrate, than the picture it replaced, and seems to have been put in this article largely to direct attention to the huge version of the same picture that has been placed in ]. ] 07:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I forgot about the Bohermeen picture, thinking it wasn't one of the Smith2006 insertions. You are even more right than I first thought. As for the John XXIII picture, it certainly doesn't fit as an illustration of Scripture, is inferior as an illustration of the Second Vatican Council to a picture of the Council in session, and indeed seems to fit nowhere at all in the Roman Catholic Church article. On the other hand, it is decidedly appropriate to the Pontifical High Mass article, which has a section on Papal Masses of the past, though its size is just as decidedly out of proportion there and for that reason hurts aesthetically. I may therefore get around to learning from your example how to "thumb" it. Smith 2006 and some others may find this hard to believe, but I do try (by no means always successfully) to limit my editing to what I see as matters of substance. So I do not intend to take any initiative with regard to these anachronistic pictures. I leave it to you or others to do something, but, if you do move, you can be sure of my support. ] 14:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] is not on my watchlist. I agree fully it should be a disambiguation page in the form your suggest. ] 18:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I must apologize, not for the first time, to Gimmetrow for not having taken his observations seriously enough. I really am sorry, and have no sufficient excuse. The candles he refers to, and to see which I inexcusably failed to take the trouble to look again at the picture, are certainly the candles that used to be put out for Benediction or for the Quarant'Ore (Forty Hours) devotion. | |||
| On the other hand, the girls are not wearing a mantilla. Irish women wore hats to Mass, not mantillas, which they looked on as a Spanish custom and would sometimes bring back from a visit to Spain as a curiosity. (The mantillas that I saw brought back were always black, not white, and, if I remember right, shorter than those on the girls in the picture.) So who are the girls? Members of some sodality, like the Children of Mary? I confess I have nothing concrete to propose. Were they perhaps dressed like that for a Eucharistic Procession to follow the Mass? I no longer hold to my previous hypothesis that it is a Confirmation Mass. | |||
| The two candlesticks for seven candles each are indeed yet another indication that this Mass was no ordinary 1950s Mass, and indeed that, even with such a plentiful supply of priests, Catholics in Ireland hardly ever experienced a High Mass. ] 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Monastic vows == | |||
| Well then the article on monastic vows needs to be severely rewritten, because it is 100 percent wrong. | |||
| The "monastic vows" in the Western Church are obedience, stability, and conversion of life --- Rule of St. Benedict, 500s. the P/V/C triad comes with the friars, OFM and OP, in the 12th and 13th centuries. The Jesuits are the opposite of a monastic order, so their inclusion in the article is ridiculous.] 05:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, the monastic vow article is off. It doesn't even mention stability. As for monsignor, it's not my article, it just deals with all the types of monsignor. In both cases you linked to a redirect. ] 05:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Heraldry === | |||
| based on the changes you made, can you please cite me a case of a bishop whose arms is impaled with that of his diocese if he isn't ordinary? So what's the "especially"? Can you cite me the arms of a bishop of a diocese whose arms incorporate "elements" of the diocesan artms, but isn't impaled, even if its the first diocese of which he's ordinary? Can you cite me the arms of a bishop who carries over impalements from old diocese to new ones, with quarterings of escutcheons? I know most of the arms of most bishops in North America in the catholic church, and at least among them, I can't think of a single example for which the change you made is correct. And how does adding "left" for "dexter" clarify anything? If a person knows heraldry, they know what side dexter is. If they don't, is it not more confusing to say 'left' when dexter means "right"? And if the change is going to be made, then shouldn't it read as the readers left, the shield's own right? Of course, I won't make any changes without first apparently first getting your permission and having a discussion about all of this. ] 05:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Vicar general === | |||
| No, coadjutors are not "even" vicars episcopal (who are called, as far as I have ever encountered, anywhere, in English, episcopal vicars). Coadjutor bishops are always vicars general, by law -- it defeats the whole idea of a coadjutor if he isn't. Again, far be it from me to actually make the correction though.] 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please ] for previous editors. The "even a coadjutor" for "episcopal vicar" was there before. I don't know about it. However, it is within his freedom of the diocesan not to appoint a coadjutor to vicar general so he could conceivably do this. As for the citations of arms, 1) I'm still writing the text, I'm not going to fuss about every ref right now (though it already has more citations than many articles), 2) I know of examples for the variations I intend to mention, including escutcheons, but 3) I didn't intend to say that impalements of former dioceses remain in new assignments; I can't think of an example of that. If you think the text says that, then suggest some alternate wording. ] 14:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Coadjutor/VG === | |||
| Pardon me, but how do you square what you said with Canon 406? "Can. 406 §1 The coadjutor Bishop, and likewise the auxiliary Bishop mentioned in can. 403 §2, is to be appointed a Vicar general by the diocesan Bishop." The auxiliary mentioned is not a regular auxiliary, by the way (who is to be appointed an episcopal vicar) but an auxiliary with a special mandate. | |||
| I have great respect for other editors, but an editor has to have some true expertise in what they are editing in order to be credible. Wiki does not ask for or rely on credentials, but when people with degrees in Ecclesiastical History, Theology and Canon Law say one thing, and somebody else comes along contradicting all of that with erroneous information, it hard not to become a little impatient.] 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Again, I didn't write that text about episcopal vicars, yet you complained to me about it. I bow to your superiour knowledge. ] 23:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Hierarchy === | |||
| How does one come to the conclusion that Eastern churches don't have a sense of hierarchy?? Yes, the title of archbishop does not have the same legal connotation in the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece that it does in the Western Church,but that doesn't mean it has none, and a metropolitan's title is not some acknowledgement of his personal service -- a metropolitante certainly does have jurisdictional functions over the eparchies connected with the metropolitan see, as a patriarch has jurisdictions over exarchates and metropolitanates.] 04:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Eucharistic fast == | |||
| Sincere thanks for the correction. ] 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Heads up == | |||
| You may be interested in this: ] ] <small>] • ]</small> 17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Religious denomination == | |||
| Hi Gimmetrow. | |||
| Could you have a look at the Religious denomination article, specifically: | |||
| "A religious denomination, (also simply denomination) is a large, long-established subgroup within a religion that has existed for many years. However, in Islam such subgroups are referred to as "sects", not denominations." | |||
| In your opinion, do you genuinely believe the intention of the Commonwealth Year Book was to imply that Sunni Islam was a cult? {{unsigned|80.189.218.168}} | |||
| : No, not with the negative connotations of "cult." However, the list in question does not assert any negative connotations, merely that the word "cult" (or British "sect") has been applied to the group. ] 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks for the word, Gimmetrow. I realize I have been getting far to angry on WP and am going to make every effort to reform. Went to confession today, and am feeling much better! Thanks again for your note to me and for your note on the CfD page. Have a good evening. Sorry for being annoying. --] 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hilarious!! Actually, all of those links were great! Also noticed the "etymology" of your username. Very clever. Have a good night. | |||
| ::I did not know that. Thanks again. --] 23:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What concerns me now, Gimmetrow, is that no one is going to follow the link. I think I have a well-reasoned and air-tight argument that has been honed by months of debate. People have to read it to have half a chance of bracketing their own biases (which are very very strong, I might ad). --] 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism reverts == | |||
| Your help reverting vandalism on Misplaced Pages is greatly appreciated, but please remember to warn the vandal with the appropriate ] (usually <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>, though to <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. This ensures the vandal knows he/she is being watched and administratos will not block repeat vandals unless they've been warned. Just a heads up. Thanks! -- ] 19:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Canon law == | |||
| Thanks for the friendly and civil note. I moved that particular article because the move I was reverting was done by Vaquero100 who was moving pages without concensus or discussion. I've commented on the talk page. If someone is willing to include the other types of Catholicism in the article, I would be happy to endorse a move. - ]|] 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I see a more complete article already exists at ]. Could you please point out for your reasoning for wanting to move it from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church". Would a simple redirect like the one at ] be acceptable? I have no personal stake in this naming dispute, I just want to find a title everyone can be happy with to stop this argument in the bud. I appreciate your willigness to discuss. ]|] 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Vaquero100 made moves despite being told not to and totally ignored requests on his talk page, that's why I reverted his move. I had no knowledge of the article's history and I probably shouldn't have removed that redirect. If one is in place, no matter what name is used, it will redirect to whereever the article is located. I'll give the history a look to see what its original title was and get back to you. - ]|] 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *You are right about the article's initial title, but unfortunately that doesn't help much because it was originated by Vaquero100. So giving it that name would be part of his POV crusade to begin with. Could you please share your personal reasons for using the initial title and possibly point me to any discussion that has gone one with regard to the naming dispute in general and this article in particular. - ]|] 18:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I reverted my move for now. To avoid the whole naming dispute and unneccesary modifiers, how about calling it ]? - ]|] 20:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *It's probably gonna be caught up in that naming debate again anyway, but any naming that gets rid of unneeded modifiers is better than it's current one. I support your suggestion over the current title. - ]|] 21:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I will support any name that ends the revert/naming war. Perhaps you could start a centralized discussion to hammer out some concensus with some Wikipedians that aren't involved in the issue. Just have two people provide the arguments for both sides and see what other people think. Right now I support your rename to get rid of those ghastly brackets. - ]|] 22:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I wasn't really aiming for new editors. I was hoping to get the input from seasoned editors who know naming conventions but who are impartial to the issue itself. I personally don't mind if you move it, but you might want to announce to avoid any problems with other people. -- ]|] 22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *New editors also think it's okay to include copyrighted material. I'm just saying that we shouldn't have people who are not fully informed make such decision. I would put the discussion at an appropriate talk page and leave notes at the ] and ]. - ]|] 04:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks, again.== | |||
| Gimmetrow, thanks for the advice to "take a breath." I am way beyond my frustration point with people who don't know what they are talking about or who just want to assert their POV. I need a few days away from this thing. MGM blocked me for 24 hours yesterday. I was the best thing for me. I am going to limit my activity on here for a while. Thanks again, friend, for hanging in there and keeping a cool head. ] 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Brackets == | |||
| Generally speaking, brackets should only be used when there's no other alternative to distinguish to similar titles. The renaming you suggested disambiguated the page without using brackets. I would consider it part of the policy to give the page the most logical name. -- ]|] 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Inertia == | |||
| Inertia isn't a good reason to continue doing something wrong. It's actually a reason to break the cycle and stop the bad thing now, because the longer you wait, the harder it ends up being to stop. --] 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Catholic Cults == | |||
| I apologise for upsetting you in the matter of Catholic Cults. I'm not trying to be antagonistic towards you personally. I really do believe that these groups belong on the list and that they by definition must be groups. And I'm tempted to put the cult of bread on there as well. Though I'm not sure if they're using it as a hyperbole or an actual devotional practice. I do not believe that this list includes only groups popularily thought of as cults. Unless the filter is more specific it must include minor devotions as well. And you'll find my reasoning on the talk page for the list. | |||
| However. I would like to ask you, emphasising that I respect your good faith, could your edits regarding Catholic subjects be making you more sensitive to their inclusion on the list? Even subconsciously? Please don't be offended by my question. I have the greatest respect for your edits and I'm choosing to do this on your talk page to be sure not to bias the conversation there. I would be interested in your answer but. ] 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your troth the Gimmetrow. I understand how to someone close it might feel like an abstract set of concepts but it is a system of religious devotion not universally practiced among all catholics. So there is a group definable by their practice of the devotion. I quote the M-W.com definition of a "cult: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents." Therefore The cult of the Virgin Mary refers to the system of beliefs and ritual and the body of it's adherents. A body of adherents qualifies as a group in my books. ] 19:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Dynabars.js (from ]) == | == Dynabars.js (from ]) == | ||
| Hee, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I've played with the dynabars code a bit at work (''intranet, no direct link, sorry. :('' ) and the new version is quite a bit faster, though quite honestly I haven't used it terribly much. The big improvement that I've noticed is in the responsiveness (my work machine is sloooow!), though quite honestly I haven't used many dynamic bars on one page. Have you considered writing a "loading test" page where we could time tweaks to the code? Just some thoughts. :) | Hee, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I've played with the dynabars code a bit at work (''intranet, no direct link, sorry. :('' ) and the new version is quite a bit faster, though quite honestly I haven't used it terribly much. The big improvement that I've noticed is in the responsiveness (my work machine is sloooow!), though quite honestly I haven't used many dynamic bars on one page. Have you considered writing a "loading test" page where we could time tweaks to the code? Just some thoughts. :) | ||
| ] 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (Kylu@Work) (Yes, this really was me!) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ] 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (Kylu@Work) (Yes, this really was me!) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == |
=== Thanks for the support! === | ||
| As we seem to have to come to an impass on the ], I'd like to respectfully say I appreciate your arguments. As requests for comment on the discussion page have had no results. Do you have a suggestion on how you'd like to proceed? ] 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I apologise if focussing on different questions seemed like dirty debating. If I have a problem with the way you're leading again I'll write on your talk page first. | |||
| :I just feel strongly that that people get confused with the definitions of cult. The list ABSOLUTELY includes all definitions of cult until such time as the filter disallows them. And I feel that may be some of your problem with the inclusion of Catholic Cults. Correct me if I'm wrong but if one was to assume that this was a list of "Bad" cults then the Cult of Mary would not belong. But since this is a list of groups referred to as cults and if you can consider the Cult of Mary a group then it belongs. | |||
| :So, I'm saying that we need to talk about the definition of a group and not the Cult of Mary. | |||
| :Again, please forgive me. I was trying to focus not sway the debate. ] 15:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::BTW, I'm completely open to including and excluding definitions in the filter. I'd actually like to see this list exclude referrences to cults as systems of worship and theological variants of established religions. I've had no success in adding this myself so feel free to introduce a "No theologically devotional" clause and I'll support it. ] 15:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please don't lose your patience now. We are so near to a real resolution to real problems which I know will satisfy both of our arguments. We have anew voice in Vaquero100 who is reasonned and accurate. He has summed up my own argument much better than anything I've written so far. I think it might be very close to your own argument. ] 17:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Congratulatios, you've won. Though I believe we were both right, I'm not going to pursue it anymore. I'm also happy with the direction Milomedes is leading the group. I'm only sorry that you got so upset at the end. I hope there's no hard feelings. ] 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for the support! == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|#FF33CC}}}; background-color: {{{color|#ffddff}}};" | {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|#FF33CC}}}; background-color: {{{color|#ffddff}}};" | ||
| |rowspan="2" valign="top" | ] | |rowspan="2" valign="top" | ] | ||
| Line 171: | Line 19: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| :I'd use a dynabar in this just to make a point, but then nobody'd be able to use it... c.c <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | :I'd use a dynabar in this just to make a point, but then nobody'd be able to use it... c.c <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Cult of Mary deletion war == | |||
| I am on your side, our Lady's side, in this argument. I am not sure if the cult list was ever fit WP material, and a list that groups together devotion to St. Mary with the Branch Davidians is just nonsense. | |||
| However, I advise you to be patient and not pursue the delete war with cairoi. I think Milo's proposed rule change is a good way to advance the discussion and reach consensus for exclusion of traditional Catholic devotions from the list. Getting yourself blocked now will do nothing for our Lady's cause. Yours in Christ. -- ] 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Invitation to join ]== | |||
| Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the ]. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the ] dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: ''']'''. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Misplaced Pages which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church. | |||
| You can find information on the ] about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our ]. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Subway vandal == | |||
| At one point, I submitted a request for semi-protection for the affected articles (see ]), which was denied. I also requested that the vandal's IP address be blocked yesterday, which it was (for 3 hours). I'm not sure what anyone will say about it, other than just revert everything. --] <small>(] | ])</small> 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Then it will have to be explained that this ceased to be a content dispute a long time ago. Content disputes involve some sort of discussion. It's just vandalism now. And I will be extremely angry if I am blocked for this, because my request to protect the pages was denied and I was simply told to keep reverting. --] <small>(] | ])</small> 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm going to submit another RFP for the affected articles. --] <small>(] | ])</small> 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Next time he starts, I reccomend the following - 1. Make a page detailing your past attempts to stop him from vandalizing at ] . 2. Tag his user-talk page with {{tl|bv}}. 3. Report him immediately to ], linking to your page with details of the interactions. ] - ] 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mward87== | |||
| I'm sorry that I've been reverting information on Jason Earle's article. It's just that the people who work on that article have come to a consent that he was born on 4/26/77 and we also have proof that he was born in '77. I'll stop, I was just trying to put up the right information. (] 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| :Well, that's because that ip was mine. I just forgot to log on. Well to me personally I would trust ancestry.com over tv.com. It is possible that the information could be corrupted or incorrect, but to me its more likely that tv.com is incorrect. That's my personal opinion. (] 18:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| :: That is interesting. I'm not sure on that case. Who was the celebrity? Well with Jason Earles birthday the birthday agrees with more websites than ones that contradict it. I've seen at least 4 or 5 other websites that give his birthday as 4/26/77. The only sites I have found that say 4/26/85 are tv.com and his resume in which he could have easily fudged his birthday to get more callbacks. I guess it depends on the certain situation. Where the 2 newspaper articles and the biography really realiable? (] 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| :::Yeah, I see where you are coming from. I googled Maria Shriver and on hollywood.com they list her being born on 11/6/55.( http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/id/187566). It is possible that the public records can be incorrect, but there could also be two Maria Shrivers. When I searched for Jason Earles on http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/39461, there was only one Jason Earles listed with the birthdate 4/26/77, which agrees with almost all sites, except for tv.com and his resume. A possible scenario is that there might be two Maria Shrivers. (] 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| == Hiv == | |||
| Fair enough, Gimmetrow. Was rather frustrated with earlier users reverts that I couldn't understand the reasoning for. Seemed NPOV to me as one can't really compare the anti hiv argument to creationism, flat-earthism, or many other lunacies. I admit I got a chuckle out of it. That said, your reversion was right for the reason you stated. I'll look for something, either tomorrow or next week, as I'm moving to Maryland on Sunday. {{unsigned|69.175.37.198}} 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Gay Kingdom== | |||
| Firstly, the comment I removed comprises irrelevant minutiae. Stating that the kingdom has issued stamps is informative, factual, NPOV - and verifiable in multiple sources - however the general reader really doesn't need to know what the group's ''intended'' stamp release policy is. Secondly it is not verifiable. And by that I mean it is not verifiable outside one (highly dubious) primary source, namely the Gay Kingdom's website. Misplaced Pages's ] and policies require that all assertions in all articles be verifiable in multiple non-primary sources. This one obviously isn't. --] 06:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| Hi, | Hi, | ||
| I was going to suggest that you leave a note at ] to try and attract more attention, but I see you've already done this, as well as go for the FAC. Glad to see you've had some feedback, I'll try to comment as well in the next couple of days. ] 21:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC) | I was going to suggest that you leave a note at ] to try and attract more attention, but I see you've already done this, as well as go for the FAC. Glad to see you've had some feedback, I'll try to comment as well in the next couple of days. ] 21:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 228: | Line 40: | ||
| All in all, I'm not good at analyzing prose: I just have a hard time getting through the article, but it may be more because it presents so much new terminology for me, and less a matter of the actual prose. Have you asked Tony to have a look? If you get JKelly on board with the images, let me know, so I can support. ] 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | All in all, I'm not good at analyzing prose: I just have a hard time getting through the article, but it may be more because it presents so much new terminology for me, and less a matter of the actual prose. Have you asked Tony to have a look? If you get JKelly on board with the images, let me know, so I can support. ] 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| === Coats of Arms === | |||
| == So sorry to be interfering with YOUR article == | |||
| The conclave that elected Adrian was convened on December 28, 1521. He was elected on January 9, 1522, in the eleventh scrutiny (the votes that put him over the top came by accession, not ballot). Adrian was Dutch, or German-speaking or something (there is no such "ethnicity" as "German"), but was in Spain, serving as viceroy of Charles V and was informed of his election on January 24 by private letter, and in March by actual delegation. He arrived in Rome on August 28. These are all well-documented, boiler-plate facts well known to any other professor of Church History. I don't understand why they are suddenly in dispute. | |||
| As far as Pope Joan, I would have thought that the Misplaced Pages article on ], with five books cited there (plus an additional one in the text) discrediting the legend as non-historical would be sufficient. As you rejected that as a cross-cite, I added the CE article directly, but apparently that is also of insufficient schoilarly quality for you. | |||
| I'm sorry that correcting the text interferes with YOUR process of researching YOUR own work in YOUR article, so that remove the fact-tag disrupts YOUR publication of YOUR research. I take it the proper way to proceed is to wait until you've learned enough Church History to straighten your own writing out and and wait for you to publish it in encyclopedia form...I guess this is supposed to be a spectator sport?] 06:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be "collaborative." That's why leaving messages whining that people have removed your fact tags because YOU haven't decided whether to accept a date nobody else has had problems with for 450 years seems "uncollaborative" to me. As for other female popes besides the alleged Joan, what are you talking about? One has to provide a cite proving there were no other alleged candidates for a female pope??? Why then no cite to prove there were no popes born and raised in Greenland? Who is even making the allegation that it needs to be answered? | |||
| You're unsure how to respond to me? What am I supposed to say to you? You message me to inform me that you tagged the 1522 date for Adrian because YOU think it may be 1521 -- huh? Then you announce to me that Adrian's accession was in January 1522, which it wasn't. CE cites are insuffcient for you, but you ignore elaborate articles already on Misplaced Pages, and I notice you quote as gospel in the heraldry article a priest in New Jersey whose claim to expertise is that he has a personal website (Heim is legit as a cite, but why this priest and not Deacon Patrick Sullivan, who actually designed the coats of arms for a large percentage of the existing US hierarchy?).] 13:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Christmas == | |||
| Thanks for fixing my ] FAC.] 12:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Showing, Elevating and Heraldry== | |||
| Hi, Gimmetrow, thanks for the note. Regarding the rubrics, Lima has it backwards in interpretation. The rubric was always and is now "to show." The only way "to show" the host in the ancient rite was to elevate it over the head so the people behind you could see it. So, elevate is not the rubric in the old rite but is the required action. The rubric remains "to show" at least in my sacramentary (though this may change, I do not know). The fact that elevation is not required to show the host in the reformed rite led many liturgists and priests trained in the past 40 years to the interpretation that elevation is no longer necessary. This is why many priests no longer elevate the host, or at least not to the former degree. More traditional priests, following the examples of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have returned to the practice of high elevation (as well as some other Tridentine rubrics no longer in effect such as the sign of the cross at the absolution concluding the introductory penitential rite). | |||
| Wish I could help you on heraldry, I know nothing of it. Sorry. ] 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This may be helpful, from the BCL of the USCCB: The Elevations at Mass | |||
| "The Secretariat frequently receives inquiries | |||
| concerning the rubrics of the Missale Romanum, | |||
| editio typica tertia. Recently, we have received | |||
| several inquiries concerning the meaning and extent | |||
| of the various elevations of the chalice and paten at | |||
| Mass. There are four elevations which are called for | |||
| by the rubrics at Mass. At the preparation of the | |||
| gifts, the elements are '''“raised slightly above the | |||
| altar”''' (OM 23). At the Consecration, the | |||
| consecrated elements are '''“shown to the people”''' | |||
| (OM 90). During the Doxology, the chalice and | |||
| paten are '''“elevated”''' (OM 98). At the Ecce Agnus | |||
| Dei, the consecrated host over a paten or chalice is | |||
| '''“held before the people.”''' The differences in the rubrics | |||
| for each elevation are dictated by the | |||
| meaning and purpose of each elevation and should | |||
| be carefully respected."] 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Father Wach == | |||
| This is the problem many have with "tradition-minded" clergy. I have known many...many!...and without judging each individual's sincerity, the vast majority strike me as fellows who have found a very...very!...comfortable living by tapping into quaintly generous wealthy traditionalists (why is it that turn-back-the-clock Latin Massers almost never volunteer to take over the near-abandonned parishes and schools of inner-city immigrant and black slum neighborhoods?), and/or as fellows who are closeted drag queens (no exaggeration, and I have no animosity toward gay men, but the thunder-and-brimstone Latinists also all seem completely obsessed with the laciest nightgowns of surplices), or guys who enjoy a sort of Dungeons-and-Dragons Medieval roleplaying game as their life (I have one friend who is an American priest, living in the US, who worked his butt of to get himself named an honorary canon of not one but two cathedrals, one in Poland and one in Italy -- there are no chapters of canons in any US cathedral, this does nothing to benefit his parishioners, but he insists on being called canon and flounces around in a rochet day and night). | |||
| Beware the academic who constantly reminds you to call him "doctor" or "professor," beware the Christian who spends more time thinking about himself than the poor, beware the Catholic who treats the liturgy as an angry crusade, and beware the priest who fights like hell to have people call him "monsignor."] 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Image:Vatican coa2.png == | |||
| I see you removed my deletion tags on this image and replaced with NCT. | |||
| Will the wiki image be deleted? ] 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It won't be automatically deleted as the images are not identical. See ]. You can, however, list it on ]. ] (]) 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Putnam FAC== | |||
| # Comment - This was a very informative article, good writing style. However a few things: | |||
| * Remove spaces between punctuation and reference marks, see WP:FN | |||
| * Need a space after some refs before following sentence, a couple times in the lead, also near end of theory of meaning section. | |||
| * Fermat's Last Theorem - this article says solved in 1993, FLT article says 1995. | |||
| * Paragraph in Epistemology with "Your words": if this entire paragraph is a quote, indicate it as such. Otherwise, it needs some rewriting. | |||
| # I believe these issues can be addressed | |||
| I have addressed all of these issues, in any case. Could you please look over the revised version. Thank you.--] 14:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Some have suggested that ] is close to ready for FAC, but I certainly can't put the kind of work into it that Lacatosias has into Putnam. It has some in-line references, but leaves most of that for the end references (which seems cleaner to me on a front-page style basic article, but I can't imagine that arguement flying). Further I suck at copy-editing, there are probably hordes of issues I'm not seeing. ] 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===exclusion=== | |||
| Sorry I didn't mean to exclude you. Thanks for pointing this out] 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Lacatosias === | |||
| I thought he had completed the work. Also good wikiquette would say that a comment in the summary like - beginning major rewrite would help give notice - in fact - decent edit summaries in general could have avoided this issue --<font color="#06C">]</font> 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Think you're going to be able to put any more work into this one? {{unsigned|Marskell}} 13:31, 6 August 2006 | |||
| : When I can, yes. ] 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I struck my remove, since there is still interest. I didn't know what you meant by this? ''Sandy, not all wikiwork involves saved edits.'' ?? ] 23:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks !! ] 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Image == | |||
| The ] has been clarified by me. You can use it freely (for objective articles that is.... :-)... ).] 10:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is clear, that a friend of mine took it and I used it here.] 10:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Francis Schuckardt == | |||
| Your work on this article is greatly appreciated. It is so much more readable in its present form. If no changes at all were made to it, it would still be many orders of magnitude better than the albatross that you started with. As I wrote on the discussion page, the quality of your work has earned you unlimited license on the article. I cannot overstate that. If I ever start snipping about minor details, just mention that it really isn't important in the larger scope and I'll stop. ] 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Coats of Arms == | |||
| This is actually something of a complicated pain, but your expertise in the area will help quite a bit. There are two potential copyrights involved with every coat of arms (and we get this wrong all the time). The first is the design of the arms (the ]). The design can be copyrighted (and, incidentally, trademarked and subject to all sorts of other restrictions which we largely pretend do not exist). You're probably dealing with old enough designs that this is not a concern, but it would be best to know who created what design when. Secondly, there is enough creative content in a rendition of that design for a new ] copyright to be claimed by the person who actually "drew" that representation. These should be drawn by Wikipedians, or someone else willing to release their rendition under a free license, per ] #1. In short, you need to show that a) the design is free and b) this individual drawing of it is free. It is easy for us to claim ] on the design, but there's no excuse for us taking someone else's drawing. ] 01:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | This is actually something of a complicated pain, but your expertise in the area will help quite a bit. There are two potential copyrights involved with every coat of arms (and we get this wrong all the time). The first is the design of the arms (the ]). The design can be copyrighted (and, incidentally, trademarked and subject to all sorts of other restrictions which we largely pretend do not exist). You're probably dealing with old enough designs that this is not a concern, but it would be best to know who created what design when. Secondly, there is enough creative content in a rendition of that design for a new ] copyright to be claimed by the person who actually "drew" that representation. These should be drawn by Wikipedians, or someone else willing to release their rendition under a free license, per ] #1. In short, you need to show that a) the design is free and b) this individual drawing of it is free. It is easy for us to claim ] on the design, but there's no excuse for us taking someone else's drawing. ] 01:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 334: | Line 52: | ||
| :::::It is a "]" issue; licenses that disallow derivative use aren't "free as in speech" even if they are "free as in beer", so we disallow them just as we disallow "non-commercial" licenses. Personally, I am a little unsure of the practical usefulness of "no derivative" images; if I change the file format, is that a ]? Still, I wouldn't publish some of my photography under anything but a no-derivative license. As for the other question, reprinting plates from a book doesn't normally have any effect on the original copyright status. It may, however, in specific cases. are that if a work was published before ] ] without copyright notice, that work is in the public domain. If the republication was before 1994 and attached a copyright notice that hadn't existed, the reprint would alter the copyright status. Otherwise, the rule is seventy years after the death of the creator. ] 22:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | :::::It is a "]" issue; licenses that disallow derivative use aren't "free as in speech" even if they are "free as in beer", so we disallow them just as we disallow "non-commercial" licenses. Personally, I am a little unsure of the practical usefulness of "no derivative" images; if I change the file format, is that a ]? Still, I wouldn't publish some of my photography under anything but a no-derivative license. As for the other question, reprinting plates from a book doesn't normally have any effect on the original copyright status. It may, however, in specific cases. are that if a work was published before ] ] without copyright notice, that work is in the public domain. If the republication was before 1994 and attached a copyright notice that hadn't existed, the reprint would alter the copyright status. Otherwise, the rule is seventy years after the death of the creator. ] 22:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Ecclesiastical Heraldry == | |||
| Even if I were on base, I would not have a copy of the old ''Caeremoniale Episcoporum'' to consult. I did quite recently see two antique copies of it in an episcopal library I visited.. It was very different from the present book and began with what a priest was expected to do on receiving news of his appointment. So I suppose the custom you enquire about would be mentioned in that book. I got the impression that even by the beginning of the twentieth century the book was already out of date. | |||
| Yes, I read many years ago that it was the custom for a new bishop to present the ordaining bishop with two miniature casks of wine and two miniature loaves adorned with his arms. It certainly is no longer the custom. I would ''not'' be surprised if told that the custom had already fallen into desuetude in many or most countries even a century ago. I ''would'' be surprised if told that the Rite of Ordination/Consecration mentioned a presentation of these gifts within the rite itself. The mention, if my memory is correct, of two ''loaves'', not wafers, suggests strongly that the wine and bread were not for use in the Mass of the rite. Unfortunately, I do not have a "Tridentine" text of the rite, to make quite sure. | |||
| I do not intend to look up here the article on Ecclesiastical Heraldry. Make sure that it does not state that Catholic bishops are ''obliged'' to use coats of arms; the Secretariat of State's simplifying document on dress, titles and coats of arms of prelates, issued in about 1969, says they are ''permitted'' to use them. | |||
| ] 08:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == POV and other guidelines == | |||
| Thanks for the info. I do think it strange for an editor who has never edited an article to put a POV tag on an article (]) without giving a very good explanation for what changes s/he would like to see: a drive-by tagging. I wasn't sure if I was in the right to ask the editor for a better description. | |||
| I'll look at the Cite stuff later today. I did notice that there were some changes to guidelines without prior discussion, which I thought strange. Thanks for looking at that POV info. ] 12:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll get to the rest today, Gimmetrow, I promise. I am struggling to catch up on today's work, with a lot going on. There are too many changes being made to guidelines without discussion or consensus. Your FAC? I used to really really enjoy working on FAC, because it was one of the few areas of Wiki which didn't seem to be overrun with toxicity. That has changed. I try to avoid the place like the plaque now, hoping it will settle down, and I only check in periodically. My own sense of your FAC is that there is still a lot up in the air: my brain simply doesn't compute Fair Use, so I always wait for JKelly's clearance. I'm not a great grammarian, so I always wait for the various copy editors to approve before I support. The last time I read it, I had a hard time with the prose, but I am afraid to make comments on FAC, because I am not able to explain as well as the copy editors exactly where or why I have prose problems, and the give-and-take discussion environment on FAC is gone. I still have the sense that FAC hasn't settled down after the disruption. The obvious failures failed, while the obvious FAs succeeded, and anything that fell in the middle got lost in the nasty HP shuffle. If I had an FAC in the midst of that mess, I'd withdraw it, and resubmit it after the toxicity subsides. Anyway, if you can get JKelly on board with the images and any one of the copy editors on board, I'll support. As soon as I have time (I am really swamped right now), I'll read it again. ] 15:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let me finish my morning work, and stuff I'm up to my eyeballs in right now, and I'll do that. ] 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Footnotes == | |||
| I saw your addition at ] about a bug with cite conference. I looked at Sanitization and didn't see an obvious problem. Can you explain what the problem is, maybe it can be fixed easily? ] 02:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Reply here: ]. --] 02:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Replied at WP talk page again. Thanks for the reality check! :-) --] 03:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:04, 14 August 2006
- See User:Gimmetrow for the userpage. (Warning: may contain test scripting)
- Permalink Archive August 14
WP:IFD
You're welcome. Probably the first time I've been thanked for closing an WP:IFD day. Jkelly 04:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Dynabars.js (from MediaWiki talk:monobook.js)
Hee, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I've played with the dynabars code a bit at work (intranet, no direct link, sorry. :( ) and the new version is quite a bit faster, though quite honestly I haven't used it terribly much. The big improvement that I've noticed is in the responsiveness (my work machine is sloooow!), though quite honestly I haven't used many dynamic bars on one page. Have you considered writing a "loading test" page where we could time tweaks to the code? Just some thoughts. :)
207.145.133.34 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (Kylu@Work) (Yes, this really was me!) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the support!
|
Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA! | |
| To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
- I'd use a dynabar in this just to make a point, but then nobody'd be able to use it... c.c ~Kylu (u|t) 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Ecclesiastical heraldry
Hi, I was going to suggest that you leave a note at Talk:Heraldry to try and attract more attention, but I see you've already done this, as well as go for the FAC. Glad to see you've had some feedback, I'll try to comment as well in the next couple of days. Dr pda 21:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's OK. I had the advantage of seeing a picture of the relevant hat in one of the sources I consulted (probably Heim) --Dr pda 22:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you've addressed all the comments I had. I've had a quick look for Eastern heraldic images, but with no success --Dr pda 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, trying to look at what confuses me: perhaps it's just all the terminology I've never heard, that makes it hard to digest a paragraph in the middle of the article, which is what I typically do to see if I feel like an article has prose problems. When I go to any section in the middle, I'm lost, because I don't have the terminology. So, starting at the top (take my comments for what they're worth - I'm not a prose person :-):
- most formalized within the Roman Catholic Church where every bishop including the Pope is permitted a personal coat of arms.
- Should there be a comma after Catholic Church?
- Analogous customs are followed
- Is there any reason not to just say "similar customs" (for us Heraldry Dummies 101 who are already overwhelmed with all the new terminology)?
- The mitre and crozier is common on institutional arms.
- Should that "is" be "are"?
- Until 1960, the composition of the shield itself was regulated and registered with the Heraldry Commission of the Roman Curia, but after this office was abolished by Pope John XXIII, shield design has had no official guidance.
- Should that be "but since this office was ... " ?
All in all, I'm not good at analyzing prose: I just have a hard time getting through the article, but it may be more because it presents so much new terminology for me, and less a matter of the actual prose. Have you asked Tony to have a look? If you get JKelly on board with the images, let me know, so I can support. Sandy 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Coats of Arms
This is actually something of a complicated pain, but your expertise in the area will help quite a bit. There are two potential copyrights involved with every coat of arms (and we get this wrong all the time). The first is the design of the arms (the blazon). The design can be copyrighted (and, incidentally, trademarked and subject to all sorts of other restrictions which we largely pretend do not exist). You're probably dealing with old enough designs that this is not a concern, but it would be best to know who created what design when. Secondly, there is enough creative content in a rendition of that design for a new derivative work copyright to be claimed by the person who actually "drew" that representation. These should be drawn by Wikipedians, or someone else willing to release their rendition under a free license, per Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria #1. In short, you need to show that a) the design is free and b) this individual drawing of it is free. It is easy for us to claim Misplaced Pages:Fair use on the design, but there's no excuse for us taking someone else's drawing. Jkelly 01:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sincere apologies for any offense. Believe me, it isn't only this nomination I was talking about. If you look over WP:FA right now you will see at least one other one that I've mentioned images being WP:CSD. If not quite a daily occurance, it is definitely a regular one. The comment of mine that you linked to shouldn't be taken personally; the intent wasn't to slight the work that you've put in, and coat of arms images are a lot trickier than most of the other images we deal with. I hope you'll accept this apology for what could easily be read as my being dismissive. To answer the other question, scanning your own work would be great. There exists software that helps with coat of arms design and creation, but I cannot recall the name of it. You could also take a look at commons:Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry and see who has done good work. Thanks in advance. Jkelly 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The same uploader uploaded both and Image:CoA Husi Bishopry.jpg andImage:Husi.jpg. The latter they identified as coming from Enciclopedia României, volume II. That may be where the bishopric's coat of arms also came from. I'm not sure if that helps us at all. Jkelly 02:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Going with an illustration from an old book would work; is finding such a thing easier than making our own rendition? I'm a useless artist, I am afraid. As for the stamp, Image:GLKStamps.jpg looks like it has all of the things that an image description page needs. Jkelly 18:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is a Creative Commons No-Derivatives license. We prohibit non-derivative licenses, just as we cannot accept "no derivatives" textual contributions, so we couldn't use any such images, but you could host them at Flickr or with a similar service. Jkelly 18:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is a "goal of the project" issue; licenses that disallow derivative use aren't "free as in speech" even if they are "free as in beer", so we disallow them just as we disallow "non-commercial" licenses. Personally, I am a little unsure of the practical usefulness of "no derivative" images; if I change the file format, is that a derivative work? Still, I wouldn't publish some of my photography under anything but a no-derivative license. As for the other question, reprinting plates from a book doesn't normally have any effect on the original copyright status. It may, however, in specific cases. Poland's rules are that if a work was published before May 23 1994 without copyright notice, that work is in the public domain. If the republication was before 1994 and attached a copyright notice that hadn't existed, the reprint would alter the copyright status. Otherwise, the rule is seventy years after the death of the creator. Jkelly 22:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)