User talk:Carlaude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

[edit] Questions and comments

[edit] Joseph

Hi, You seem a bit exasperated over at Jesus. Sorry if my last edit had that effect. I thought my addition would be an improvement (and still think so). But I have no interest in edit warring over it, and still less interest in defying consensus. I just wanted to let you know that we are all on the same "team" here, trying to improve the article as much as possible. I have posted a message on the talk page of the article as well. Best regards, Silly rabbit (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree-- same team. I wanted to say with my undo "this is good, but other folks will object." At this point I am happy with anything that does not say "father" and am going on to other things.--Carlaude (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last changes

Thanks for letting me know. --Checco (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Secondtempleplan.jpg → Image:EzekielTemple

Regarding your recent request to WP:RM to perform the above move - images cannot be moved in this fashion. From WP:RM:

Images: To rename an image, upload the image again, but with the name you want. Then change the relevant links to reflect the new name and list the old image at images and media for deletion.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. JPG-GR (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] typos

I think I kep misspelling your name in edit summaries; I am sorry for this! Slrubenstein | Talk

[edit] altering sourced text

You altered sourced information on the Jesus page. Don't do that. The point of sourced information is that it conforms to what the reliable source says, not to what you want it to say. If you want the page to say something different, find a reliable source that says it. Leadwind (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Carlaude! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - ~~~~
Getting Started
Useful Links
Miscellaneous
Work Groups
Projects
Similar WikiProjects

- Tinucherian (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] category edits on orgs

Hi Carlaude -- I reverted two sets of category edits you've been making on Category:Organizations based in the United States. First, it appears you're depopulating Category:Organizations based in the United States by subject. Can you explain why you're doing that? Second, on some of the categories, you did other things that aren't helpful; for instance, on Category:Medical and health organizations based in the United States, you deleted Category:Medical and health organizations by country entirely. What's going on? --Lquilter (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Category:Organizations by country and subject‎" in an empty category except for the "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" and "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" is totally redundant with much larger an more used "Category:Organizations based in the United States" These category are not needed and WP will be better with out them.--Carlaude (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted this edit on Category:Organizations by country and subject. The convention on categories like this one is to have both "by X and Y", and "by Y and X", and have them cross-listed. If you have some concerns about the structure, I suggest you talk about it on the specific category talk page first. If you are still concerned, then WP:CFD is the appropriate place for discussion of categories. In particular, the REDIRECT magic word that is appropriate for articles is rarely appropriate for categories; category redirects are done very differently. The organizations in particular have been difficult to get organized, and still need lots of work; however, it's unhelpful to have people working in different directions. Collaborative editing is particularly useful in category schemes. --Lquilter (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" is WP:fork with "Category:Organizations based in the United States" how is it better to have both?--Carlaude (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by a fork; that applies to contents of articles that are controversial. The "orgs based in the US by subject" is the beginnings of an effort to diffuse the category, along the lines of Category:Organizations more generally. This is normal categorizing practice. ... Since you're interested in working on the organization categories, and have opinions, it would be great to have your help on Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations. Figuring out how to categorize organizations has been a long-term process, and it's still ongoing. ... Another thing that would be incredibly useful would be diffusing the contents of Category:Organizations based in the United States into the various subject-specific subcategories. --Lquilter (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, please leave my comments together, as I posted them. Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • For a more fleshed-out example of a similar category tree, see Category:Companies by industry. That might help you better conceptualize the structure. --Lquilter (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No-- "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." It is not just a controversial topic. If you wan to diffuse the category (Category:Organizations based in the United States) you should work with that category , not make a new one.--Carlaude (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Jesus (disambiguation) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Will (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

For one, the article on "Jesus horse" doesn't exist. Secondly, Jesusaurus is a much more common term. Will (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That (Jesus Horse A satirical term for dinosaurs.) was someone elses edit. I did not see I was adding it back in.--Carlaude (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Church-directory-stub -- see {{Church-directory-dev}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first!

Please KeepI have proposed it have a better name for the category and template and reformated the {{tl:Church-directory-dev}} to reflect this format. I need the template with is explain that these are for church bodies or Christian denominations -- not church buldings as "Cat:Lists of churches" is.--Carlaude (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Christian church directory of the United States has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How so?--Carlaude (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Just stopping by after the related discussion on the current WP:CFD, and I noticed this comment. Most likely, this is a standard template warning triggered by a large content deletion. That sort of content deletion, particularly if not accompanied by an edit summary, is the sort of thing that editors often see from vandals, so someone probably just saw it and gave you a generic warning. You should feel free to ignore it, or respond to the editor who gave it to you, explaining the situation. --Lquilter (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Church Directory

Hi, I think that Christian church directory and the corresponding template are not a good idea. They are not encyclopedic. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Please consider that most of the entries on such a list will not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia is not for advertising. Tb (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian church directory does not fall into any areas covered by WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. It only takes 10% of the denominations to cover %90 of the churches. Most denominations are very tiny, but nearly all churches are covered by the large denominations. The idea is not to (necessarily) to find a particular church you already know about but to find a local churches with certain traits that you do not yet know about by linking to the denominations and their "locate a local church" page that they typically have. The links to the web page and locate a local church page will be new-- i.e. not redundant. The request is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Article_requests#Churches.2FOrganizations. --Carlaude (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude, this is precisely the sort of "finding aid" function that a directory has. Again, I strongly encourage you to read What Wikipedia is not. The goals that you describe are why these templates, categories, and articles are meeting with concern, because they fall outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Please consider whether, for instance, this is the sort of function that Encyclopedia Britannica would fulfill. If not, then it is most likely not the sort of function that Wikipedia would fulfill. --Lquilter (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian church directory

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Christian church directory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian church directory of the United States

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Christian church directory of the United States, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Christian Church Directory

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Template:Christian Church Directory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Church directory snafu

I'm very sorry that this left you feeling a little burned, and even mislead by the old request for such a directory. One thing which I think is a good idea is not to do lots of work off-line. It sounded like you spent a long time getting things together, and then putting them all up at once. That works well for print media or blogs sometimes, but on a collaborative wiki like this it is a risky strategy. If instead you create the page, and then start filling it, a little at a time, people would have had the same reaction, but you wouldn't have spent a lot of work in the process. Tb (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the trouble you had with the stub as well. I am sorry this turned into a fiasco for you. -- SECisek (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Wikipedia policy
Article standards
Neutral point of view
Verifiability
No original research
Biographies of living persons
Working with others
Civility
Consensus
No personal attacks
Dispute resolution
No legal threats
Global principles
What Wikipedia is not
Ignore all rules

-- SECisek (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian church directory

I've put in a formal request for the page to be deleted; you can see the relevant links at its top. Tb (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Christian church directory

An editor has nominated Christian church directory, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian church directory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Adventist Church logo.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of User:Carlaude/Sandbox2

A tag has been placed on User:Carlaude/Sandbox2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it contains a gallery in the userspace which consist chiefly of fair use or non-free images.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mønobi 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics at Christianity in the United States

What was the origin of the demographic information in the state-by-state table? Tb (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

From The ARDA and adherents.com. I am adding proper citations soon.--Carlaude (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for getting all this; I think it's a nice addition. I was asking b/c I think DC should be in it too. Tb (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic table in Christianity in the United States

Giving statistics of membership in different denominational categories is useful; I hope you'll add that back. But graphics are not a normal part of tables: they take up space, and they are not particularly helpful. They generally either duplicate written information, or replace it: if they duplicate it, they do nothing; if they replace it, they are unfriendly. The guideline is to only include graphics where they increase understanding: which is fairly rare. Likewise, using state flags does not help: first, flags connote "official", which is not true here, and moreover, US state flags are generally not well recognized. People do not go "oh!" when they see the flag of South Dakota. Also, if the new statistics are there, even without the graphics, the table becomes quite wide. And, please alphabetize. That's a key point. Of course it can be resorted, but the default sorting should be alphabetical by state. The "US' is not a state, and that row duplicates info. Finally, "fixes" is not a sufficient reply to an objection to a change. Will you please adopt the strategy of talking things through? You mostly ignored any attempt to discuss the issue of flags or alphabetization. Tb (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already done the tedious work of alphabetization. If you will not keep the table alphabetized, I will simply revert changes that do not preserve it. I'm not interested in cleaning up the same mess multiple times. It's not hard to keep the alphabetization. Tb (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You should take this to Christianity in the United States. See my discussion there.
I will do alphabetization for you. Next try Excell.
I was already doing those fixes.
I do talk thing through-- will you? --Carlaude (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Alphabetization should happen before you make the changes; not after. Redoing the table every time is unfriendly to other editors. Incremental changes are a much more preferable strategy. Tb (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Procedure

I have opened discussions on some important aspects of the table. I hope you will complete those conversations before further changes. I also note that you have now three times reverted my removal of images from the table today. Please do not violate WP:3RR. Tb (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Independent Christian Churches Churches of Christ Icon.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion procedure

1. Editor A makes a change. 2. Editor B reverts the change and requests discussion. 3. Editors A and B discuss the best text. 4. One or both of A and B implement the result in the article.

Your procedure seems more like:

1. Carlaude makes a change. 2. TB reverts the change and requests discussion. 3. Carlaude ignores the discussion, or posts a single reply and ignores further discussion. 4. Carlaude goes ahead and makes the charge again. 5. TB requests discussion. 6. Carlaude ignores discussion. 7. TB reverts change. 8. Carlaude pays attention to discussion again.

The burden is always upon the person making the change. If you wish to make a change--such as adding a demographic table to the article--the burden is on you, not on objectors. If they raise cogent objections, you need to discuss it. It is very much playing unfair to simply ignore the discussion until the objection is reflected in changes to the article. It is much better to engage the discussion. Tb (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have ask before for this "procedure" to be shown to me in WP policy. I will try to take you comment under advisement but I would feel more locked into this procedure if it could be shown to be a real policy. I hope to make more comments soon but I have guest all this weekend. --Carlaude (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:BRD. Tb (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue IV - April 2008

Monthly Challenge:

Article News
Christianity Articles by Quality
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
Project News
  • WikiProject Christianity Coordinators : The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention.
    • The nomination period for coordinators is currently ongoing at Election 2008
    • Nominations for open positions will be open through 23:59 (UTC) on April 30 and project members should vote for any candidates they support by April 11 2008.
    • The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the next four candidates will become Coordinators.
  • Two new workgroups formed - Indian Christianity and Methodism
  • Portal:Indian Christianity launched.
Member News
  • Our membership continues to expand. It is currently at 184 users. 86 new users have joined the WikiProject since last issue. Please make them feel welcomed!
Archives of previous newsletters can be found here.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, add your name here.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, let ~ Tinucherian know.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by GrooveBot.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Carlaude

Yes, I will stop reverting my articles when people who aren't qualified, stop amending them. Since when is a major theologian's opinion about the death penalty nor relevant to the death penalty? I don't know why you want to delete the link. I suggest you stick to subjects you are competent to write about. Antonin Scalia quoted Aquinas in a recent Supreme Court ruling. And have you never heard of natural moral law? And no, you aren't going to intimidate me. I am going to keep reverting it back to the way it was. I am a medical doctor, and I am a lawyer. I also have an LLD, which in case you aren't aware, is like a PhD in the law. If you have some constructive suggestion or addition to make to my articles, please do so. Otherwise, stick to your own articles and quit pushing a political agenda. And if you want me to take you seriously, quit hiding behind a psuedonym. If you aren't willing to identify yourself, I am not inclined to take you very seriously. A E Francis (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude is not a psuedonym; it is my name without a space in it.
"Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I" is not your article-- everyone is a Wikipedia editor.
I and others have been deleting parts of the article with justification, and it is not vandalism
And no, you aren't going to intimidate me.--Carlaude (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please read the multiple revert page. You and one other user have been vandalizing my page on Thought of Aquinas. That is to say, you have been deleting parts of my article without providing any justification for doing such. Please stop vandalizing my articles! Revertion from vandalism does not fall under the reversion rules, but repetitive vandalism, as you seem bent on doing to my article, is a violation. A E Francis (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah

I guess I need to explain my reversions more fully. The Jehovah article refers to יְהֹוָה, which is the Tetragrammaton with a particular vocalisation, in this case, one that gives "Jehovah". I don't know how much Hebrew you know, but the small marks between the letters indicate vowels, in this case, e-o-a. StAnselm (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much Hebrew you know, but those vowels are for the vocalisation "Adonai" (Lord) for the that Jews substitute for saying the Tetragrammaton aloud. It is was only this misunderstanding that lead people to use them with the Tetragrammaton to read it as Jehovah. --Carlaude (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is precisely why we have userboxes, and why I have this one on my profile. StAnselm (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hebr-3
ש		 This user has an advanced understanding of the Hebrew alphabet.
So if have an advanced understanding of the Hebrew, then why are were you removing my edits to the Jehovah article? Have you never read or hear the origin of those vowel marks? Do understand the Hebrew alphabet but not Hebrew? Any basic encyclopedia will talk about it. --Carlaude (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's look at the issue from another perspective. What is the article saying? It first addresses the issue of where "Jehovah" comes from - a transliteration of יְהֹוָה. Then it examines the historical context and notes that the early English translators were "unacquainted with or in opposition to Jewish tradition" in their translation. This is an appropriate order in which to address things, and so your addition was ill-advised. We don't seem to be making any headway here, and probably need to call for a third opinion. StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not (or should not be) a research report. Such important information needs to be in the article lead.
Not making headway is why it should be here-- please move to the Jehovah talk page.--Carlaude (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Or to look at it from yet another perspective, if you think "Jehovah" is a misguided transliteration, how would you transliterate יְהֹוָה? StAnselm (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Any "transliteration" of יְהֹוָה is misguided.
"CeRiLeDe" are the consonants of my name and the vowels of my occupation. Would you transliterate it?--Carlaude (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your revision on the Thought of Aquinas article. Any help you can give is appreciated. When I wrote the two articles concerning Aquinas, about a year ago, I thought it a good idea. But they have been contentioous from the start. I don't think I would do it again. Anyway, your help appreciated. A E Francis (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the contrary...

First, lets look at the very article at the root of this:

Note the opening definition: "In religion, a prophet (or prophetess) is a person who has encountered the supernatural or the divine and serves as an intermediary with humanity."

Sadly, the fact of the matter is it is not even established in an encyclopedic and neutral fashion that the supernatural provably exists. It is not considered NPOV to say "God exists" in an article, let alone saying "God exists and has communicated with this person." And I think you will find in the majority of articles, NPOV is maintained on prophet claimants.

  • Muhammad - "is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God" note the use of the words "is regarded as"
  • Joseph Smith - "Smith's followers declared him to be the first latter-day prophet" note the terminology is carefully NPOV so as not to say "he is a prophet" but "his followers declared him to be"
  • Abraham - "For Muslims, he is a prophet of Islam"
  • Ezekiel - "According to religious texts, he was a prophet and priest in the Bible..."
  • Samuel (Bible) - "His status, as viewed by rabbinical literature, is that he was the last of the Hebrew Judges and the first of the major prophets..."
  • Daniel - "Judaism does not count Daniel among the prophets. Whereas the Christian Old Testament includes Daniel in the Prophets section..."
  • Habakkuk - "...was a prophet in the Hebrew Bible."

You will note that in most instances it is a common theme to state that these things are according to the beliefs of the adherents of a specific religion. There will be people who will say "no, Jesus was NOT a prophet" and there will be little you will be able to do to convince them otherwise (believe me, I've tried.)

However, you are correct that there are some (such as Moses and Isaiah) where the term is included without such NPOV terminology attached. Most of the places where this is included they will say "Prophet in the Bible" or "Prophet of Islam" "Biblical Prophet" and so forth. But indeed, in keeping with NPOV guidelines it's more appropriate to find verifiable sources on the matter and cite which religious groups consider which persons to be prophets and which groups consider them to be of other stations.

Please bear in mind that this is not an issue of personal belief on my part, as the station of Christ is very sacred and dear to me. Please remember that I am doing this because there are certain things that need to be born in mind if people are to learn of Christ in an honest manner. This is an encyclopedia, and the things placed within it need to be presented in a verifiable and neutral manner, and as much as I'd like to have "Jesus Christ, Prophet, Lord and Savior, Manifestation of God, the Messiah" not only is it not encyclopedic but in reality it doesn't help to spread His word or His teachings and in fact repels people when they think that the truth is being doctored to make Him look better.

So including the term "Prophet" under His occupation is not only ridiculous (as He certainly never made a dime off of it it can hardly be considered His "occupation") but it is completely unencyclopedic and can in no sense be considered neutral.

Please try to understand, I believe He is a prophet. But what we believe is irrelevant. Neutrality requires a detached approach. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"...prophet in the Bible/Islam/etc." - My point exactly. Also: Wikipedia:Assume good faith --Carlaude (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You responded accusing me of personal attacks. First and foremost, not a single word of what I said was an attack. I commented on your actions and the content and patterns of your actions, which I viewed as not in keeping with the neutrality policy, and reading through my comment I was nothing but polite and courteous to you. I decided that I would talk with you in a friendly and personal matter rather than just giving you a generic warning template and moving on. If you would prefer that I did not discuss these edits with you beforehand I can certainly oblige such a request, but I would rather have a civil discussion that we may edit together harmoniously.
Please assume good faith on my part as well. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there are others besides myself that would have failed to see the friendliness. I am glad you tried to be friendly. --Carlaude (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

I see you have created a template. Have you had a chance to read Wikipedia:Template namespace? You shouldn't have the word "template" prefacing your template. For example, you would only need {{New Testament people}} instead of {{Template:New Testament people}}. You may want to consider going through your recent edits and fixing that. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 01:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yahweh

A moment ago I re-reverted your added material about vowel marks found in the Septuagint. It is incorrect, and the use of "vowel marks" suggests that you do not read Greek. What is your source? 213.84.53.62 (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I will look for the source. --Carlaude (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Good. In the meantime I'll rerevert, since, as I said already, I know this stuff, and you are mistaken. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I see that you reverted my somewhat more careful formulation at the start of Jehovah. Not very constructive, but I'll leave you and St Anselm fight each other. The sentence about "a German-like system" that you reintroduced is rather wrong, though. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I also added another source. At the time my browser just showed it as a deletion of the material, but I may have still done the same thing. I am ignorant on the meaning, if any, of "a German-like system" so delete that if you deem it called for.
I must say that you are not very convincing by just claiming that you "know this stuff" mr/ms do-not-even-have-a-name. --Carlaude (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm - what would convince you? In my hands I have "Septuaginta, edidit Alfred Rahlfs, Vol. I, ed. tertia", which starts
᾽Εν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ ϑεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.
(~ in the beginning, the god made the heaven and the earth)
Now you want to look at vowel marks - but that is a term appropriate for languages like Hebrew and Arabic, not for Greek that has vowel letters just like English. Looking at these marks you would like to learn the vocalization of JHWH but as you can see it says "ho theos", which doesn't help. So, really, you must be much more precise - perhaps refer to some particular scrolls, perhaps with paleohebrew writing on them - but then again, there are no vowels there. I do not think you will succeed if you want to prove "Yahweh" based on the LXX.
By the way, I think you are too convinced of this "Yahweh". Maybe it has religious importance to you, and if so I don't mind you believing this. But the support is not very strong. This is just the best guess we have.213.84.53.62 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:New Testament people collapsed

Template:New Testament people collapsed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — StAnselm (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template auto-collapse

Sorry, I was sure that this was a navbox—I remember checking—but it isn't. I have no idea how to do it with an infobox, but I've never seen it, so I doubt it's possible. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat unrelated note, though, this whole template in general seems to be better candidate for a navbox than an infobox—perhaps that's an alternative? Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(If you want to reply, please write on my talk page. Thanks)
Use Template:Navbox—you should find instructions there. Let me know once you've created one, and I'll just check over it to make sure it matches the standard. Mr. Absurd (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If you set the state to "autocollapse", it will automatically collapse if there are two or more navboxes on a page. As for the width, navboxes are supposed to be the same width as the page, so don't specify a width and it'll automatically fill to the page's width. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mary, Protestant views

here is the source. Automat translations are usually not perfect. Let me know, if I can be of help --Ambrosius007 (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_%28Mutter_Jesu%29#Protestantismus

Protestantism

Protestant and Old Catholic Christians in Mary with respect as a model of Christian faith among many. A worship as Gnadenmittlerin and far beyond the biblical statements beyond mariology, as set out in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception or the body of Mary Plant inclusion into the sky reflected, regarded them as Irrlehre (heresy).

Mary-days in the Protestant churches

Also in the Protestant church, three days.

In the Lutheran confessional text Augsburg Confession of 1530, Article XXI: "From the Holy of the service is so our taught that the Saints should do so that we strengthen our faith when we see how grace befall them," but should is not "the Holy call or seek help with them."

After Lutheran understanding are the days of Christ Mary celebrations. They have therefore the liturgical color white, which stands for Christ. After Luther's rule, only those saints and Mary's festivities celebrated the basis of a biblical story (the cath. And Orthodox celebrations are based partly on nachbiblischen or apokryphen traditions).

  • 2 February: the day of presentation of the Lord - light metering (formerly Mary cleaning)
  • 25 March: the date of announcement of the birth of the Lord
  • 2 July: Day of Mary Visitation

[edit] Overzealous template

I believe you have become a bit overzealous with spamming your pet template on far too many articles. Please consider more carefully the placement of your template. I think articles that are clearly primarily about New Testament people fit the template nice. Other articles that are about other topics or barely (if at at all) mention NT people should be avoided. For example, every article about Jesus does not need the template, especially those articles that deal with non-Christian, non-NT interpretations. One thing that may aid in choosing which articles to add the template is considering how the template could aid the reader. Is it it likely that the reader came to the page because they were researching New Testament people? Is it likely that the reader would want to be navigated to other articles about New Testament people? On an article like Christology or even Josephus on Jesus, it's pretty clear that answer to those questions is no (and therefore the template is not helpful). I hope you take this under consideration, and I hope that it helps! Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic Judaism

Hello, Carlaude. The way you have changed the text makes it reflect a fringe position, as opposed to the prevailing opinions. As per WP:UNDUE, the text should remain as it is. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You have also accused me of vandalism for reverting your edits. I have not vandalized the page - there are guidelines for posting of a POV notice, and I'm afraid you need more evidence than your opinion. I appreciate that you've now called for dialogue on the talk page. Can you offer mainstream references that state that MJ is a denomination of Judaism? (which is apparently why you inserted the word 'other') On the other hand, there appears to be a wealth of references that disputes that MJ is considered a denomination of Judaism - hence the way the article appears. This does not equal an 'anti-MJ slant'. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You're mistaken that the removal of the flag was vandalism - it was not. Instead of seeking dialogue with the regular editors, you have reached your own conclusion and simply placed the notice. Coming to the talk page to seek consensus appears to be an afterthought. As Avi stated above, the fringe position is that Messianic Judaism is a form of Judaism. It is encyclopedic to place references for the position that all of worldwide, organized Jewry considers this to be untrue. You'll note that the editors who have a personal interest in MJ have taken great care in getting all the sections clear on beliefs, etc. We have worked together on obtaining the references to show that two rabbis have recently called for reconsideration of the role of MJ within contemporary Judaism, for example. That certainly isn't the work of 'anti-MJ'. At one point the article appeared to be an MJ tract, and I supposed your POV notice would have been appropriate then. However, we've all worked hard to keep the page neutral and therefore I believe your notice to be inappropriate. Perhaps you can get an admin to back your charge... A Sniper (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

{{help}} I find Messianic Judaism‎ POV and I added a POV tag, etc.

Another editor, User:A Sniper, removed the POV tag from Messianic Judaism‎ and I put it back, etc.

Now I find he is asking other(s) to remove the POV tag again for him.

Please advise. --Carlaude 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What part do you find is POV LegoKontribsTalkM 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Quote WP:3RR...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in continuing to carry on any back & forth wordplay with you, Carlaude. If you want to constructively discuss the issue of the MJ page, let's keep it at the MJ talk page. I see for myself, of course, that you've gone to the Help Desk and maybe they can assist you if there is some sort of problem with my editing. You have also been asking others about the topic of MJ, so perhaps you'll get some answers on the topic. A Sniper (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So do you-- or do you not-- want to discuss the issue on the MJ page?
I as told you, I seek to discuss the issue constructively but left the MJ page since you are not doing doing so... just giving me rhetoric and "advice."--Carlaude 19:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Carlaude, I consider myself a Chasid Messianic Jew. Orthodox in every conceivable way. As one of the lead volunteers for the MJ article, please consider refraining from changing the NPOV and POV balance of the article. We are outnumbered in our representation on Wikipedia, and it's taken a lot of work to keep the article quiet and positively referenced for the neutral reader to draw their own conclusions. Feel free to bring things up in talk if you disagree with them. inigmatus (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edits to Crucifixion of Jesus

We seem to be crossing paths a lot on this article. Please don't take any of my work as being critical of yours... I seem to have inadvertently "undone" some of your edits. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hebrew people

I've nominated Template:Hebrew people for deletion. Please comment here. Also, I've told you in the past that when transcluding templates between curly brackets, you don't need the word "template". I.e. use {{hebrew people}} instead of {{template:hebrew peopel}}. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 18:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia meetup

As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Virginia. Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BVM

There is however still a question here. That question is whether you really have sufficient cause to make such changes on the basis of what might be seen as a personal opinion regarding what content goes where. There are generally several redirects to a page like this, so that all the information can be placed in the main article and give it a good chance of GA or FA status. At this point, I think the best thing to do would be to create a separate page in userspace including all the material you seek to place in any article, including possibly one of the extant redirects, and then seek consensus before making such changes, generally through an RfC. I think I can be fairly certain that at least a few Christianity editors would respond if a note were left on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity page regarding the RfC. Unfortunately, having just been made lead coordinator of that project, I'm still in the process of ensuring all the banners are in place and haven't had as much of a chance to patrol recent changes as I would like. But doing things in that way tends to be the most harmonious way of doing things, and tends to ensure that there won't be as many problems down the road. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I was "voted" down on a rename that should have been have been a slam-dunk from a policy stand point, I don't see why I should agree to a process that would make it easy to get voted down again by the people who read BVM but don't read or care about policy.
One trouble with the article is that even people that wanted to leave it "as is" could not agree to what the scope of the article is. If the vote discussion what the article had no consensus why do I have to have consensus on all my changes?
For that matter, I don't know what you are seeing as the scope of the article either and hence what you would be part of its "redirects."--Carlaude (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Because your comments above make it clear that you yourself are explicitly violating WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS, and possibly WP:TE. The question thus isn't whether you're "right", but whether your actions are such as you could be sanctioned for them by either short-term blocking, content blocking, or whatever. Basically, the choice you're facing is being right in your mind, and potentially being blocked from for at least a while, and possibly worse, or being wrong in your mind and still allowed to continue to edit. The choice is yours. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it that you think I am violating WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS, or that History2007 is not? I am just getting a lot of accusations (from him I mean) without explanations.--Carlaude (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and sub-categories

I note that you have added categories to template:Prophets of the Tanakh e.g. HB people, OT people, Biblical people. The policy on categories says that:

Usually, articles should not be in both a category and its subcategory.

Otherwise, head categories would be extremely full or articles in a way that gives no additional information. All Hebrew Bible prophets are HB people, etc, so there is no need to add the head category to an article that is already categorised as something more specific.

I hope this is clear, but feel free to discuss with me if not. I'll revert that template, but please would you revert any similar changes that you have made lately? - Fayenatic (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I was too slow to help with your template.
You asked me how we could show all the sub-cats in Category:Hebrew Bible people on one page. Another helpful thing would be to merge any articles that will always be "micro" into List of minor Biblical figures. I've just merged Shearjashub and its duplicate, Shear-jashub. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

A request for mediation naming you as a party has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Blessed Virgin Mary. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Blessed Virgin Mary

Hi Carlaude. If you are going to place these tags on the article you have to open a discussion on the Talk page so we can go through your issues. --WikiCats (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did here, but it seem moot now. --Carlaude (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue V - May 2008
Article News
Project News
Member News
  • Our membership continues to expand. It is currently at 223 users. 39 new users have joined the WikiProject in the month of April 2008. Please make them feel welcomed!
Christianity Articles by Quality
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
To do list of the Project
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
Archives of previous newsletters can be found here.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, add your name here.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, let ~ The Newsletter Editors know.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by Addbot (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC) .

[edit] Herod Philip II and Coponius

I think we have some problem here. Herod Philip II died in 34 AD, and Coponius was Roman Prefect from 6 AD to 9 AD, sow he could not be after Philip. Salute Alorkezas (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] NT boxes

I have a concern with the way you have added nav boxes to lots of NT pages. My concern is not accuracy, but verifiability. So you have "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" labels. Well, how can they be checked. There is no article in Wikipedia which lists all these events in order. And do you mean chrononlogical order or canonical order? It's not clear. So I don't know what you can do about it, but I'd really liked this fixed as soon as possible. Maybe an article which lists all these events in order (whether canonical or chronological) and do a wiki-link to this list from the word "Preceded". But then you would have to remove the nav box from all articles where the succession is ambiguous or disputed. Which means that canonical order is probably better. StAnselm (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry to say that the Gospel harmony article was a waste of time - it's just a matter of time before it's deleted. See Wikipedia talk:No original research#an informal request for comment. And to be honest, I don't see how you can redeem the idea of these nav-boxes - though I like a lot of the other stuff you've done. But take Parable of the Two Debtors, for example. There is simply no way of connecting it to Jesus' True Relatives, which you say follows it. It is, as you say, guesswork, and therefore is not befitting of an encyclopedia. So the nav box has to be deleted. The one positive thing I can suggest is to create Template:Miracles of Jesus, which for some reason is still missing. StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Blessed Virgin Mary.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 00:15, 26 May 2008 (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.

[edit] Neo-evangelicalism

Hi, you seem to have been the one responsible for merging this with evangelicalism. I didn't notice your proposal at the time. I am currently researching evangelical history and I think the changes that happened in the mid-20th century (as typified by neo-evangelicalism) are extremely important to understanding the movement. I feel that this subject is a bit "lost" in the larger article and my personal view is that the term is sufficiently notable to warrant an entry of its own. As an alternative, I could try to improve evangelicalism, but I would prefer to recreate the merged article unless you have any strong objections. I'll also put something on talk:evangelicalism to see what other editors think - please reply there or on my talk page as I won't watch yours. Thanks, Sidefall (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
Issue VI - June 2008
Project news
Member news
  • The project currently has 233 members, 15 joined & 1 leavers since the start of May 2008.
Other news
Related projects news
  • New Projects and/or work groups have been proposed for Christian theology and Christian denomations.
Christianity related news
From the Members

Welcome to the Sixth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

Luckily, you all won't have to see my comments very often, as very little I have to say is really that important. But I would like to take the opportunity to say that I hope everyone finds the new General Forum page useful for discussing ideas relevant to Christianity in general, and feels free to make any additional comments regarding general Christianity there. Also, if any of you feel that you want to place a comment here in the future, please let us know what you want included. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

John Carter (talk), Lead Coordinator
Newsletter challenge

We are initiating a new feature here. Every month, we will list one misisng article. The first person to start the article will be mentioned by name in the next newsletter, as well as any others should they help get included in the Main Page DYK's section.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Category changes

Please do not embark on a wholesale restructuring of the denominational categories tree without previously discussing it. The Christianity Project would be the most suitable place. Could you summarize the changes you are making there. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Translations and Texts

What is your justification for the wholesale removal of Bible Translations, and Texts from the categories "New Testament", and "Bible"?jonathon (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - can you stop and discuss these mass changes you are making at great speed (and with no edit summaries, beyond the minimal ones supplied by Hotcat)? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What I am referring to is the removal, with no explanation of articles from the categories "New Testament" and "Bible". Typically these have been articles about biblical texts, and translations.jonathon (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manuscripts and categories

I personally don't feel the articles dealing with manuscripts should be categorized in "Ancient Christian texts". The texts found in these manuscripts are the New Testament books, (and those are already have their own category, and are included in the Christian text hierarchy). The explanation at the top of Category:Christian texts, the parent category for "Ancient Christian texts", suggests that manuscripts do not belong in that hierarchy. What do you think? Would you mind if I removed the manuscripts you just added from that category? Manuscripts are not texts in and of themselves, but copies of texts. -Andrew c [talk] 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd need a more concrete example. I'm not sure if we have any articles about an individual manuscript of a post-New Testament Christian text. But it seems to me that things like Polycarp's letter to the Philippians and Summa Theologica are Christian text. But if we had articles about manuscripts of these texts, these would not be "texts" but instead "manuscripts" and thus there would be a separation in where these articles would be categorized. Something like "Codex Vaticanus Graecus 859" which contains the texts of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Barnabas, includes texts which should be categorized as "Christian text", but an article about the Codex itself should be categorized as "manuscripts" (though it doesn't appear we have a proper manuscript category for such a codex). Does that make sense? Do you agree or do you have another view?-Andrew c [talk] 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity templates

Hi. I'm streamlining and making them mutually consistent. It'll probably take a few days for a bot to respond to the redirections, but I could semi-automatically make them now, if you wish. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Please stop undoing this work. If you don't understand what's happening, please enquire. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No information or categorization is being lost. In fact, it is being made more coherent and simpler, in line with other template category hierarchies. I'll pause so you can orientate yourself, okay? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.
If your streamlining and making coherent and simpler is going to be as great as I assume you think it will be, then why will you not explain your purpose and plan there at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Categories? --Carlaude (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Didn't catch your last message before the above, so sorry if it appears that I'm not following you. I'll need to go in a few minutes, but until then, anything in particular that isn't clear? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
PS This might help.
Yes-- it is not clear what you plan is. (It is not my job to figure it out-- it is yours to explain it.)
It is not clear why you are skirting WikiProject Christianity procedure for major changes to Christianity categories.--Carlaude (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. Sorry it's not clear. Unfortunately, I have to log off now, but will try to enlighten later. Sorry also not to know that WikiProject Christianity is in charge. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)