User talk:RelHistBuff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. You are welcome to leave messages here. Unless you say differently, I will respond to your messages here or in the appropriate article's talk page.

Archive
Archives
2006


Contents

[edit] Titanium

Additional work since your vote - can you revisit? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Titanium Regards, Sandy (Talk) 01:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you around again !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Glad to be back and will contribute when I can on WP:FAR. --RelHistBuff 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tkachw1.gif

Hello RelHistBuff, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tkachw1.gif) was found at the following location: User:RelHistBuff/sandbox/Original Version. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little while no see

Hi RelHistBuff,

Little while no see. I saw your sig and was glad to see you. I always thought your GA reviews were among the very best.

I don't do GA; am trying unsuccessfully not to do anything on Wikipedia now, 'cause I have to study for prelim exams. But I am kinda lurking on FAC, FAR etc. and may start contributing modestly October-ish. GA toughened my hide a little, so I won't get upset about things. I have learned to follow the path of the immense wisdom of WP:DGAF :-)

Very good to see you around again! Ling.Nut 12:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ling.Nut. After writing my own article and shepherding it to an FA and then helping another person get his article to FA, I had decided that I had enough with GA and started to work on FAR instead. I learned a lot about the politics behind Wikipedia and so I thought it best to retire, satisfied that I made my tiny, but sufficient contribution. But after six months of complete quiet, I am back again working on FAR. Maybe in the near future I might get inspired enough to shepherd another article again! --RelHistBuff 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if by "politics" you mean wiki-drama, well, I'm learning to ignore it (see link in my first comment). If you mean the group of self-important editors who are trying to be (or perhaps are) Big Wheels... see above, again.
  • ..and I'm happy you're back! :-) Ling.Nut 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Thousand Cuts / One Wikiquette

Hi, RHB. I see you're supposed to be studying, but still hope to draw your attention to this complaint I filed a few minutes ago re an article you had a hard time with, too. I think this is the one you are referring to on your user page. May I ask how far you got up the conflict resolution ladder before moving on? I need to decide how far I'll take it. Censoring the Armstrong biography is an endless problem with this user, and it's as bad as if Wiki were letting Karl Rove control the edits to George W. Bush's entry. -- Lisasmall 13:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have had horrendous problems with this user. I originally had a fairly neutral version of this article which I was working on in October 2006. User jebbrady started editing it at the end of that month. I tried to reason with him but he could only bring in his POV, continuing to revert all my suggested changes. In December, as seen in the article's talk page, I asked for a third opinion to resolve the dispute amicably. Even with the support of the third opinion, User:Amatulic (see the diff here), jebbrady refused to cooperate. I decided to not take it up any further and let him keep the article in its current degenerate state. This is a terrible weakness in Wikipedia. A controversial article on a well known topic has the possibility of getting something resolved. Something less well known is left in a terrible state in the hands of a POV warrior who has a lot of free time on his hands. I have been busy which is why I took a six month break, but I will be glad to support any effort to get this article out of the "ownership" of jebbrady and back under the control of Wikipedia. --RelHistBuff 12:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. He keeps making dire references to edits he disapproved of in October; I didn't realize that was you. Anyway, would you be willing to copy the paragraph above, or a rewrite if needed, to my WP:WQA request here? The WQA is higher on the dispute resolution list than a WP:THIRD but lower than mediation and arbitration, which is where I think we're going. Right now, he's got a few more days to complete his own sourced version of the article. I voluntarily and immediately stepped back, since I didn't want to waste my energy, and everyone's time, on a revert war. (If his article is still a hagiography, I can submit a substitute which will survive in the diffs even if it gets deleted.)
However, while stepping back from what could have been an edit war, I also immediately filed WP:SSP because he'd been using unsigned sock puppets, and I filed the WP:WQA because individual editors are never going to get anywhere. Right now, he's already been told by an admin twice that TIME is a reliable source for Wiki, but he's refused to accept it; and he believes that Armstrong's autobiography is neutral. This needs formal intervention, and the mediators (or, if necessary, arbitrators), would find your experience helpful. Thanks for being willing to put more time into this. I have no personal interest in Armstrong or Jebbrady or any of the churches involved, but, like you, it concerns me that a single fan can censor any information, no matter how basic (like the number of marriages! his first wife's middle name!) that he considers detrimental. In my first (and last) attempt to reason with him on the substance of the article, he instantly accused me of using courtesy as a tactic to curry favor with Wiki admins. That was proof enough for me that sweet reason had no chance. I note that he made the same accusation against you. BTW, he now asserts that the WP:THIRD agreed with him, not you. -- Lisasmall 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Hi RelHistBuff, I dunno if this is canvassing or not — if it is, then please disregard & accept my apologies... but if not, & if you have time, then would you mind commenting on the FAC of Georg Cantor? Thanks! Ling.Nut 00:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georg Cantor redux

  • I added a longish paragraph about the philosophy of mathematics, after which my head promptly exploded. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns... thanks! Ling.Nut 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georg made the grade

Hi RelHistBuff,

Georg Cantor made FA. :-) I'd like to thank you for your help. Your comments led to the addition of some important material that shouldn't have been overlooked!

Now I need to study for prelims, and hope to stay from Wikipedia 'til September-ish, but I'll be back. Later! Ling.Nut 10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ballot about Belgium

Hi, RHB. There actually was a vote on the return of Leopold III of Belgium, which was in his favor. But he still abdicated in order to keep the unity of his country. That makes the phrase in the article 'Belgium' about a ballot on the latter topic, highly undesired. The reference that supports the phrase only refers to a vote of confidence in the government, a rather banal event and not quite a ballot, and stresses that one has to carefully think about the reasons for a further unity of the country; such is indeed scrutinizing in OED English. The edit comment might not suffice to explain your unfortunate but for insiders all too apparent hint to the most direct treat ever to that unity. (See in Dutch Koningskwestie or French Question royale). Kind regards. — SomeHuman 09 Aug 2007 22:10 (UTC)

Sorry, but as an anglophone, "scrutinizing" has a completely different meaning. You might be able to find obscure definitions of the word in the OED, but most anglophones would not think the word is related to taking a vote or poll. --RelHistBuff 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium FAR

If you truly feel that these two people are disruptive to the article then the solution is not to defeatuure the article (attacking the symptom) but to ask for their bannishment for it (attacking the root cause). Joelito (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armstrong criticism section

RelHistBuff, EdJohnston has suggested that someone come up with a criticism section for the Armstrong article in userpage space for discussion purposes. I don't feel qualified to do the initial pass at it: would you like to give it a shot? I already checked with Lisasmall as well. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Sarek, much as I would like to help, I am busy doing some research for two other articles (I would like to get them to FA). Just to let you know though of my interest in the article, I did spend a lot of time on it. I first start editing in May 2006(version here, a POV mess) and I effectively stopped in October (version here). By then you can see the article was completely rewritten and approaching NPOV (please take a look and judge for yourself though). My goal was to make it more biographical rather than doctrine-oriented. I was going to work on the citations next and then jebbrady started to mess with it. In my view jebbrady is POV-pusher with a LOT of time on his hands. The evidence can be seen in his long monologues on the Armstrong talk pages. As long as he persists, that page will never be of decent quality. In order to get a true NPOV version, a significant number of editors (who have only a normal amount of free time each) are needed to match the persistance of jebbrady. Unfortunately, there are very few editors that are fervently interested in the topic of Armstrong. I do sympathise with you, Lisasmall, EdJohnston, and 24.6.65.83 but I see no other solution other than arbitration. --RelHistBuff 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I suspect you're correct, but I'm trying to fix things before then. I'm 90% sure that if it goes to arbitration, Jeb will get banned from the HWA/WCG articles, and I'd much prefer a solution that allows him to remain a active member of the WP community (if not quite as active as he has been). I think he's decided that I'm not to be listened to, though, so Arbcom may be the only thing that will rein him in.--SarekOfVulcan 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I admire your level of patience. Good luck. If, however, it does go to arbitration, then drop me a note and I will add my comments. --RelHistBuff 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, RHB. I was just leaving you this note and bumped into an edit conflict as you were writing at the same time.  :) I agree that arbitration is inevitable, and I will do what I can to help SarekOfVulcan. I know you've had about all the fun you can stand with this, and I am glad you might be available, no matter how briefly, if arbitration progresses. Jebbrady was a toxic experience for you, but happily, you're still editing. Other users apparently have been so discouraged they've never come back to Wiki editing at all. Either way, thank you for all you have done so far. -- Lisasmall 22:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium

Hi Rel. I've responded on Joel's talk. I've been avoiding the page because SomeHuman is so hard to deal with, but I actually don't mind going back to it to make improvements if you have any in mind; I've gone through it once so am familiar with the material. We could cut the table, for instance, for the timebeing, until a better version is suggested. Marskell 13:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I went and removed the table and started a thread regarding better explaining it. This will no doubt lead to reverts but I think I'm solid ground because anyone who had anything to say about it said they didn't understand it. So you could stay tuned there. Where a FAR is kept but people are unhappy I try to go back to the page and address the concerns directly. Marskell 13:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I will put it back on my watchlist. --RelHistBuff 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Rel. I do want to say that your contributions at FAR are very much welcome and I really hope you don't think people aren't considering and looking at things. It's so often damned if you do, damned if you don't, at FAR. It was Joel's closure, but I prompted him, so it's half mine; I think he's thoughtful with things and I always agree with his decisions. IMO on this article, certain paragraphs or sentences get edited (often because of POV debates) by a non-native speaker and then you have this pocket of bad prose. So, you'll have clearly bad sentences, but the bulk of the prose is passable. I was responsible for the last full copyedit, and most of Belgium is good. Do you remove based on 1a because certain paras are bad (but can be fixed, easily enough), while the bulk of it is OK? Tough call! I don't think the FAR process is wrong for defaulting keep in such cases, which is what happened here. If you've watchlisted the article, we can hopefully work on it some more. My main thought is that I hope RelHistBuff doesn't give up on the review proces! We're all trying!
(Sorry for talking over two threads!) Marskell 20:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I will continue helping out at FAR. However, my contributions may drop a bit as I start working on pulling some B-class articles up the value chain. --RelHistBuff 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case involving Jebbrady

For your information, I have filed an arbitration case regarding Jebbrady's editing of the Armstrong-related articles.--SarekOfVulcan 17:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed in other RfAs other people make statements or give evidence. Should I make a statement now? Or should I wait until the arbitrators decide to take the case? --RelHistBuff 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure: the instructions used to be clearer. I think that you can add yourself as an involved party now, but you'll be bound by any decisions the Arbcom makes. I'm pretty sure that that doesn't apply to Evidence-givers. It would be nice if you'd add a statement, since you can establish that editors have had the same problems with Jebbrady for quite a while now.--SarekOfVulcan 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I put in a comment. I mentioned one part of the dispute resolution process (Third Opinion) that was tried. I would recommend that you or Lisasmall mention the Wikiquette Alert. Just to show that at least two different methods of negotiation were tried and failed. --RelHistBuff 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR of Charles Ives

Hello there--just wanted to bring your attention to:

1st FAR of Charles Ives Alerted nominator, 1st FAR reviewers, WP:Bio, WP:CT, WP:Composers.

Which I believe fulfills what you had said (however its already there). The only issue I have is contacting the major contributors, there doesn't seem to be one particular person involved with it, I suppose I'll send out a mass-message. Thanks. MrPrada 09:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At least try to get the latest, major editors. They may feel that they have a stake in this. --RelHistBuff 09:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium again

Ditto. As with many cases of OWN, other editors simply leave because the don't want to deal with it and the "owner" feels reinforced. I don't know what to do with it. It probably does need another forum other than FAR; having intermittent revert wars over a table doesn't make sense. We'll see if anyone has the energy for WP:DR. Marskell 12:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Sverre of Norway. User:Fornadan did do some work recently so I guess it gets another extension. If you judiciously add some more fact tags and contact him/her perhaps it can be taken care of. Marskell 12:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jebbrady RFC up

I've put it up here: you need to review it and see if you can certify my statement within 24 hours (because I wasted 24 before taking it live).--SarekOfVulcan 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I must really thank you for all the effort you made of going through the history of the talk page! I was going to do that myself (going through each diff, one-by-one), but I see that you have done a fantastic job. I have certified it and I will put it on my watchlist. --RelHistBuff 22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and you're welcome. Note that the compare two diffs button works really well on some of these extended edits. One of the reasons I stopped when I did is that from that point forward, there are too many people speaking at once...--SarekOfVulcan 23:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
RHB, three votes having been recorded (out of the four needed for a decision about whether to hear the case) on the ARB, Sarek has filed this RFC/U which you and I both certified because we meet the "tried and failed" criterion. Please take a look at the subsection there with my evidence of my own attempts and failures. I don't know if you have the time to add a similar subsection re your Oct-Dec grind. My subsection uses more links than diffs. Sarek thinks that diffs are preferred, which you may want to keep in mind if you decide to add an evidence section about your own attempts and failures. I know you're busy and have already given a great deal of time to this. -- LisaSmall T/C 08:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lisa. I am travelling at the moment, but hope to add something similiar to your subsection next week. I probably will not be able to match your level of knowledge of the policies of wiki (your subsection really shows your skills in your profession), but I will do my best. --RelHistBuff 14:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Fonda's FAR

The relevant Wikiprojects and users were notified at the time of the article's nomination. The nomination page now reflects these facts. Thanks for your concern. Grim-Gym 21:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebionites

Hi Rel. I really have no idea what to do with this one at FAR. On the one hand, there's obviously enough removals to remove, but every time I look somebody has been up to work trying to improve. Can you check a second time? If it's still clearly not there, I suppose it must go. There's a bunch of FARs with little or no comments, incidentally (nudge, nudge—I had been meaning to thank you for continuing to comment on the page). Cheers, Marskell 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will reread the article today and add some more comments (either reaffirming or changing my vote). I hope that will help things in clarifying a decision. Sorry about not being as active on FAR. I had become selective on what to review because I've been busy on working on an article toward FA candidacy. --RelHistBuff 08:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your excellent review on FARC. I copied your comments to the talk page for future editors. I can't take another round of this conflict. I will address the fraudulent content problem in arbitration, hopefully leading to a permanent solution. As you may have guessed, I was stuck between a rock and a hard place between two editors. I suppose you could say that I chose the lesser of two evils, but I cannot abide dishonesty. I hope you will participate in a Peer review and FAC if there ever is one again. Ovadyah 16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Rel: The confusion with respect to the Ebionites can never be understood -- and the true teachings of Jesus will remain an enigma -- until which time the quotation by Hippolytus is explored and understood. In my own article on The Three Lies ( http://TheThreeLies.com ), I portray the Wikipedia as being spiritually castrated (see http://TheThreeLies.com#TrueProphet ). The article itself begins with the AskMoses.com portrayal of the Final Temple, and demonstrates how this is the true objective of all Spiritual Religions -- and especially Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The long suppressed Epistle of Peter And James warns that if this essential knowledge is lost, that the (religious) people of this world will be bound to a spiritual diaspora that will be impossible for them to emerge out of -- i.e., "it will remain even for those who really seek the truth, always to wander in error" ( http://TheThreeLies.com#diaspora ). And the fact that the Wikipedia has chosen to continue this censorship, only furthers the spiritual disenfranchisement of all those who seek the Truth and TheWay. Nazirene - http://BrotherOfYeshua.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazirene (talk • contribs) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, can't help ya

I'm really sorry to have to say this, but I'm currently unable to review any more articles. I'm in the middle of reviewing Society of the Song Dynasty and I've got another on deck when I've finished. Good luck finding someone to review it, though. If in two weeks you haven't found anyone, ask me again – conditions may be different. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, these lightweights!
(Prim voice) I'm reading said article at the moment and will do some copyediting and reviewing over the next day or two, all being well. qp10qp 00:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
(genuflecting) Many thanks, sir. "I'm not worthy!". --RelHistBuff 09:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to genuflect, a curtsey will do.
By "lightweight", of course, I am referring to that punk Scartol, not you. He only writes about one featured article a month and has restricted his adoption of orphans to a mere three, so who is he to cry "busy"?
I've now finished reading the article and am about to start a copyedit. My first response is that it is fluent and readable, though not critical enough. It can certainly make FA, in my opinion. Many congratulations on all your fine work! qp10qp 14:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laleena

Hi. Of course I can help you. I was surprised to see your message, but I knew I'd get some. Yes, I'll do that. Cheers, Laleena 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for going ahead. I just wanted to mention that since I left you the message, another user has been going through a heavy copy-edit as well as a review. You can see what has been happening in the talk page. But I still appreciate it if the article is looked over through another pair of eyes. I just wanted to mention though that I saw a few errors in your first set of copy-edits. I will correct them. --RelHistBuff 07:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am using the grammar that is common in America. If you could tell me what went wrong and how you corrected it, I'll look it over. Thanks, Laleena 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, concerning the punctuation you can see in this diff, the University of St Andrews is a name of the university and is a proper noun. So no apostrophe or full stop are needed. Also, in British spelling, the saint abbreviation (St) does not have a full stop. Concerning the spelling in this diff, if you look at WP:MOSQUOTE, the original spelling (from the 16th century) should be preserved because it a quotation. The basic rules are in our manual of style. Conformity checks to our "house" style and corrections for certain grammatical constructions (use of passive vs. active voice, dependent/independent clauses,...), tense agreement or usage, flow of reading, etc. are things that the article might need. If this is all too much, then even a light overview and corrections are ok. The more people who read it, the higher probability that my mistakes will get caught! Thanks again. --RelHistBuff 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knox and more

Wonderful work on the Knox article! If you feel the inclination, English Dissenters is in desperate need of attention. I link to it almost every day, so I see its sorry shape. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to write it at the moment. However, I do have an excellent bibliography that I could offer you. Pre-selected and reviewed for usefulness (I've even read most of the books and have notes somewhere that I could email you, if that would help). Just no time to write. Awadewit | talk 06:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really enjoyed working on it, especially working collaboratively with you and Qp. And thanks for the suggestion. The topic really looks interesting, but I don't think I can do it justice, at least not yet. Unfortunately, I live in a non-anglophone country and finding the sources can be somewhat difficult. I was fairly lucky with Knox in finding several books, but as you and Qp rightly pointed out, the 50s/60s are not really considered modern. So my next targeted article will depend on what quality sources I can find. I saw your FAC review of Thomas Cranmer and I agree with you that it was weak on the use of sources. I think I can find a copy of Diarmid MacCulloch which you mentioned is the definitive biography. So perhaps I can work on that one. I just need to get two or three others for cross-checking and balance. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand - research is the most difficult part of any non-controversial article. Cranmer is definitely another worthy and difficult biography to tackle. I look forward to reading it in the future! Awadewit | talk 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palazzo

Ya, I don't know what to do Rel. Option 2 would be a new precedent and Raul should set it, if it's to be set. At the moment, I'm just ignoring it. It will probably flare back up when it gets moved to FARC. Marskell (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Knox FA

The Original Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for getting John Knox up to Featured Article status. Keep up the fine work! Flex (talk/contribs) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I already have other projects in mind. It depends on whether I can get the right sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi relhistbuff

You're one of the folks that I keep wishing I could work with some day, or at least interact with in the content review process, but it never happens. :-) The prelims were tough.. but it's like having a baby (or so I've read): the agony seems excruciating, but once you're finished, the joy is equally intense. When I got the letter that I had passed, I literally collapsed on the floor in relief, like a bag of wet clothes. Now I'm allegedly working on my dissertation in Linguistics, while teaching English in Taiwan. I plan to pop in to FAC, GAR and PR once or twice a week, but can't do any heavy lifting on Wikipedia. It's a shame 'cause I have some topics I'm really interested in working in. later! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of Huldrych Zwingli

Sure, I'll look at it. Do nag me closer to the time though. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done it (skimpier than I would have liked but I don't have a lot of time until mid-March). Good piece! --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Noticed you got this to FA, congratulations! :D
Sorry I was too slow to help contribute.
I've read some parts of the article. Very nice text, lots of content, but very clear and engaging. Deserves that FA!
Love Zwingli, nice to see his entry is so exemplary. :D Alastair Haines (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History buff?

Nice work on the Zwingli article. If you're a history buff, you might like the Humanities Reference Desk. There's always a bunch of history questions just waiting to be answered, and we have quite a following of history buffs already. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cranmer

(copied and reformatted from User talk:Secisek in order to keep the thread in one place)

Hello Secisek. I noticed that you are the shepherd of the Cranmer article and got the article to GA. I was wondering if you are planning to advance it to FA. I'm hunting for another article to adopt and I am interested on the subject of Cranmer. If you already have plans on it, then I got some other candidates to work on as well. Drop me a line on my talk page! --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NO! NO! NO! NO! Please, I would LOVE to see Thomas Cranmer go FA! By all means, make it your next project. I do not WP:OWN the article and would be happy to pitch in again if a push was made. Do you think it is A class right now? I think it is already very nearly FA. I worked very hard last summer to make it so, it had supporters, and almost passed. It got [bogged down in the FA process] due to one editor who just wasn't having it no matter what I did. I settled for GA, but would certainly take another look at it. Go for it! -- SECisek (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand the frustration. After long work hours of work, it’s hard when it appears that more barriers are placed in the way. I went through a similar experience with John Knox (see its talk page). The reviewer was a historian specialising in that period and the article went through a hefty grilling before it finally went out on FAC. But his criticisms were fair (although he has his own biases, as we all do). He helped me take the article to a higher standard and I really appreciated it. I think Cranmer will also have to go through the same. Once I have finished with Zwingli, I will start gathering the sources. The article does need some reorganising, more depth, and some rewriting. I will come back to it after I do some research. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

The Epic Barnstar
Thanks for all of your hard work on the newly-featured Huldrych Zwingli! Wikipedia needs more good article writers like yourself so that the millions of people who search for Zwingli on Google will be enlightened by their first click. :) Awadewit | talk 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! By the way, I will come back to Switzerland (Calvin) after I take a detour to England (Cranmer). I had already found some interesting sources on him in the library here. And because of you, I am seriously thinking of visiting Germany again in the future! ;-) --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hearty and happy congratulations from me, too! The article is beautiful; you wrote it wonderfully. :) I'm sorry that I missed my chance to support it — I'm away right now and can get to a computer only fleetingly — but I hope that you'll do many more in the future, so that I'll have more opportunities. :) Are your interests mainly in the Reformation, or wider ranging? I've been interested in bringing some Christianity-centric articles to FA, once I get out from under my heap of unfinished projects — whenever that might be. :P My favorites would be Origen, the Desert Fathers or maybe something on Biblical text reconstruction, such as Constantin von Tischendorf or א — do any of those interest you? If so, perhaps we might work on them together? :) Willow (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You should say, "we wrote it"! Frankly, I really appreciate how everyone like you, Awadewit, Roger, and Ealdgyth have helped out. I really want to return the favour. So before I start researching again, I will look on WP:PR and WP:FAC for articles to review. Unfortunately, I am not as prolific a writer as everyone else, so I am pretty slow, but I will give my best effort to contribute some reviews. I got started on the Reformation because I noticed the articles were rather weak as they were mainly copies of the 1911 Britannica or Schaff-Herzog articles. But my interests are wider. Working together on one of the church fathers (Origen or maybe Augustine of Hippo?) would be great. My only limitation is access to decent sources, although I am finding my library is better than I thought for scholarly books in English. I will let you know after I have made my attempts with Cranmer and Calvin. By then, maybe your "heap" will be reduced as well so that we could start a collaboration! --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this honor for Knox! I'll try and spend some time helping to revert the vandalism! Awadewit | talk 15:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was a surprise. This will be an interesting experience! :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well! On to Cranmer! !

The TULIP Barnstar for hard work and diligence on Huldrych Zwingli
The TULIP Barnstar for hard work and diligence on Huldrych Zwingli

-- SECisek (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the returning the favor department...

Care to take a look see at Augustine of Canterbury? I'm not a Anglo-Saxon scholar (that's an understatement) and would really appreciate a few good eyes looking it over for prose and other issues. I'm actually rather proud of it, Anglo-Saxon issues and all. This was what it looked like when I started Back in September and you can see what it looks like now. I have a few others I'm working on in my efforts to get the medieval bishops of England up to snuff, but Augustine's the current big push, I think. I'd like to take it to GA then FAC. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sure, just give me a few days and I will get to it. Is it on PR? Or do you want a review on the talk page? --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't taken it to PR yet, and not sure if I will, honestly. My luck at PR sucks. I have one up now, and its being ignored (as usual). The others I've sent get ignored too. Better just put it on the talk page. Mike Christie is going to take a look at it soon too. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note of advice. It is very rare that a good-hearted reviewer will randomly stop and review an article on PR, although that did happen to me once (mainly because the subject interested him). Once the article is on PR, you will have to use the PR volunteers list or any other known friends and then ask. Not surprisingly, the best reviewers are quite busy. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no, thank you for the comments. I know I write like an academic! In fact, I'd hardly call my prose anything more than "utilitarian" at best. I greatly appreciate your comments, they will help a bunch! I'll leave some specific replies on the article talk page, but just wanted to let you know I greatly appreciated you looking at it. Especially as you aren't familiar with the period, which helps a bunch. I may beg a full copyedit off you at some point, so be warned! Ealdgyth | Talk 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, took care of the easy stuff. AND distracted Mike Christie from copyediting Augustine by giving him a huge list of stuff for his latest FAC (mmmwhaaaa.... I'm so sneaky!) so tonight, after the teenager goes to bed (and turns off the XBox360) and I can hear myself, I'll do the read it aloud thing. Then Mike can rip it apart and then I'll come beg you again! Whee! And as far as your researches, please let me know what you need, and I can try to find stuff for you. Like I said before, Reformation stuff isn't my strong suit, but I do have some sources. I can at least "fill out" after you get the bones up. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Thomas Cranmer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

??? I didn't add the content to which you placed the {{cn}} tag. In any case, if you take a look at the article's talk page, I am in the midst of a complete rewrite and the intention is to have the article cited to the best possible sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zwingli

The Original Barnstar
I award you yet another barnstar for your excellent work on getting the Zwingli article to FA! Congrats! --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main page nomination for Manzanar

Thank you for putting up the main page nomination for Manzanar. For obvious reasons, I wasn't watching for open slots at 5:45 AM PT! :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do you still do GA reviews? Would you do one by special request?

Hi Relhistbuff,

Long time no chat. :-) Do you still do GA reviews? Would you do one by special request? Johnbod, Ceoil and I have expended some elbow grease on Funerary art, which I just nommed for GA. I note that there is a closely related nom immediately above ours... but if you have the time and the inclination, I'd be honored if you could do a GA review, adding any comments that you feel will help the article forward through the Content Review process... if you can't do it, of course that's OK! Thanks!Ling.Nut (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been a long time since I worked on GA. I'd like to help, but I don't think I know the current GA "culture" to make a decent review. Sorry! The article looks great though. It looks like a rather wide topic area so if you ever take this FA, I assume you will use summary style with forks to various geographical areas or epochs. Drop me a note when you take it to WP:PR before the FAC; I can contribute to that. Good luck! --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Points for Israel

By the way, I responded to your statement about the number of points for the Israel nomination on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. -- tariqabjotu 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General relativity

One of my wiki-friends, Markus Poessel, is working on getting General relativity ready for FAC. He has already done a wonderful job with Introduction to general relativity. I was wondering if you had some time to offer a peer review? It's not everyone that can read this article and offer insightful commentary. Oddly, not many articles on fundamental scientific concepts like GR are FA and I am so excited that Markus is working on it. (We had a great time on Introduction to GR, by the way - I learned much.) If you feel like tearing yourself away from religious disputes for a moment, I am sure Markus would appreciate the help. I contributed the image of Einstein's manuscript. That is all I can do. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I printed it out and will see what I can comment on, but the article looks great already! There are not many science articles that reached FA (or GA for that matter) due to a misunderstanding of WP:WIAFA, specifically 1c. But Markus seems to understand the FA concept so I hope other science editors will emulate him. Funny though. I've spent a significant portion of my life doing research in physics, but I'd rather work on articles in other areas. I guess I'm sort of like Mike Christie, i.e. working on articles of current interest. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try to throw other topics your way, too. I know plenty of people who avoid their areas of expertise. Interestingly, they are all in the sciences. We literary people probably feel some desperation when we look at the abysmal state of articles in our field. The science articles, particularly in physics, tend not to attract high school students writing book reports or fans dedicated to laying out every detail of their favorite novel. :) Awadewit (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review from Alastair Haines

I'll drop by now or I'll miss out all together. I'm really bad at reviewing, I'm not critical enough. I'll try to be mean this time. ;) Cheers friend. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to be lazy. I've copy edited the first two and a half sections. Easy work because your prose is fabulous. It is full of content, appropriate vocabulary selection, grammar used nicely to give subtle variations and stop the reader going to sleep. :) I really felt drawn into the facts, small questions came to mind, which meant I was engaging with the material. No big questions came to mind, because you were providing all the important answers -- no logical gaps really helps readers. I think you must think in a logical, systematic way yourself. Anyway, very nice prose.
I've only skimmed the rest of the material, 'cause I'm a bit busy. At face-value the rest of the article looks as featurable as the first three sections I inspected closely.
The only overall point for improvement I could suggest is variety of sources. This is a real nicety. Shouldn't affect an FA decision. I wouldn't imagine reliable sources would differ much on the important points that make it into an article like this, and it's not the kind of article that needs multiple opinions. The only reason I'd suggest more sources is that it looks more reliable if the reader can see that multiple sources have been consulted.
One way to do this is to cite sources your main source cites. If your source acknowldges his sources, you are not really doing him an injustice to pass those on. If they are primary sources, include them together with your main source, so a reader knows it is the expert, not the editor that has interpreted the primary source.
Well, I hope my time in your article has been helpful to it, and to you, and to readers in future. I would offer more, but there are many others around and I'm really pushed just now. It's a great article ... and an important one. It is so easy to read! Well done!
Compare your work with mine at Theognostus of Alexandria, you'll never listen to me ever again! ;)
Cheers friend, Alastair Haines (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I did think about the number of sources. Major books on Cranmer are not published very often and when they get too old, they don't stand up well under FAC questioning. So the article depends on the last three major books published on Cranmer (going back to 1962). However, I will look for articles on Cranmer in general Reformation books and maybe on JSTOR. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review delay

I have had some family issues suddenly arise and the promised peer review will have to be delayed. I can probably get to it in about a week. Let me know on my talk page if that is too late. I'm so sorry. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm back. I will be doing the peer review soon. By the way, you might want to look at the previous FAC for Roman Catholic Church. Awadewit (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have finally, finally gotten around to peer reviewing Thomas Cranmer! So sorry for the delay! Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Dear RelHistBuff, this is copied and pasted from the Dominican House of Studies website: "Video excerpt (10 min) from a lecture by Fr. John Vidmar, O.P. on the history of the Dominicans in the Eastern United States, reflections on the 200th Anniversary of the Dominican Province of St. Joseph (1805-2005). Given in March of 2006 at the Center for Catholic and Dominican Studies at Providence College, Providence RI. Fr. Vidmar taught history at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington DC for many years and is currently serving as provincial archivist and teaching history at Providence College. He is the author of several books including The Catholic Church Through the Ages: A History (Paulist, 2005)." If you would like to view this for yourself, please go here: [1]. NancyHeise (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To help you be OK with citations from Vidmar, I supplemented the ones that werent already supplemented with another book by a Catholic priest. It is "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" by Thomas Bokenkotter. This is the book review for this book written by a University professor "This expanded and updated edition of A Concise History of the Catholic Church is destined to continue the legacy of excellence established by pastor and professor Bokenkotter (Xavier Univ.) when the title was first published by Image Books. Now, 25 years later, he advances on the history of Catholicism to include contemporary issues of liturgical polarization, religious pluralism, theological dissent, and clerical immorality. The current reality of pedophilia and sexual abuse is incorporated into this honest and timely work. The text is divided into five dominant historical periods in Catholicism, beginning with the Church's triumph over paganism, the making and unmaking of Christendom (600-1650 C.E.), the Church in a state of siege (1650-1891 C.E.), and finally the Church in the 20th century. Each concisely written and fully documented chapter clearly develops those broad epochal sections. This new edition is appropriate for scholars, students, and the general reader seeking a balanced and thorough review of Catholicism's complex history. The 40-page annotated bibliography adds considerable depth and authority to the revised text. Black-and-while illustrations throughout and a helpful index add to the overall quality. Ecumenical, comprehensive, and accessible, this is recommended for all libraries even where the 1979 edition is owned.-John-Leonard Berg, Univ. of Wisconsin Lib., Platteville Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information." You may view it for yourself here: [2] Also, I just happened across this syllabus here: [3] that shows it is required reading for this professor's class on church history. This book is published by Doubleday. I think it is a nice supplement for Vidmar as they are both priests and give me the Catholic side of history that I need to make the page inclusive of all views. I hope this helps. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi there. Email message from me! - Alison ❤ 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Oh, I picked up pdfs of the following today, drop me an email if you want them: The Revision of the Ordinal, Thomas Cranmer's Register, Rule of Thomas Cranmer in Diocese, Correspondence of Thomas Cranmer, Public Career of Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Cranmer and the Godly Prince, Reformation in Action Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On the JC thing... Here and Here. I will attempt to get them tomorrow, I hope. The local university says it has them on file, we'll see what luck I have. Hope you found the others useful. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The stuff is brilliant! Thanks so much! I guess your university library has access to all the journal websites? I should check out the computers at my local university and see if they got access as well. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, they don't have quite as much as I would like. I have to go to University of Illinois for things like Speculum or Journal of Ecclesiastical History, but it does give me decent access. They just close in an hour and I can't be bothered to rush across town. And how in the heck can I explain better that the Amish aren't Zwinglian???? (beats head against wall). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that they come up with that kind of twisted logic means that it is a lost cause. Ah well! The person I really feel sorry for is poor Sandy who has to wade through it and decide. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Your turn. I'm done and about to lose my temper at the stubborness. I guess I could point out that the Handbook of Denominations in the United States lists the Amish under Anabaptist, while the Swiss Refomation is under the Reformed, Congregationalist and Presbyterian Churches, but I doubt that would help much. Your turn! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Physics and math?

Hey RHBuff,

I seem to remember you saying that you were interested in physics and math, once upon a time? I'm a little in need of more eyes for two such articles, a list of scientific publications by Albert Einstein (which is a Featured List candidate) and the problem of Apollonius, which is a very charming and very old problem in geometry from Apollonius of Perga, an Alexandrian like our friend Origen. Might you have a moment to throw a glance over them? I'd very much appreciate any thoughts or suggestions you might have. Thanks muchly, :) Willow (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I see that you're looking for reviewers for Thomas Cranmer; I'll stop by there right now. :) Willow (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Willow! I will most certainly take a look. However, I must apologise in advance that I may not be as useful to the articles as you would be expecting. You see, I loved physics, it nearly consumed me, it was almost my whole life. But as my use of the past tense implies, I have moved on to other things and I have not looked back into my past very often. Too many painful memories and now there is a lot of rust inside my brain! Anyway, I hope I can add a tiny bit in the progress of your articles. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Buff,

I'm very sorry, I had no idea! You shouldn't do anything that would bring you grief and unhappy memories; I've felt a landslide of that recently, too. :( I'm sure that we'll have enough people over at those two articles, so you should go wherever the spirit takes you. :) A few other articles have been inching forward, such as Sundial and Catullus 2, that you might enjoy more? They're still rudimentary and I'm a little embarrassed about them, but they might benefit all the more from your insights and charm you with their innocence. :) Willow (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise, you would not have known. Fortunately time does truly heal; I recently added a bit to the PR of General relativity (wonderful article). Once the Cranmer article is done, I will take a look your articles. It will be a welcome relief in a way. I really do enjoy putting the effort in these long articles like Cranmer and Zwingli and taking in all the suggestions and criticisms. But the effort does take something out of you, so looking forward to a little diversion! --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You won't like me saying this, but...

...you have the best userpage. I'm in awe. I was coming here to say something about Peter Wall, but I am too overawed.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

FAC has restarted, if you would like to vote, please go here [4] Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this a comment or oppose? It's prefaced as a comment, but reads as an Oppose, so I'm unclear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC FAC

This message is being sent to all opposers of the Roman Catholic Church FAC. Thank you for taking the time to come see the page and give us your comments. I apologize for any drama caused by my imperfect human nature. As specified in WP:FAC, I am required to encourage you to come see the page and decide if your oppose still stands. Ceoil and others have made changes to prose and many edits have been made to address FAC reviewers comments like yours. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)