User talk:Rwflammang/External links from Vulgate

Link

Hello! Regarding this edit of yours, I just wanted to explain that Maria Theresa used masculine titles when referring to her hereditary domionions. She styled herself Holy Roman Empress and Queen of the Romans because she was wife of Holy Rman Emperor and King of the Romans; however, she was crowned King of Hungary and King of Bohemia and official documents referred to her as Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Tyrol, etc. There are references for that in Maria Theresa of Austria article. I won't insist on translating dux into duke, I just wanted to clarify why I replaced duchess with duke. Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User talk:Rwflammang/Geologic time scale
• User talk:Rwflammang/Sandbox
• User talk:Rwflammang/Exposure (radiation)
• User:Rwflammang/Exposure (radiation)

Please don't get discouraged. Esoglou (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I don't plan to, but the kids are out of school and I'm pretty busy these days. Cleaning up this article is going to take longer than I anticipated. Rwflammang (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't you think that, in the interests of clarity, it would be better to keep the Latin Fathers and the Greek Fathers separate? (I am posting this here rather than on the article's Talk page in the hope that you will notice it before you have gone too far.) Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too late. I just finished. I don't have a strong opinion either way. I'll finish my comment on the talk page. Rwflammang (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After this edit I expected the analogy of the train to be inserted somewhere else. Should you perhaps restore it to where it was? As the text now stands, we are told that the PCPCU document "pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as 'proceed'". But then we are not told what this "important difference in meaning" is. Esoglou (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. I moved the PCPCU statement to a place that I hope makes more sense. I also added a sentence to illustrate the difference in meaning. If you want, you can replace the sentence I added with the train analogy. The train analogy was just a tad longish for my taste, which is why I did not put it back myself. Rwflammang (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be out of town for a week or so, starting now. Best regards. Rwflammang (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think that the following illustration

A London-bound train that originated in Edinburgh can be said to be proceeding (in normal English and in the sense of Greek προϊέναι and Latin procedere) from Edinburgh and York, but in the sense of Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι it can only be said to be proceeding from Edinburgh.

is still too long? Esoglou (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, last day I have made the german article: de:Luthers Vulgata-Revision. I read in a edit of you (Vulgate Section Novum Testamentum Latine) the words: he edition from Wittenberg (which was favored by Luther). I suppose it is to read in the preface, but I don't own this edition. (I must see that I will buy it later.) Please can you give me a quote. with friendly greetings from Germany, Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Sönke. I'll consult with my edition when I get home this evening, and I'll provide a full reference. Rwflammang (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After listing the sigla for the editions, the preface continues:

Quibus selectis nos id quod voluimus consecuturos esse speremus. Editionem Erasmi anno 1527 emissam ideo selegimus, quod Roterodamus ille quinque quidem editiones in publicum proposuit, haec autem sola est, cui praeter Erasmi imterpretationem textus Vulgatae insit. Translationem autem Erasmi, quippe quae privato consilio confecta sit, in apparatu conscribendo negleximus. Editionis autem Wittembergensis, in qua simili licentia usi sunt interpretes, tamen respectum egimus, cum maioris momenti esset. Theologi enim, qui tum disciplinam Christianam reformabant, non, ut forsitan conieceris, Novum Testamentum Graece solum, verum etiam Vulgatam legerunt. Quo fit ut habeamus non paucas Vulgatae editiones, quae saeculo XV. et XVI. nullo Ecclesiae catholicae consilio typis descriptis sint. Editio autem Wittembergensis anno 1529 emissa (de qua parum scimus, nam et "Bibliae Germanicae" volumen V. ex operibus Lutheri Vimariae editum non omnes expectationes explevit) extra Ecclesiam catholicam quasi pro norma habita est, qua de causa opinamur varias lectiones illius libri in apparatum relatas omnibus usui fore, qui indagent, quomodo textus Vulgatae per illos circiter 140 annos commutatus sit, dum editione Sixtina/Clementina promulgata constituum atque defixum est, quo textu intra Ecclesiam catholicam utendum esset...

Monasterii Westphaliae, die 28 Martii 1991 / Kurt Aland / Barbara Aland

The money quote in all this is, I believe, the following, The Wittenberg edition published in 1529 ... was held to be a norm outside the catholic Church... Rwflammang (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much, this will help me very much, for the englargement of the article de:Luthers Vulgata-Revision. Later I will make an German article to the Novum Testamentum Latine also. Now I know how I can write it. ... (o: (I will place a copy of this discussion on my site.) --- I hope that you can read some passage of my German article, because I suppose it could be interesting for you. I hope so and it would be nice when it would help to enlarge the english article. --- In Flensburg we have a lot of snow in the streets and it is more than cold. brrrrr --- I wish you an Happy Christmas, Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By all means please continue contributions to Bible translations into Latin. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Uploading_images#Procedure_to_upload

User talk:Rwflammang/Votes

You're replying to three or four year-old comments, but as an architect (and as someone who has tried to dispute some of the silly things like "steel buildings have never collapsed" that appear on 9/11-related articles), I agree that steel buildings are terrible things in a fire. It's sheer luck that something like this hasn't happened before: the First Interstate Tower fire was a near-miss, differing primarily in the absence of an impact to knock the fireproofing off the steel. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Thanks for the vote of support; I may very well need it.

Yes, I realize the comment I was replying to was ancient, but then again, it has not been archived yet, and lots of people are reading this article today, so I thought I'd say my peace. I said, "ask any architect," and I am extremely thankful that you, an architect, so promptly validated my advice. Of course, I could have also said, "Ask any sailor," who could then then have recited from drill what he learned in basic training regarding firefighting on his steel ship.

Rwflammang (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lolz, I haven't been as amused since the recent artwork?

Anyhow, I think your right, and maybe we can improve it still further, because I can see the occasional feminist coming along and attacking that as well, not me, I'm happy with it as you have done it. But do you think just leaving it as 'space station launched into orbit.' is less of a problem ? Penyulap _talk 04:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think the by man phrase can be dropped. Rwflammang (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you!! _{Do you have an opinion on the ENG:VAR you'd like to put on the talkpage ?} Penyulap _talk 19:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings; 10. Third and Fourth Kings; 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra; 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel. And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon.

Hi, I hope the Brouhaha at the rosary page did not upset you. I think you did well not to even comment on the dispute page, given that you were not the main party involved in the debate. My general approach is to think that these are a waste of time and the less said the better. It will all just blow over in the end as it did. Some people get upset and quit Wikipedia, but I hope you will continue to edit. Debates come and go, good content stays in the end, and in most cases reason will prevail in the debates as it did in this case. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Rwflammang/Christmas

This[1] and my reworking of it[] deserve explanation. A zucchetto is a liturgical vestment, though not one you'd immediately identify as such - it is still a liturgical vestment. I don't see how you justify saying it isn't. The article detail begins clarifying these are liturgical colours, and how they apply to the zucchetto. Finally, it states clearly there is no green zucchetto because the article clearly states how the zucchetto is indicative of rank. (If you desire, you may paste this message in the article's talk or CC it.)—Djathinkimacowboy 14:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The colors of zuchettos do not match the Liturgical color (q.v.) of the celebration. E.g., A priest will wear a violet chasuble tomorrow for lent, a white chasuble on Monday for St Joseph's day, a red chasuble on Pentecost, but on all of these days he will wear a black zuchetto. Likewise, a bishop will always wear a purple (technically amaranth) zuchetto on all these days, a cardinal will always wear red, etc. In short, for a zuchetto, the color indicates the rank of the celebrant, while for the chasuble, dalmatic, stole, cope, maniple, etc, the color indicates the celebration. Note that the "purple" (amaranth) of a zuchetto is different from the "purple" (actually violet) of the liturgical colors. Rwflammang (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the article does not say the zucchetto colour matches the other scheme precisely. In point of fact the zucchetto stays within the new Church Law. Your point is generally well taken, except for the small detail that the zucchetto is technically a liturgical vestment. And your reasoning does not fit the action you took in removing that text, which is, believe it or not, a basis for the color scheme of the zucchetto. How much more liturgical can you get than the cap that shows you the rank of the celebrant? The zucchetto shows a basic conformity by being either white, red, violet or black. Due to its nature and significance, it cannot be changed according to the liturgical season because it represents a liturgical colour that does not change. That is part of the honour it confers upon the wearer.—Djathinkimacowboy 11:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, I will bow to your decision in that matter, if you should choose to reword or simply remove the information. I will not interfere again, because I acknowledge that I made a sort of confusion there and wasn't able to make the link or the point about the colours of the zucchetto. I did not have sufficient citations to do it. Anyway, my apologies.—Djathinkimacowboy 11:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, regarding the IP selection of pizza types, I do have a somewhat longer term perspective in that by keeping somewhat bland language, one can avoid wasting 3 days of one's life to take someone to ANI, discuss for ever etc. If you look on the talk page for Jesus, you will see the latest incident: someone who kept saying there are "no reliable historians" and was then banned for 6 months. Time will tell what will happen 7 months from now. And on the same page, another half a day of life was eaten by a discussion on... guess what? The druid Jesus! The WP:OR guys will go away in the end - but usually take 1 or 2 days of one's life with them. And the Transfiguration comment may apply to Ascension of Jesus which I recently fixed.

In any case, as stated on my user page, as of June 2012 I achieved liberation from Wikipedia and will become much less active. I thought I would ask for your help in watching a few pages that are not contentious, but need the eye of someone with knowledge, such as yourself.

The RC type pages include:

• Mary (mother of Jesus), Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Roman Catholic Mariology. All three pages are quite stable and fully referenced. The third item has a few rough and less than sourced items, I will fix those within the next 3 months. No other problems exist. There are also items such as Marian devotions, Marian hymns, etc. linked from there. As you can see, no edit trouble at all, but still good to have someone else watch them.

• Divine Mercy, Divine Mercy image and Mary Faustina Kowalska: All three pages were carefully rewritten a year ago and are fully sourced now. Highly stable and hardly any vandalism. It is a question of looking for merge flags, etc.

• Holy Face of Jesus and the Shroud of Turin. The first page is totally stable and also non-controversial. The Shroud page has been extremely stable given its controversial nature. There is user:thucyd who knows much more about it, but logs in every week or two, and he has provided many solid references. Every possible angle on that object is covered in the article, but there is a user Vincenzo Ruello (he also writes on UFO items) who logs in as multiple IPs (they often get blocked) and adds promotional items. He sometimes pretends to be his own best friend, etc. So that page does need attention. But every possible aspect has been discussed in the archives, so it is just a question of pointing to those really.

Then there a few other pages

• Christ, the Ministry of Jesus and Chronology of Jesus. All three pages are highly stable and fully sourced. They just need to be watched. There is also Nativity of Jesus and Virgin birth of Jesus.

• Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Christ as well as Annals (Tacitus). These are three historically important pages. I recently fixed Historicity of Jesus, and it also needs to be just watched now that it is all referenced.

• Religious perspectives on Jesus, Jesus in Christianity, Sayings of Jesus on the cross, Imitation of Christ and Love of Christ: Again, very stable pages and it is just a question of looking out for merge flags, etc.

Your help in watching these as your time allows will be greatly appreciated. And thank you for all the good interactions we have had in the past. History2007 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Am I missing a joke, or is there a garden-variety typo here?

This user doesn't care whether Pluto is a planet or not – but IAU's 2006 redefinition of planet was a linguistic/philosophical embarrassment.

Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typos fixed. Thanks for the notice! Rwflammang (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Election (Christianity) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 03:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Basilica of Saint Mary Major, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doctor of the Church, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Irenaeus, Divine Office and Leo VI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saint Christopher may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• org/the-icon-of-st-christopher/ Understanding the dog headed Icon of Saint Christopher]] at Orthodox Arts Journal.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jane Frances de Chantal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heart of Mary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I was interested in your question whether Prof Wigner was Hungarian, in light of his claim to be Austrian. I started to respond to you on his Talk Page, but the tone of my answer seemed overpoweringly rude. It was not intended to be so. I did spend a little time verifying claims though, so rather than just discard it, I am posting it here and encourage you to delete it from here when done. I don't have a formal strategy for where any replies should go. I suspect that Wikipedia notifications work best if a message appears on the talk page of the intended recipient, but that doesn't sound optimal for conversational threads. Although evidence for Hungarian appears overwhelming, I should allow him to self-identify as Austrian, and of course for you to mention it in the article. Perhaps it is worth including informally (i.e. not in his biographical info box), but you'd need an independent verifiable source for his claim.

By the way, I was curious about his claim to be from Hitler's native country, because it was the intensity of his hatred of Nazi ideology created the dichotomous pacifist who happily contributed to the Manhattan project. I am indeed curious about your recollection of the strength (and triggering context) of his Austrian claim. Finally, here's my original response to your question:

Wigner Jenő Pál was indeed his native name (native within the English and Latin meaning, not the American meaning of ancestral as in Native American). Ethnically his ancestors were ultimately from the region that is now Syria around 150 AD. He was born in Budapest (the capital of Hungary), both parents were citizens of Hungary. H In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, he referred to his childhood home as Hungary. He was a Hungarian citizen when he returned there in 1933, as he was when he applied for US citizenship not longer after that. He did live in Austria for two periods of his childhood, but they weren't for very long: less than two months in 1913, and about four months in 1919. By 1921, he had already lived longer in Berlin, Germany than the two spells in Austria combined. His family's original native language would have been Yiddish rather than German, but his parents (who became Christian when he was a teenager) most likely spoke German (close related, linguistically) due to their higher station/class and the expectations of the time and place. His parents were both ethnically Ashkenazi Jews, so of course he was too. This means that Wigner, like all Ashkenazims (and as discovered in 2006) was of Levantine Syrian descent, specifically a direct descendant of one of just 150 specific individual women who lived in the region of Syria between 100 and 200 AD. Perhaps I should clarify that being Hungarian and being Austrian were very much mutually exclusive, and enforced by law. Through all the centuries and various forms of Austro-Hungarian unions, the two nations never merged as far as becoming just one country. It was always a union with several constituent nations (and nearly always more than the two nations in the name). They never introduced a single shared citizenship, passport, parliament, legal system, or even fiscal union, and dual citizenship of both Hungary and Austria was specifically prohibited. I suspect that his rather odd claim to be Austrian, was just an attempt to identify as not a Communist that Hungarian still might have implied at the time. Cheers from ChrisJBenson (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whole number rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whole number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The topic whose discussion you contributed to here seeks comment on its proposed resolution with consensus. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much for your reply! I had figured "head" must be official RC or else it wouldn't have been added by consensus, but I didn't know firsthand. I thought of asking for a WP:RS to support "head", but did not want to sound antagonistic, and the POV case seemed strong enough. But I really appreciate knowing this, because I have heard the phrase before in Anglican circles (quite some time ago) as being Catholic, and viewing it as I do (anathema), it is good to know that at least that barrier doesn't stand between EO and RC. I do hate the fact of the schism. Evensteven (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect you may have an opinion regarding recent developments with this article (see Talk). Robocon1 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asclepias, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sierra Nevada and Mojave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard Christopher Carrington may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• is contained in the ‘Monthly Notices’ for November 1859 (xx. 13). A visit to the Europe|continent]] in 1856 gave him the opportunity of drawing up a valuable report on the condition of a number of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Exeter Cathedral may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (MS. 3508) probably written for the Church of St Helen at [[Worcester]] in the early 13th century).<ref name="Lloyd, L. J. 1967">Lloyd, L. J. (1967) ''The Library of Exeter Cathedral''. Exeter:
• was walled over during the Reformation, fragments were uncovered during the [[Baedeker Blitz]]<ref>[http://archive.thetablet.co.uk/article/24th-september-1955/10/a-forgotten-shrine ''A Forgotten

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Christopher Carrington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelsea. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Escape to Witch Mountain

added a link pointing to Ultrasonic

Paul, Cornwall

added a link pointing to Saint Paulinus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were Bold, I Reverted... next step is for you to open a Discussion on Talk. WP:BRD. When you reverted my reversion, you started edit warring. I acknowledge that I re-re-reverted. But you were wrong first! :) I will tell mom! btw, I do not think King James is a good source for alternate transcriptions/vocalizations. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry that I did not include an edit summary. I cross referenced the celebration day at the article for St. Paul of the Cross before I made the edit to October 20. Why would the celebration day for him be any different here in the United States, as it is celebrated in the universal Church and is not peculiar to the United States? Could you please send me a reference regarding the date at my user talk page. Thanks. Freddiem (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, I see that 19 October is for the North American Martyrs so it takes precedence here in the US. The USCCB therefore moved the celebration for St. Paul of the Cross to the following day. Freddiem (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was wondering if you could answer a question that has been bugging me for years. Why is it the "Diocese" of Rome and not an archdiocese particularly in that it has suffragan sees subject to it? Freddiem (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for your insights. Freddiem (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. I put the exact quote regarding the slave holders on the Talk Page. Could we please discuss before changing it? I have left it there for some time without any replies. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pittsburgh Wikipedians are invited to a meet up on April 3, 2015. Meetup Pittsburgh

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit to Gregorian calendar contains an incorrect edit summary, and constitutes an incorrect reason for removing the material. I call upon you to defend your deletion at Talk:Gregorian calendar#Which day is the leap day? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Exposure (radiation). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Radiation. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Radiation – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. KDS4444^Talk 17:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Capestrano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Vincent. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exposure (radiation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clement of Alexandria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coptic Christianity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You may want to take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Roman_units_of_measurement#Pes_quadratus_is_volume.2C_not_area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.167.254 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rwflammang. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brother Knight,

I thought someone should tell you that your List of Latin phrases in A Canticle for Liebowitz has been nominated for deletion.

Viva Cristo Rey!

an IP in the Diocese of Arlington 173.73.172.102 (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rwflammang. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rwflammang. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I noticed you had been watching this article for a while. I have made many changes to this article and ask if you could review the article as it is now.
Also, could you check if the claims made at the the "Versio Nova Vulgata", "Schema of Pope Pius X" and "Schema of Pope Paul VI" sections are in the sources given? Veverve (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot check Ref. 36. The Ref. 18 is wrong; it should be the 2000 edition. Rwflammang (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Could you provide a more complete ref. for ref. 18 (i.e. the page(s) and possibly the chapter)? Veverve (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Vulgate manuscripts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Veverve (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Greek Vulgate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek Vulgate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Veverve (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Weeks of Ordinary Time has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the pericope adulterae. Rwflammang (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Stars a planet", that's what astra planeta means in Latin. (Nor is the mock Greek Αστρα Πλανητα any better.) Astra is the plural of astrum, which is a neuter noun which can be interpreted "star". Planeta is the Latin word for planet; it is a masculine singular noun. It is not an adjective meaning "wandering". If it were an adjective, it would need to match astra in number (plural) and gender (neuter).

The Latin term for "wandering stars" is stellae errantes. The word errantae which appears in the article is not a Latin word. The stellae errantes of Latin literature were the seven (not five) Classical planets: the sun. the moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury.

These inaccuracies are obvious to anyone who knows any Latin, and they are all unsourced. Indeed, the whole article is unsourced, and should be replaced by a redirect to Classical planets. Rwflammang (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rwflammang! I was reading/editing the Books of the Vulgate page, and I noticed a section in which a helpful "Early Manuscripts" section had been added by you in 2011. I was wondering, however, what is meant by the numbers included after each of the translator names in the column titles for the Sequence of Books. For example, names are listed as "Jerome IV", or "Theodulf IX" or "Paris XIII". Do you happen to remember what was meant by the different numbers listed after each of the names? Thanks! Emitewiki2 (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I do not think those Roman numerals were added by me. My only source of manuscript information is my copy Stuttgart vulgate, and it does not use such notation. Rwflammang (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]