User talk:Ptolemy Caesarion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Need page #

Hi Secisek, Thank you for your labor of love over at Roman Catholic Church. I appreciate your help. I need the page number for the Compact Oxford English Dictionary you inserted so I can put the ref in the same format as all others. Also, if you could throw in the ISBN, year of publication and publisher (Oxford University Press?) I just want to make sure I have it all in the bibliography too. Thanks for your help. Happy New Year! NancyHeise ^talk 01:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the article go FA and it is my hope as a project we can put this "name controversy" to an end - at least to some extent. I normaly try to stay out of this as much as possible. I chose to jump in now because I was really pleasntly surprised to see how close the two sides were this time. If we close this, even just for a time, it will have been time very well spent. Common sense should be the rule. I recall an article that mentioned something along the lines of "The term Catholic Church can also be taken to mean the whole body of baptised Christians. The Roman Catholic Church rejects this usage." Some body insisted that "Roman Catholic Church" was not to be used in the article, dropped "Roman", and rendered the passage senseless. Yes, respect and common sense should be the rule here. --Secisek (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That passage is true and I think it could go into our note. I don't think anyone would be opposed to that at all. Did you try to insert that phrase? NancyHeise ^talk 02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No it, was existing and it wasn't in the CC article. I don't remember the specifics, it was a couple years ago. Just amusing. -- Secisek (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cathedral of All Saints

When I get my digital camera fixed, I will take an image. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, the article is much better than a stub. Pictures would help. -- Secisek (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Rating of Lynn de Silva

Thank you for your rating of Lynn de Silva! Ldesilva (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the article was advanced to what I consider the B class. If I were you, I would nominate it for GA. Well done thus far. -- Secisek (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hit and Run

Secisek. It seems you jumped into the Catholic Church article with no previous knowledge of the article, and a big chip on your shoulder, determined to make arrogant personal attacks on editors who have spent months and years on this article, in the firm conviction that only you are right. You have tried to make changes without consensus and breaking the previous consensus without agreement. Your whole attitude has been deplorable, and you leave making blackmailing threats to try to disrupt at FA since you haven't got your way. That is not the way to act on Wikipedia. Xandar 21:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I have worked on and off for a solution to this admitedly difficult problem over the last couple of years, leaving the debate when it gets bogged down by unconstructive editors. I brought no chip or ax, but I did propose a number of compromises - all of which were dismissed out of hand - largely by you and you alone. That article has seen the work of over 3,000 editors and there are only handful of editors who have put in more work than I have on it, not that it should make my contributions to this debate any less or more valid.

You say I have a "firm conviction that only" I am right. I proposed a number of cited compromises, each one different, that you, unlike Nancy, never seriously commented on. If I do have a position, I would be willing to bet you could not even articulate it, given your distortion of every suggestion I made. You never showed any understanding of any of my proposals - you just knew they were "wrong" - and you always presented a strawman's arguement of one sort or another to "prove" it.

I also made no threat about the FAC, which I for one would like to see that article pass. I left the debate as you made it clear my input would not be tolerated. I may return when cooler heads rule the day, but nothing will be resolved in the short term from the looks of it. It is you, not I, who should be ashamed of their behaviour. I stand on my good faith proposals, my good relations with other editors on both sides of the debate, and my wider record here at Wikipedia. -- Secisek (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: I appreciated your efforts Secisek, I know you came in good faith and your efforts did help improve the note. I am sorry that we are in such a rut over at RCC but I dont see a way out of it until someone realizes that we don't have a ref for the stuff they are asking us to include and we do have refs for stuff they want us to exclude. NancyHeise ^talk 02:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It is in a rut again, I came to help. I saw I probably couldn't and I didn't want to be part of the problem. Best wishes. -- Secisek (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your own kind words on my talk page. You come across as an intelligent, informed, unbiased and reasonable person - unlike Xandar who seems to be just a fanatic and a bully. He (?) is the worst kind of editor, one who assumes ownership of an article and is impervious to any facts or reasoned arguments which contradict his entrenched position. There won't be any improvement to the Roman Catholic Church article while he is allowed to control things. It is so tiresome dealing with fanatical editors like him - but 'nil bastardi carborundum' as they say! Sorry to see you go at present. Afterwriting (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the mock-Latin. I once got in to a discussion with a pushy editor who claimed he had read a Church document in the original latin and it did not support my position. When I responded at length IN LATIN, he did not reply and left the discussion. -- Secisek (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Brillitantae thatisae. Salve, Secisek, did you respond in classical latin or in vulgar church latin? :-) I should get back looking at the Anglican articles but it has been so peaceful not do. I'm glad you are in the battle again. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You might remember the Latin exchange. I think you were involved with it. I am trying to avoid "battle", but sometimes it finds me. Hardly visible when I first started editing, the schismatics have certainly found Wikipedia and there is very little peace in the Anglican articles right now. I am keeping out it currently. I am mostly just working on getting Wikiproject Anglicanism caught up at present. Glad to be here. -- Secisek (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rating of Elder (Christianity)

Thanks for the quick assessment of Elder (Christianity). I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only one thinking this. James Reed (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I took most of last year off of editing and I am mostly just working on process right now: assesment, RfCs, the like. That article needs much work, but it isn't a stub. -- Secisek (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For The Barnstar Much appreciated Bashereyre (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Little boxes

Not another box! Where is this one going? I hate boxes down the sides of articles because they take up room and disrupt the text by displacing any pictures that happen to be in place.

I like boxes that go horizontally under the article. They are a very useful place for all sorts of links. What do you have in mind? Amandajm (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not another. It is a re-vamp of the old one, which had gotten a bit confused. I mean really, are the Marion Martyrs crucial to an understanding of Anglicanism?

I really like the new box, but do think it has become bloated and I agree a footer may be the way to go. I am more intrested in content than size, shape, or location. -- Secisek (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rating of Churches of Christ

Thank you for taking the time to review the article on the Churches of Christ. In your edit comment, you mentioned that it was "probably not far from B class." Could you give us some insight on where you think it needs the most work? I have some ideas - for instance, the section on "Churches of Christ outside the United States" is a mess, and the history section needs work. I'd appreciate it if you could give us your perspective on it, though. It would help us focus our efforts. EastTN (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will offer more detailed suggestions ASAP.-- Secisek (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Your point is well taken on the sections that still lack citations. We'll keep trying to improve the sourcing for the article. EastTN (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Irish Bishops

Yes I will start looking at the Irish Bishops. If I live long enough I would like to see a start class article on every Anglican Bishop. I have done all of the outstanding Suffragans, and from them as many related articles as I could manage ie where a suffragan has also been a colonial or diocesan bishop. As soon as work permits I shall try an Irish Bishop!

Best wishes

Bashereyre (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I started a new article today at Diocese of Elphin (Church of Ireland) which Bashereyre may like. The link in it to Handbook of British Chronology online supplies lists of all Church of Ireland bishops and archbishops. Strawless ^(talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thank you very much for the Richard Hooker Memorial Barnstar, which is flattering. Strawless ^(talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Christianity in China

I am interested to work on aricles about Christianity in China so if you interested in cooperation send a message :)--Vojvodaeist 11:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

USA

Very neat you seeing Gene Robinson in person. I only became aware about his invitation during intercessory prayers on the first sunday after epiphany. Definitely, an 'Huh?' moment. I checked later and sure enough Robinson got the official invite. I guess a Presidential invite trumps Rowan Cantuar's.

So, are Obama and his family turning Episcopalian. They attended church service's at St John's Episcopal Church and the National Cathedral. I found this neat video article at the PBS website: "Obama Church Shopping". Mostly it is a bit of history of where American presidents went to church. I'm certain I've read about this before...it seems familiar... Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school at the First Baptist church when he was president! Cheers!, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that St. John's always has this service at inaugurations, and the new president always attends. Not sure about the morning prayer at the National Cathedral, but I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't something that always happens too. Tb (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

TB is correct. He will attend services at the National Cathedral on occasion of state, however he will continue to worship in the UCC, as he has for most of his life. -- Secisek (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

I need a reliable source for the fact that Wilfrid is venerated in the Anglican communion. I've got him covered in the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox... but... you're my go to guy on Anglican stuffs. It needs to pass my reliablity standards, so Book of Common Prayer, etc. level reliabity here, as he's going to go to FAC at some point. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do this give me a day or so. Off the top of my head is this. It is a fact and I am sure I can find a reference for it. -- Secisek (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No great hurry, he's not ready for FAC yet, (and I have one up there anyway...) but it'll be shortly, so figured I'd better get cracking. I checked both the CoE and Anglican communion sites, no luck. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This may be helpful in general: bibliography. -- Secisek (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may butt in on this, Wilfred is commemorated at October 12th as a "lesser festival" (i.e. one step up from a "commemoration") in the Calender of "Common Worship" "Common Worship: Services and Prayers for the Church of England", Church House Publishing (2000), ISBN 0 7151 2000 X, page 14, TomHennell (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I pointed that out in full at Wilfred's talk page, but I must have not saved it properly since it isn't there, not even in the history. I even reproduced his collect in full. I'll get areound to it again. Thanks, Tom. -- Secisek (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Image at Anglican Portal

Per your request, I've made the reversion at {{Anglican Portal}}. I agree that a change like that should follow from discussion and consensus, especially at a protected page. I've informed the user who made the change, and you and s/he may wish to discuss it at the template page. fishhead64 (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. Open to debate. -- 07:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

E. J. H. Nash

Secisek - Thanks for rating this page - can you give me tips as to how to get it rated higher? Thanks Hyper3 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See article talk page. -- Secisek (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Announcements

Yes, you did it perfectly. I'm just adding it now. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! -- Secisek (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

One question

I want to start new subproject in project Christianity. Can you help me?--Vojvodaeist 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What would you like to work on? -- Secisek (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to work on articles about Serbian Orthodox Church. There are no many articles on this subject especially good written article.--Vojvodaeist 10:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That is great news, I had wished someone would bring this up! Did you see the work I have done on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and Portal:Eastern Christianity? Let's move this discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy! -- Secisek (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How are you , old friend ?

How are you , my old friend ? We havent been in touch for sometime.. and i was also busy with other WikiProject stuff .. Take care -- Tinu Cherian - 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am well. I am enjoying a period of activity here and I am mostly bringing projects and portals up to date. If I can be of any help to you, please contact me. -- Secisek (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma

Hi Secisek - I appreciate your taking the time to assess the Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma article. When you get a chance, would you please indicate which areas you feel need improvement? I would like to get it to a B-class, at least. Thanks, Wormcast (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

See the article talk page. -- Secisek (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Anglicans by nationality

See Category talk:Anglicans by nationality

You challenging me to correct them all and then reverting me when I did is bad faith and not constructive.

I moved some of this conversation over to the cat talk page as it is relevent. I see we have another opinion and I am open to seeing what consesnus states. I will make no changes while deabte goes forward. -- Secisek (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your games w.r.t. this issue. You know full well that events transpired in between my initial comments to you and now that have changed my approach. I also think you should also assume good faith and believe me when I tell you what I have done was done in good faith. As it stands now, the parent category you desired to add has been added, and the original one has also been maintained. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Formal discussion begun: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_15#Anglicans_parent_category_(-ies) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Category scheme for all of the Christianity trees

I would also like to discuss a category scheme for all of the Christianity trees since it seems to intrest us both. A number of them are quite a mess and I have been attempting to rationalize them to some extent.-- Secisek (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not read your whole note at first.

I am glad to talk about this a category scheme for all of the Christianity trees. I have worked on many parts of it for a while now. I mostly see you working on Anglicanism now. What did you have in mind?--Carlaude ^(talk) 06:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I do not know what you are saying in "As for wider reforms, have you seen the category tree". Do you mean the Christianity category tree, or a tree related to Anglicanism? Do you want me to just propose tree reforms to you, or what? --Carlaude ^(talk) 04:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Christianity tree:

Christianity

Christianity by location

Christians

Christian denominational families

Christianity and society

Works about Christianity

Christianity-related lists

Christian belief and doctrine

Christian buildings and structures

Christianity-related controversies

Conversion to Christianity

Christian culture

Christian ecumenical and interfaith relations

Christian fundamentalism

History of Christianity

Christian monasticism

Christian mysticism

Christian organizations

Christian practices

Quartets in Christianity

Romani Christianity

Christianity studies

Christian terminology

Christian tradition

Christianity stubs

I was thinking, perhaps, of streamlining the top level - perhaps per Dewey Decimal classes. What would you think of that? As it is now the tree is a bit of mess. -- Secisek (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well

Well, there is a lot I could say about that.

Let me ask first if you have any more detailed plan or DDC is all you have so far?

I am sure the the tree could be improved a good deal by making fewer subcats at the top, but "choosing" the best tree will not be as important per say as implinmenting it in a way that we genarate support-- and not opposition-- as we go.

I have done much with a lot of the categories in the Christianity tree, and Wikipedia is filled with people with very strong ideas and feelings for "their" articles and projects.

Basicilly, while an impoved, fair, and explainable category scheme is necessary for people to accept it-- it is not sufficient for people to accept it.--Carlaude ^(talk) 08:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that. I mean it is completely irrational to have a Christian Texts cat with Bible as a sub AND have Bible also be top level cat. There are quite few incidents of this nature where the tree duplicates itself again and again. -- Secisek (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dewey Decimal Classification is purposely for physical items that cannot be in two places at the same time. Since that limit does not apply to a Wikipedia category systems-- the idea, as I understand it, it to have a system the is the easies to use and maintain-- as well as following the Wikipedia pillars.

This does not mean that we cannot impove things but I want to be clear that somethings are not going to be like DDC, for example.

Partial view of Wikipedia's category system. Definitely not a tree structure, but notice all the arrows point downwards.

Notice this: Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree--Carlaude ^(talk) 08:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The link was a real eye-opener. It really clears up why it looks the way it does. I do still feel their could be some removal of sub cats at the top. -- Secisek (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To be sure-- an impoved, fair is sometime sufficient for people to accept it-- but not always-- and learning the needes of a subject area really helps. It also seems to help (for me) if you "maintain" a category area after it is fixed. It may be best for you (or us together) to try and (first) improve the categories of a smaller area than "Christianity," and then expand as you learn the pratices. --Carlaude ^(talk) 09:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"maintain"?...us together until I learn the pratices?

Without looking, I know I have 10,000+ edits, almost all of which are related to the subject of Christianity. Reading your response is exactly why I have changed my mind about being involved in the categories at all. They aren't used by enough users to bother trying to fix. The responses to nearly every change I have made in the cats has been met with serious vios of [WP:OWN]] by a couple of editors. Read through the edit summaries to the reverts - and nearly every change I proposed over the course of two days was reverted - even when other editors had given me thier word that they would not be reverted if I made them. Another editor and I discussed a change to the cats and he told me if I took the time make 50+ edit at once he would not revert them - he reverted them as soon as I completed them and when I called him on it he said I was playing "games". Trying to "maintain" the work here is a violation of Wikipedia policy: WP:OWN. It is clearly easier to get away with it outside of article-space. I would shine a light into this dark little hole of WP if I thought the cat system was really important.

Read this one and the other talk pages. Read the revert summaries, read what you just wrote. Read WP:OWN. Some highlights from that policy:

• Minor edits are disputed on a daily basis by editors. The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article.

• "Are you qualified to edit this?"
• "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?"
• "You obviously have no hands-on experience with categories."

"maintain"?...us together until I learn the pratices?

All I want at this point is to correct the Anglican error so they are delt with in the encyclopedia in a manner that is consistent through out. You all can keep your little fief here, I will not get involved. -- Secisek (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

While you are missunderstanding what I am saying, you clearly want to drop the issues here. --Carlaude ^(talk) 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Neteraantmwmw

Seeing as it's had its speedy declined I have nominated this for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neteraantmwmw You did the homework, so you may want to vote! pablo_hablo. 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was working on this as you did it. Amazining the number of google hits that have been generated over the last three years because this hoax slipped through the cracks. Wikipedia is a powerful rescource. -- Secisek (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work! I closed and speedy deleted as G3: / hoax. Hu12 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It may take a while, but wikiprocess always works in the end. -- Secisek (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you spotted it! pablo_hablo. 21:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Template-Class Catholicism articles

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{cat class}} template.

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unaccustomed to getting help from anyone involved with the category sysytem and your tip is most welcome. Secisek (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

With 453,409 category pages to maintain, it's easy to feel swamped and go into gnome-mode. Your expression of appreciation helps me continue reaching out to other users. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church

Hi Secisek, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here [1]. Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Neteraantmwmw

Nice catch on Neteraantmwmw. I created it as part of the WikiProject Missing articles but obviously didn't check it as closely as I should have. I'm just sorry it got labelled as vandalism since that's a blot on my nice clean record of over 2000 edits :( --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 03:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody thinks you were a vandal. It was a misunderstanding - it fooled a lot of people for several years. Don't sweat it. -- Secisek (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Interview?

Greetings! Along with my partner Garden, I (Cryptic C62) have been conducting interviews for the Signpost's WikiProject Reports. My last interview was with Itaqallah of WP:ISLAM, and I really liked the way it turned out. I'd like to continue the spotlight on religion-based projects. Would you like to be interviewed for WikiProject Christianity? If you're interested, reply either here or on my talk page, and I'll walk you through the rest of the process. If you're not interested or believe you're not the best person for the job, would you mind recommending someone else within the project for me to contact? Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know. I am game. -- Secisek (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll be listing questions for you at this page, usually 1–3 at a time. I strongly advise adding the page to your watchlist so I don't have to notify you every time I add a question. Feel free to take your time answering them, as this interview won't be published until Sunday March 8. Also, don't worry too much about formatting, I can clean it up before it gets published. If you don't understand a question or don't want to answer it, drop a note here, my talk page, or on the interview page itself, and I'll do my best to accommodate you. Thanks, mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. --Secisek (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Send them away! -- Secisek (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Err... just to make sure, you are aware that "this page" refers to my workspace, right?

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilmore

There's a nice article with more info in the ODNB. Assuming you don't have a subscription, drop me an email and I'll be able to send you a link to the article which wil give you free access for 5 days. David Underdown (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. It is getting late in my part of the world, so I'll look it over tomorrow. -- Secisek (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:X in signpost

Good work ! -- Tinu Cherian - 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was a little honored they came and asked me. -- Secisek (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the ranking of the article on Kosuke Koyama

I wished to thank you for the ranking of the article on Kosuke Koyama - I see that at last, thanks to your efforts, it has had a rating on the importance scale. I am in agreement that it should be rated as "low importance", but I certainly do not think that that means it should be an article which should be deleted. Kosuke Koyama is quite a big figure in contemporary Christianity, and interestingly enough, I heard John L. Bell mention Koyama in a talk which I attended just last week (on March 4). Obivously, thee are many "low importance" articles in Wikipedia which are clearly here to stay - I see, as I have mentioned before, that the article on Emil Brunner is ranked as "low-importance" by WikiProject Calvinism, but I do not think any sound-thinking Wikipedian would ever suggest that gets deleted! Now, please get out of here any one who suggested the articles on Karl Barth or Paul Tillich ever get deleted....Many thanks for the importance rating! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Was there a suggestion to delete it? -- Secisek (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi, thanks for your assessment on the Ridley page. I'm new and keen to get feedback. What does the article need for GA? ArthurChance (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I like that I knew exactly what page you were talking about - went straight there. I'll put some suggestions on the talk page. It has a way to go to make GA. I am working on Thomas Bilson but I may join you on Ridley when I am done if you are making progress. Good luck!--Secisek (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I got intrested and just about rewrote it to GA last night. Take a look. -- Secisek (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific! Amongst the many Ridleys, I meant Ridley Melbourne - Mission & Ministry College. I'd really appreciate it if you could put up a GA assessment list in the talk page with some feedback. Is length/detail the main problem? Cheers! -- ArthurChance (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Isabella Gilmore

On March 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isabella Gilmore, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

AWB work

You might wanna run back over your recent AWB edits, I caught this one today checking for blanked pages [2]. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 08:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WOW! I'll take a look and thanks for the heqads up. -- Secisek (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A single error caused by me using ctrl-v for cut/paste. Must slipped of the control key. Thanks again. --Secisek (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good news (Christianity)

How can you possible rate Good news (Christianity) LOW? It really ought to be rate TOP but I can live with HIGH.

Good news is Christianity.

Why don't you just rate Jesus LOW also? Oh but Episcopal Church (United States) you will rate HIGH-- that makes a lot of sense-- a body smaller than the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and smaller than the Moldovan Orthodox Church.--Carlaude ^(talk) 04:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gospel is "top". Good news is "low" and should be merged with gospel. At present, it is a meandering, uncited theological piece. ECUSA is not even rated for Chirstianity - it high for the Anglicanism project and that project alone. I would mark mid or low for Christianity. If you don't like a rating, re-rate it. Oh, and get off my back. I have done everything in my power to avoid stepping on your toes and for you to come to my talk page with the attitude displayed above is ridiculous. You know, it seems you do not understand how the banners and ratings work, "It may be best for you (or us together) to try and (first) rate articles of a smaller area than "Christianity," and then expand as you learn the pratices." -- Secisek (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gospel is "about the literary genre exemplified in the first four books of the New Testament". The gospel as a literary genre is one meaning of the term "gospel" but it is not as important as the Evangelion of Jesus, which is the orginal use of the term "Gospel".

If you think the article is a poor article than reflect that in the rating of quality and not importance.

I aplogize for mistaking the Episcopal Church (United States) rating in Anglicanism project as a Christianity rating, and am glad you are tring to "avoid stepping on toes" but I came to your page because you changed my rating, as soon as I had done it, without a explanation. --Carlaude ^(talk) 04:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I was rating the whole category using AWB and had no idea you had just rated it. I really think we should let the past be in the past and try to work together in a more cooperative fashion in the future. I regreted the snarky response as soon as I posted it. I look forward to working with you in the future. What do you think about a merge of the two articles? -- Secisek (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That is fair.

I am glad to work togther in general.

Frankly, I am not all that excited about a merge of the two articles, but it could be an improvment so I am not posting any objections either. --Carlaude ^(talk) 11:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Tintagel Church

Have come back to this: from what I have been told the listing for Treknow is obsolete though it was still in the Diocese of Truro liting last time I went there /Welcome to the Mission Church of Treknow: The Holy Family in the Anglican Diocese of Truro and county of Cornwall England/ Am not sure how information gets collected and shared (Tintagel has its own community WS)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think needs to be updated? BTW, I feel St Materiana's Church, Tintagel could probably stand on its own as an article. -- Secisek (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I did plan it to stand alone but there is some duplication with the section in Tintagel where it started. A long time ago that had no mention of the Anglican Church only a section for RC Church which only arrived 1967/8: the Methodist content was added later perhaps and there is now an standalone RC Church article which is perhaps less adequate. It is a pity that the Methodist churches have not been written up properly as they must be the largest denomination as is very common in Cornwall. The first 50 years (early 19th c) were quite controversial but perhaps too far away.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It suits me the way it is: I was wondering whether there was a preference in treatment of churchs and the places where they are: the srttlment in which the church is located. the parish church. and the parish are all distinct concepts (if you give an ac/c of the parish dependent chapels are covered too).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the parish church should have its own article when possible, but until it can stand on it own, I don't care where it is detailed, either. --Secisek (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt banner

The "attention" tag should be working now. And my delayed thanks for the Eye of Horus. With any luck I might be able to do more to earn it sometime soon. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You just did...again. Thanks. -- Secisek (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think all words have but one meaning?

Reformed churches, Presbyterian churches, Congregationalist churches, and Reformed Baptist chruches all practice a form of Calvinsim. None are synonymous with Calvinism. Carlaude, I let you swap out Calvinism for Reformed churches on the Core topic template because I think the theology of Calvinism is a more important concept than the churches themselves. That does not mean I think the two terms are equivalent. -- Secisek (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are equivalent either. If you mean that the churches themselves are the organisations and Calvinism is instead the theology/ trandition, then I agree. There is not, however one "real" form of Calvinsim that is only a church either follows or doesn't. --Carlaude ^(talk) 01:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So you think Gospel and Gospel are two seperate terms, -- Secisek (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think all words have but one meaning? See Gospel

If so maybe, you should also merge Church (building) with Local church and/or Christian Church. --Carlaude ^(talk) 01:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

but Nestorians and Assyrians - as well as Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches are the same?

On the plus side, I now see you did not single me out to recieve your bad attitude and vios of WP:OWN on the category side of things. Your attiutde could stand an adjustment. -- Secisek (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead, I rather agreed with your the removal of "Nestorian", but I do look for another term to indicate there status as non-Chalcedonian Christians. --Carlaude ^(talk) 01:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, sorry for the snark. Let's really try to work together. -- Secisek (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "non-Chalcedonian" is a great term to describe non-Chalcedonian Christians. Tb (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-Chalcedonian exists, however the Assyrians are more properly "Non-Ephesine". -- Secisek (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

templates in anglicanism project

so a pair of editors have made all new templates for the anglicanism project, confusingly nearly identical to the old standard ones but with their particular preferences, and have begun sprinkling them around. i attempted to revert some of them, foolishly, because one of the editors in question is not willing to work cooperatively with me. i hope you can work on cleaning it up. at the very least, we should not have multiple slightly-different similarly-named templates! Tb (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Tom Bushnell.

Making sockpuppet accusations is a very serious matter. I ask that you retract it or substantiate it. Tb (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you quit WP:Hounding me all over Wikipedia. Ad.minster (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Slow down. They make a valid point or two. No need to content-fork or edit war. Let's all assume good faith and discuss. -- Secisek (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect on Talk:Cranmer Theological House

Hi, Secisek. It seems odd that you redirected the Talk page for Cranmer to the main page for Reformed Episcopal Church. Is that what you intended? FYI, I have posted some discussion of the seminary merger on Talk:Reformed Episcopal Church, in the hope editors can reach a consensus. Chonak (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The page had been blanked. I wasn't sure what the intent was. -- Secisek (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. An editor is objecting to the merger of the seminary pages into REC, and has recreated them. If you have an interest, please participate in the discussion. Chonak (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Heart2.jpg Speedy

I added the source and a better PD tag. Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Secisek for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Isabella Gilmore - interesting article creation on a niche topic. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This is an award that was a pleasure to earn. -- Secisek (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the Christianity barnstar, finally

Yes, we did have one. It looks like this: To Secisek, for his work as one of the first coordinators of the WikiProject Christianity. God knows what the project would be like without your knowledge and efforts. I think I can speak for everyone involved in saying that, you, by your efforts, have more than earned this. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh you are too kind. Thanks, John. --Secisek (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)