User talk:HarvardOxon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The Syllabus 2 Monastic vow and Monsignori 3 Altars 4 Papal conclave 5 Durham and Canterbury 6 Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism 7 Pallium 8 Doctor of Sacred Theology 9 Contentious cases 10 Just a sloppy typer 11 Reply to inquiry about Andrew Murray vs. Notary Public 12 Territorial abbot 13 Microstate 14 Notes 15 WP Munich 16 Ordinaries 17 Notary public 18 Latin honors

[edit] The Syllabus

Sorry for being unpolite!

I’ve answered you in the discussion page: Talk : Syllabus of errors.

Please pray for me; I’ll pray for you. God bless us all. Tom Hope

[edit] Monastic vow and Monsignori

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. Gimmetrow 05:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for renaming the article. Cheers. Gimmetrow 13:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please have a little respect 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. Gimmetrow 14:37, 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. Gimmetrow 23:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altars

I don't know about your tradition, but certainly in Anglicanism a three-fold distinction is made. If you want to insert more precise language, please do so - but the distinctions are important ones, and ones which can be described and defined. Fishhead64 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of making the distinctions is that the previous edit was conflating portable and free-standing altars. Free-standing altars are not intended to be moved from the chancel. This is why a distinction needs to be made between them. Portable altars are placed for a service, and removed subsequently. Not being familiar with Roman Catholic usage, I invited you to insert more precise language while retaining a distinction between these three very different types of altars. You may want to recategorise them into two kinds of altars, having what Anglicans, Lutherans, and others understand as "free-standing" as a subcategory of what is understood by non-Roman western traditions as "fixed." What is wrong with this suggestion? Fishhead64 00:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy to see you assume good faith, still a little disappointed that you're not keeping cool. Please see my response to your comments on the altar talk page. Fishhead64 06:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Papal conclave

I left a couple notes in the text about things to look up. I may add more in the future. Please do not remove them unless you are confident you have addressed the issue involved. If you do, please add inline citations using the m:cite.php framework. On two particular points: I had put a note after the "Adrian VI elected in 1522" saying "or 1521?" Let's remember that he was not from Rome, and his reign began in early January. The election and the start of the reign do not necessarily coincide even if he were at the conclave, and his CE article suggests he wasn't. If you have time to look such things up please do, but don't just remove the note without giving a ref. Also, the claim about no popess should have a little more support than just the CE, don't you agree? If you could find one that would be great! Gimmetrow 05:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure how to respond to you. Do you wish to collaborate or not? You seem to insist on misunderstanding what I say. I never said these facts were in "dispute" - simply that references would be nice, and I haven't had the time to find references. If you remember exactly the date every conclave was convened and ended, that is a big help! Still you must be aware that not all your colleagues have all those details available for immediate recall. Note that the statement was not merely about pope Joan, but was stating that there had never been a popess ever. You are welcome to edit anything you want, and the papal conclave article needs a lot of work. It's hardly my article - I am asking you to help out. You are the only editor besides me to touch this article in nearly 2 weeks. WP has certain standards especially for featured articles such as this, and inline references is one of them. My goal is to bring it in accord with WP standards, not publish "my research" whatever that is supposed to mean. Please refrain from personal attacks. Gimmetrow 10:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's start off on a better foot. The background is that in another article I used a term followed by a quoted definition; term was wikilinked and the definition was the first sentence of the wikilinked article. I thought that was an adequate cross ref, but an independent editor said I needed to have the reference in the actual article. Specifically in regard to papal conclave, this is likely to be de-featured and one of the main reasons given is the lack of inline citations in cite.php. At this point I don't have time to do a full copy edit but I can work on the cites. I admit I probably went overboard on Adrian but it's an interesting story I wanted to possibly flesh out, and I avoided using the regular fact tag. If it's worth saying "there has been no popess ever" then it is worth finding a cite for that general statement; otherwise it should just say "the story of Joan is false." In any event, I want to add enough citations to satisfy the featured reviewers, and would really appreciate your help. I know Selvester is wrong on some points, but his text is available online and I've tried to verify things from multiple sources and provide citations. That's really all I'm trying to do over at papal conclave. Can you help there? Please? Gimmetrow 14:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a big help! Gimmetrow 16:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durham and Canterbury

Nice catch on palatine. Bishop of Durham linked the German one too. I removed the ref to Canterbury because the intent is to deal with things around the shield, not charges. Recalling our discussion about Fr. Wach a while back, you may find this interesting: rapidshare Gimmetrow 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism

You may be interested. JASpencer 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pallium

It's not much use to tell one person (in this case me) on a personal talk page 'to read' certain texts, which may very well be must relevant (or not), if you don't provide any source coordinates, preferably links so everybody can find and read them- please kill the suspense and add them to the content article's sources section, only then can we -all- see the -now merely postulated- wisdom of your claimed updating/correcting. If you make that a good habit, you probably would be an excellent recruit for the WikiProject Catholicism, otherwise you're asking to be reverted even when you're right sinc ethe unsourced is less credible as a general rule Fastifex 08:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor of Sacred Theology

Please refrain from referring to other users' edits as "horse manure." This borders on personal attacks. Thanks, Ya ya ya ya ya ya 01:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contentious cases

Hello. Concerning judges for contentious cases, if we look at canon 1425 § 1, we see that the four special cases (excommunicatons, dismissals, marriage annulments, and holy orders annulments) are reserved to three-judge colleges. No where else in the code does the legislator mention reserving cases to a panel. From that, and from the mentions throughout the code regarding single judges even outside of the documentary process (see especially judgements of a single judge), single judges handling normal non-reserved contentious or penal cases can occur.

The one thing that hurts this interpretation is §4 of the canon, which could be read one of two ways: (1) for any case, if a panel cannot be established, a single judge is ok if the conference says so, or (2) for cases which require a panel, if a panel cannot be established, a single judge is ok if the conference says so. I think #2 is the right interpretation, and I think the green annotated CLSA code supports such an interpretation. The green CLSA code and I could be wrong, though, or my memory of reading it may be fuzzy.

I'm guessing you are supporting #1. I'm going to do some more research regarding both. In the meantime, if you have other canons supporting #1/other interpretations that support #1, please post them. Thanks. Pmadrid 06:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, § 2 of the same canon says the bishop can assign three or five judges to cases of greater import. The implication of this section is that there are some cases that can be tried by one judge; otherwise, the canon would simply say that the bishop can assign five judges. The cases that can be tried by one judge would be any case not reserved to a panel of three judges, i.e. simple penal cases and contentious non-annulment cases. That's how I read it, at least. Pmadrid 06:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My experience with canon law goes well beyond a book, but that aside, my point was theoretical. I am well aware that the majority of cases that reach a tribunal normally are marriage annulment cases, and that those either undergo the documentary process (with one judge) or the full process (with at least three, one of them being the judicial vicar or his adjutants). The point of the paragraph, however, was not to explain the majority of the caseload (which is emphasized elsewhere in the article) but to explain the procedure of an ecclesiastical court. In order to do that, you need to explain the procedure of all kinds of cases that might arise, including miscellanious contentious cases or even disciplinary cases, despite the fact that penal law is most often dealt with extrajudicially. By saying "most" cases, I was referring to the types, not the actual caseload.

I think, however, that the current language accurately reflects both our sentiments. Pmadrid 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a sloppy typer

If only I were an alum.... ;) Chivista 19:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of my edits are Mexican futbol etc. Chivista 20:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to inquiry about Andrew Murray vs. Notary Public

What a perfect example. If you investigate further, you will see I did exactly the same thing to the Andrew Murray article when complaints started after users made detailed edits about every match he entered. I shortened each entry to one or two sentences that summed up the match. The complaints stopped after the changes.--I already forgot 00:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial abbot

Thanks for making that article much clearer. (It was I who put the {{confusing}} template on it.) Cheers! —Ian Spackman 22:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microstate

HarvardOxon is very irritable and will flame you in edit summaries for requesting he cite a source^[1]. Dbsanfte 05:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dbsanfte, who has no registered identity or page of his own, doesn't know the purpose of a source, or a note, or the meaning of "flame." HarvardOxon 05:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

[edit] WP Munich

[edit] Ordinaries

With a small exception, you are correct regarding my edits. Please see my response on my talk and on Talk:Vicar general and let me know if you have further comments. Pmadrid 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notary public

HarvardOxon wrote on my talk page

No, these issues were not discussed already on the talk page, opther(sic) issues were. If you are going to confuse people by screwing around with articles for no good reason, will you please format the new artricles(sic) correctly, and try not to drop the references?HarvardOxon 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And added in the notary article edit summary

if you're going to screw around with an article for your own entertainment, rather than for the purpose of helping people, please don't screw up the references as well

1. Please review WP:CIVIL for your comments to me. For this as well.
2. Yes, there was a discussion on reducing the length of the page by removing redundant information that applies to more than a couple states[1][2][3][4][5]. If you want to create a disambig page such as notary (New York), please feel free to do so.
3. No I do not screw around with articles for entertainment but I do find entertainment in seeing someone blow a lid over a user forgetting to add the ref tag when creating a new article. THANKS FOR THAT! :)
4. How does adding "New York notaries may write in black ink, or may stamp with a rubber stamp" or "Notaries may charge fees..., but many choose to waive them" add value to the article? Its common practice on wikipedia pages to be less detailed on such lengthy articles that cover such a wide geographical spectrum. Consensus wants to reduce the length and be more concise but you wish to work against us by going into detail on one state. How is going against consensus and leaving obnoxious edit summaries helping (as you have suggesting I do)? Funny thing is, I didnt remove the edits but you still accuse me of "screwing around" with the article.
5. Check your spelling when adding content and being uncivil over other user omissions.--I already forgot 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin honors

You reverted the section unreferenced tags from Latin honors without introducing any sources. I'm not going to revert, but I think it isn't a good idea to just remove those tags as if that solved the problem of no references for that sections. Kncyu38 11:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)