User talk:Ign christian/Archive 1

Saints
Hello Ign christian. Thanks for adding the Saints into h&o section. As a rule of thumb though, please refrain from adding ALL Saints into H&O section. Try to add only notable one, and try not to place beatified person, unless he/she is notable enough to be indicated. If the Saint has more than one feast days, add only the most notable one. If he/she belongs to a group, try to add only the feast day of the group, unless he/she is notable enough to be included outside the group. By following this rule of thumb, your addition will not very likely to be removed by other users for being minor, although so far I found that most of your additions are okay, although I find also too many beatified person added into h&o.--Rochelimit (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , hello.. Yup, what I did was adding personal feast day even his/her group feast (I guess what you meant is group of martyrs) already listed. I still have feeling that 'notable' is subjective, it's hard enough for me to classify which is notable or not. Seems that all notable or 'big' person already listed.. :-) And I can't assess notability based on saint or blessed title, in my opinion, blessed is almost a saint and his/her feast can be celebrated by all people. I was driven to do all of that because I feel birth/death lists is too many and maybe notable for only a group of people (as I said before that notable seems subjective) and not for me..hehe. So I tried to balance the lists by making H&O list growing, especially Christian feast day. But if what I did previously is undesirable, I won't do that again and I'll find other activities.. :) Cheers, Ign christian (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Notability in h&o is based on how many people in the world actually observed the feast day of that particular Saints/Blessed. If many people observed the Saint' feast day (e.g. Saint Nicholas), then obviously it is ok to add him into h&o. If there are very few people celebrating that Saint (say, Julian version of an American Episcopal Church Saint), then it is best not to add into h&o. Try to balance and judge on your own. For the group feasts, as I said earlier, include only the group feast, unless he/she is notable enough to be included outside the group. This is all to avoid cluttering the h&o with possibly hundreds of saints.--Rochelimit (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , hi.. It's still subjective I think, I can't assess how many people in the world celebrating a particular saint/blessed. The only -definitely- celebrated by many people is solemnity and feast (see: Ranking of liturgical days in the Roman Rite), memorials are optional and subject to a community/group of people. And most of them are memorials, so most of them should be removed from the list. If you consider adding an American Episcopal Saint is a mistake, I confess, but I think only one addition (or maybe 2-3). I had explained all my intention before, if it's not acceptable here so it's ok.. Perhaps it's better fo me to avoid adding anything to the list again, since it's not my list.. :) Cheers, Ign christian (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christianity in Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mar Addai. 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) 10:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh..nice bot.. :-) Thanks for the notification. Fixed now. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brothers of Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hegesippus. 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) 09:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing. Done. Ign christian (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you from Indonesian Wikipedia?
Hi, I'm glad to meet you here :-)Hidayatsrf (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , hehe.. Yup, I know you. I also glad to see you here. :D Ign christian (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently I have been working on some jumping spider stub as a member of WikiProject Spiders here. So, my recent changes patrol on idwiki may be decreasing... :-D.Hidayatsrf (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah..what a great work. Just don't forget to jump back. :) Ign christian (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=680388157 your edit] to Mass (liturgy) 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory." {{cite web|title=Unitatis Redintegratio {{red|&#40;}} Decree on Ecumenism, Section 22|url=http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/

Mass
Hi User:Ign christian, I appreciate your efforts to try to improve Wikipedia. However, I noticed today that you reversed an improvement I made a while back to Mass (liturgy). I would like to point you to WP:PRIMARY, which states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." In your edit, you replaced several secondary sources, such as that published by an academic press--Oxford University Press, with a primary one published by the Vatican. Since I did spend quite some time finding those sources to ameliorate the article, I would appreciate if you started a discussion, rather than perform a wholesale removal of them. I am not opposed to the inclusion of a quote from the Vatican's website as a compromise with you, although I think that we could discuss such an addition here. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , hi.. I'm sorry if what I did disappoint you, but you made a disappointing action in your edit by completely removing sentences which citing official source with your edit and place that in Catholic section. And you are using source which I think questionable, I can't find official source from Vatican regarding that (maybe you can help?). And I was thinking that you tried to insert "Anglican thought" into Catholic section. I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but if I'm right please don't do that. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, User:Ign christian. The Vatican website is a primary source, as I described above. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, as detailed in the above link. That's why I replaced it with secondary sources. I am going to restore what I wrote but can include the Vatican primary source, since it is corroborated by the secondary sources that I added, and since it will please you. I think that's fair. Since you object to it, I'll go ahead and remove the website from Thinking Anglicans, although the original content wasn't published there, but in the The Times, which is a non-partisan secondary reliable source. I am being gracious by removing it. By the way, I am not an Anglican, but a Roman Catholic. If you still do not like my revision, rather than reverting, please discuss any proposed changes here, in accordance WP:BRD and WP:3RR. In addition, you may wish to read this arbitration decision, which discusses the usage of secondary sources over official Vatican sources--your revert actually restored the wording of an editor who is now site banned from Wikipedia per that decision. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , hi again.. Thanks for your clarification and information. Please consider that I wasn't intend to violate rules, I always try to obey the authorities. Ok I'll discuss it here. I think the words "the Catholic Church distinguishes between its own Mass and theirs on the basis of the orders of their clergy, and as a result, does not ordinarily permit intercommunion between members of these Churches." is confusing and doesn't clearly reflect the theology and teaching of RC based on following matters:
 * The RC doesn't distinguish her sacraments with others according to Holy orders, but spesifically about the validity of apostolic succession.
 * We don't use the word "ordinarily", but that's not possible except certain conditions exist as described in Can. 844.
 * This section of the article should gives a proper explanation regarding above matters. Hope that you mind adjusting the words according to those sources, since my English is not good enough. :) Anyway, I agree you're using reliable sources except for the "Thinking Anglicans". Best regards, Ign christian (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Ign Christian, I appreciate your reply. I understand that you're not here to violate rules and I hope this discussion has been helpful to you. I wanted to address both of the issues that you speak of. The source you preferred, Unitatis Redintegratio, from the Vatican's website specifically states "Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory" (italics added). That being said, the issue of valid Holy Orders is inextricably linked to the issue of apostolic succession. Going into this discussion in the Mass (liturgy) article, however, is not necessary since that is not the primary topic of the article. Furthermore, we do use the word ordinarily. The Guidelines For The Reception Of Communion published by the USCCB state "Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 §4)." The usage of the word in English simply means that it is not the norm for Christians of other denominations to receive the Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church, except in certain circumstances detailed by canon 844. As such, the current wording of the article seems quite appropriate. I hope this helps and look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks, AnupamTalk 11:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , hello.. Thanks for replying, your explanation clearly reflects the matters. :) In Indonesian the usage of that kind of word could implicitly says that "we can easily break the ordinary thing", so we prefer to use a negative such as "it's not possible unless...". But I won't deny it again since the USCCB explicitly uses the word "ordinarily". And I think the "absence of the sacrament of Orders" is a good point that should be emphasized, I'm wondering about adding such a thing. How about simply add a single word validity: "the Catholic Church distinguishes between its own Mass and theirs on the basis of validity of the orders of their clergy, and as a result, does not ordinarily permit intercommunion between members of these Churches" ? Or..you might have better word(s) ? Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding. It seems most of the issues here amount to language use and I assure you that as a native English speaker, I have worded the sentences appropriately. I wouldn't object with your suggestion but we should present it as the position of the Catholic Church. As such, what I can add to the article is the phrase "on the basis of what it views as the validity of the orders". If you'd like that to be added in, we can do so. If not, I'm fine with leaving the article as is. Let me know! With regards, AnupamTalk 19:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , hi..thanks for replying again. Yes, as you can see I am critical with the use of language, because I have witnessed many believers have a wrong understanding because of language errors. I think "on the basis of what it views as the validity of the orders" is a good wording. Please do so..I leave it to you as a native English speaker. :) Ign christian (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Ign christian, thanks, I'll add that soon. Cheers, AnupamTalk 04:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

, I have noticed that you have followed Anupam's edits to three different articles: Biblical apocrypha, Mass (liturgy) and Catholic Church and ecumenism. This is considered Wikistalking and is prohibited. You may have good intentions but this is what it appears to be since you haven't touched any of these articles before. Please be careful, A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 14:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , you're right. I confess I did that because I had a prejudice that Anupam had tried to insert, which I was thought before, an Anglicanism doctrine into Catholic related articles. My apologies..I was dealing with many opinionated edits in my local wiki. :( I think Anupam has also realized what I did, but I didn't mean to harm Anupam. As you can see I never revert whole edits, some of my edits were a partial reverting by replacement with some sentence from previous version, and one of them was just expanding the edit. I just intended to make sure that the edits were proper. Did I look like attacking? Please advice.. By the way both of us now have a healthy discussion :) Ign christian (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm surprised you're zealously checking all my contributions one by one. :-) Ign christian (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , while I appreciate your honesty, you can redeem yourself by undoing your edit at Biblical apocrypha, which was not an improvement. In the future, don't follow him to other articles and revert his edits, because that violates WP:HOUND and in the future, it could be reported to an administrator. Anupam has been here for close to 10 years and knows to edit from a neutral point of view and that's why he told you that secondary academic sources are preferred in Wikipedia's articles. Furthermore, Anupam's userpage states that he is a Catholic, while he commented elsewhere that he is part of the Knights of Columbus so your thought about him editing from an Anglican POV is incorrect, especially since he was quoting the former Holy Father. A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 16:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry I didn't read the detailed information as you informed in Anupam's user page. I only noticed that he is from UMC and some of his edits containing Methodist/Anglican thing along with their internal sources. As I mentioned before I was dealing with opinionated edits in my local wiki with similar pattern; usually I don't give much attention on one's user page, since it might be fake, and I'm used to assess from one's edits. I'll remember your warning, particularly after realizing his credibility as you mentioned. However, about the "Biblical apocrypha" I had a good reason why I reverted the sentence. "Most of the books of the Apocrypha are called deuterocanonical" has a different meaning with "fully canonical most of these books called Apocrypha"; I think the first phrase definitely means the books are "Apocrypha" (which is called deuterocanonical), the second means that the books are considered "fully canonical" (but others call those apocrypha). From what I have read, Catholic Church never defined the books as "Apocrypha". I want to hear first what Anupam say about this before I undo my edit. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that User:Ign christian undid my edit at the Biblical apocrypha article until now and I appreciate the notice, User:Renzoy16. The reason why I chose my wording is because many Orthodox Churches regard all of the books in the Protestant Apocyrpha to be canonical, whereas the Roman Catholic Church regards most of the books of the Protestant Apocrypha to be canonical--it does not regard 3 Esdras, 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh to be a part of the canon. Therefore, the sentence as it stands now is actually incorrect. Perhaps if we added the word "Protestant" in front of the word "Apocrypha" so the sentence reads "Most of the books of the Protestant Apocrypha are called deuterocanonical by Catholics per the Council of Trent and all of them are called anagignoskomena by the Orthodox per the Synod of Jerusalem." I look forward to hearing your comments. Thank you, AnupamTalk 19:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks again for make me realized that the previous sentence (which I recalled) also incorrect. My apologies I didn't discuss it first with you since now I know you're an expert on these. I think your current wording ("Most of the books of the Protestant Apocrypha are called deuterocanonical by Catholics per the Council of Trent and all of them are called anagignoskomena by the Orthodox per the Synod of Jerusalem.") is partially correct, since it's not yet accomodate the Ethiopian/Tewahedo Orthodox and Syriacs (please see: Ethiopian Orthodoxy, Books of the Bible, Differences from other Christian Bibles). So there are few rooms left for the Eastern Orthodox to call some books "apocrypha". Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Ign christian, that sentence is not referring to Orthodox Churches that are not a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, that is, the Churches under the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672), which the sentence refers to, was an Eastern Orthodox synod, not inclusive of other bodies identifying as "Orthodox" and therefore, discussion of other Orthodox Churches in a sentence about the Synod of Jerusalem is not relevant, since that synod has no bearing on their doctrine. Therefore, my version of the sentence could simply be amended by adding the word "Eastern" before the word "Orthodox" reading: "Most of the books of the Protestant Apocrypha are called deuterocanonical by Catholics per the Council of Trent and all of them are called anagignoskomena by the Eastern Orthodox per the Synod of Jerusalem." Could you please made that addition and restore the sentence? If not, I can do so. Thanks, AnupamTalk 04:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I had recovered the sentence per your suggestion. But let me try to give better explanation what I meant before. Enoch, Jubilees, 1-3 Meqabyan, Paralipomena of Baruch (recognized by the Ethiopean), plus Letter of Baruch, 2 Baruch, Psalms 152–155 (recognized by the Syriac) are considered Apocrypha by the others (including Eastern Orthodox); so not all of them (the Biblical apocrypha) are called anaignoskomena by the Eastern. What do you think? Do I miss something? Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Ign christian, thank you for correcting the sentence based on our our discussion. As far as the sentence reads, it is correct. The subject of the sentence is the Protestant Apocrypha and every single one of those books is part of the Eastern Orthodox anaignoskomena, as listed here. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church are considered Oriental Orthodox Churches rather than Eastern Orthodox (i.e. they are Non-Chalcedonian Churches), and their canon is different, thus including those other books. I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 15:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing me to the KJV. I understand now, the books recognized by the Ethiopian and the Syriac are not included in the Protestant's list. So that's why the article doesn't talk about those books. Many thanks for your patience :) With love, Ign christian (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Re:A cheeseburger for you!
Dear User:Ign christian, thank you for the cheeseburger! It's one of my favorite foods! I will pray for God's blessing upon you later today when I go to Mass. I'm glad we were able to solve the outstanding issues together. Have a great day! With regards, AnupamTalk 15:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm surprised that my guess was right..hehe. Many thanks for your will to pray for me; it means a lot to me, rather than barnstars. I'm also glad to know you, and I'll ask a Mass intention for you too. With love, Ign christian (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brothers of Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary. 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) 11:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deuterocanonical books, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benedictus. 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) 09:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Veneration of the dead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Devotion. 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) 10:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * I must have offended you, my apologies. That wasn't my intention. I won't be disturbing you again. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)