Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:28, 30 October 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Soidi, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Miranda 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your help on St Peter

Thanks for backstopping me. There's so much to do, that I let some things slip, and I appreciate knowledgeable editors who can fix my slip-ups. I must say, however, that I take a dim view of people deleting my referenced work. If I go to the trouble of citing a textbook, I expect other editors to respect that. But it was just one reference, so no big deal. Anyway, thanks again. Leadwind (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The source quoted must surely have meant that John described the washing of feet instead of describing the institution of the Eucharist, but it was presented as saying that Jesus washed the feet instead of doing something else.

Since the statement is not about St Peter himself, can we agree to remove it as off-topic in this article, and so make irrelevant the question whether what Harris is quoted as saying about Jesus doing one thing instead of another is so (at best) ambiguous that it requires adding a quotation or two for another view: it is by no means NPOV to assert that Jesus did not in fact institute the Eucharist. Most people suppose there was no question of doing one action instead of the other.

So let us avoid a dogfight by removing what seems to be a bone of contention. OK? Soidi (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Eucharist

We've been working hard on the first paragraph, and other sections, in talk. Your additions are appreciated, but I would expect them to be changed appurtenant to our talk page. I must say, however, that I take a dim view of people deleting my referenced work. If I go to the trouble of citing a source, I expect other editors to respect that. This may seem a familiar complaint. Eschoir (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

An indication of the alleged deletion would be appreciated. I only added a further citation from the same source, which Eschoir "went to the trouble of" deleting, deleting also a sourced edit by yet another editor! The two he deleted were:

"Ros Clarke says that the evidence from the early church suggests that the words of institution were not then used liturgically, but only catechetically, and so are not a necessary requirement for celebrating the Eucharist. What is essential, he says, is the ritual, comprised of the four actions of taking bread, giving thanks, breaking it, and giving it to be eaten, accompanying the actions by saying words identifying the bread with Jesus' body, and similarly with respect to the cup.<ref>[http://www.theologian.org.uk/church/wordsofinstitution.html The Function of the Words of Institution</ref>"

"Still more important in the present context is the fact that Tertullian speaks of the Lord's Supper (the Pauline "κυριακὸν δεῖπνον") precisely as the "dominicum convivium" (see , and ).</ref>" Soidi (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ros isn't a he. The article isn't about what's currently essential for celebrating the eucharist. And anything that is 'still more important' is OR, Lima's tragic flaw. Otherwist spot-on! Eschoir (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So, after all, I did not delete anything. And Eschoir did. Soidi (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd urge you to discuss your edits on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think the person who declared the summary of Ros Clarke to be Original Research is the one who should start the discussion. However ... Soidi (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi Soidi, thanks for coming to the page and reviewing it. I want to apologize and explain that I reverted your edit to the lead paragraph because that wording has already been agreed upon by a large consensus of editors and is properly refereced. wp:summary style requires us to summarize the content in the article and leave details to the quote in the reference or to another linked[REDACTED] page that discusses the issue in more detail. The Roman Catholic Church is currently considered to be a very long article and we are encouraged to keep it as trim as possible. I hope that explains our situation. Take care and happy editing! NancyHeise 16:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Soidi, thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I have responded to it on my talk page to keep the conversation in one place. Thanks again. NancyHeise 02:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning

According to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Cardinals, your actions on name changing the Cardinal titles in text is completely inappropriate. Please cease and desist immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In order not to displease a fellow-editor, I will cease making these changes. However, I completely disagree that it is inappropriate to make these edits, which

• make the name of the person correspond to the name given him in the title of the article;
• avoid the peculiar-sounding "John Cardinal Smith" is a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church". Soidi (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

From the naming standard - "When it is necessary to add the title "Cardinal", it will usually be sufficient to prefix it to the surname of the cardinal, especially in the body of an article, as "Cardinal Sforza". If both name and surname are used, wikilinking is straightforward if the title is prefixed to the name, as in "Cardinal Ascanio Sforza". However, those who prefer the form "Ascanio Cardinal Sforza" should take care to ensure there is a redirect to the form used in the title of the article on the cardinal in question, or use a piped link." Note the last line showing that it is acceptable to use Cardinal in the middle of a name. Since this is acceptable, you need to go to the village pump or other such places to discuss mass changes. Otherwise, it will cause a lot of problems. Build consensus before making changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's how you feel about it, I certainly won't argue. I presume your opinion also opposes changes by anonymous editors - I have noticed several - from the "John Smith" (the form obligatorily used for the titles of articles, as indicated in the rule you pointed to, but also used exclusively in the articles that deal with the cardinals collectively) to the "John Cardinal Smith" form. But, to avoid a fight, I do not intend to seek them out and change them back. Soidi (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not how I feel. Its part of the consensus policy. Go through and get consensus before making large changes. You didn't even mention it on the talk pages. At least get some support. You better be glad that I warned you and stopped you. Otherwise, some admin may have come by and just blocked you for making large changes like that. It happens quite often. Just go through the Village Pump, see what people say first. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus sought on lead sentence

Please come give us your opinion by voting here , Thanks! NancyHeise 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise 03:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)