User talk:JBogdan

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! &mdash;User:ACupOfCoffee @
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Miracles at Lourdes
Hi Bogdan. Would you let the title change go through? My reasoning is to use a common name in line with the guidelines in simple English. There would be no problem talking about Bernadette's incorruptibility under this title. --WikiCats 08:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good. Could you give it the ok on the Talk:Miracles_connected_with_Lourdes page so the admin. can see it? --WikiCats 11:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked me about the Barbara Shack changes on Miracles at Lourdes. I know there is a great deal of controversy about the idea of including any mention of religion or what religions believe, on Wikipedia at all, and the Saints' Project (which I am not a member of) has come under heavy censure merely for existing. Wikipedia is heavily populated by so-called skeptics, who regard articles like Our Lady of Fatima as "sad and pathetic". I frankly don't even see why the Miracles At Lourdes article exists except that Ms. Shack created it after being told to keep her speculations off the Bernadette article. Talk to me more about this. Let's see what we can work out. --Bluejay Young 16:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You asked me about moving the account of the Lourdes visions to a page especially for same, then putting Bernadette's incorruptibility back on her page where it belongs. It sounds fine to me especially since it would establish some consistency regarding the pages about Marian visions (e.g., there is a Our Lady of Fatima page separate from the pages about Lucia Santos and Jacinta and Francisco Marto). The page about the visions should be titled Our Lady of Lourdes and it should be start out "Our Lady of Lourdes is the name attributed by Roman Catholics and others to the young woman who they believe appeared to Bernadette Soubirous on Feb. 11 ... and who was subsequently deemed by an investigative commission to be the Virgin Mary" and on from there. (I say it that way because, unlike at Fatima, Bernadette never identified her "little maiden" as Mary until she heard the words "I am the immaculate conception", asked Fr. Peyramale what that meant, and subsequently decided her lady must be Mary). --Bluejay Young 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You asked who we should get in touch with to change the page to "Our Lady of Lourdes". Well, I think that it might be a good idea to create a new page and have a move, you know, a redirect. If that's the proper policy. --Bluejay Young 06:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to be patient, but enough is enough. Mediation requested. --Bluejay Young 00:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

Thanks! --evrik 16:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism and Capitalism
No problem. If Catholic church has an official position on Socialism and Communism you can add it there too for balance. -- Vision Thing -- 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

re:Biblical Inerrancy and Catholicism
Please don't take this the wrong way, but using a long quote from a primary source is not a proper substitute for actually writing encyclopedic content. This is wikipedia, not wikisource or wikibook. It takes a bit more work than a copy and paste job to contribute productively to wikipedia. I responded in more detail on Talk:Biblical inerrancy.--Andrew c 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism
First: Make sure you don't get blocked for the 3RR. Second - see if Lulu makes three reverts in 24 hours. Don't try and make her do it, just see if she does, then warn her using. If she does it again, go to WP:AIV and report her. An RFMediation is a bit much right now, Ideally I'd go through an RFC First, it makes you look better. Happy editing! HawkerTyphoon 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism and Catholicism
I responded to your comments on my talk page. LotLE × talk 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Prayers to saints
I noticed your question on Evrik's talk page. Yes, there was that argument a few months ago. The fly in the ointment -- and here I think Ian had a valid point -- is that a prayer is really NPOV only as a literary composition that's illustrative of some salient point about the saint. For example, it might illustrate the way in which a saint is venerated in one of the churches, or a prayer by the saint might be an interesting example of his writing or personal spirituality. For that reason, the discussion settled on keeping the prayers, but requiring that they carry an attribution. In other words, for the prayer to fill an NPOV role, the reader needs to know its context. If you use Template:Infobox Saint (now the preferred method for inserting the infobox, I think) the prayer will not display unless the attribution field for it is filled in.

So by all means restore the prayer -- just tell us where it comes from. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what TCC said .... the caveat being that I.S. was actively on a crusade to make the saint pages more secular, despite the consensus of the WikiProject. My advice, add the prayers, have an attribution, use the new infobox. --evrik 19:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I also noticed your question to Evrik, as his talk page went on my watchlist when he went up for election. Like Evrik, I mostly agree with TCC, although I vere away a little in the opposite direction. I am not at all against prayers to saints being covered in their articles. (And of course I am not at all against saints, any more than I am against mathematicians or road-builders.) But the encyclopedic significance does need to be made clear. That’s usually not going to be very difficult I guess (if it’s a ‘good’ prayer), but it will usually need more than a simple citation. So I would say: go the whole hog and include it, and contextualize it, in the article itself. If it was written by the saint, then that’s going to be totally uncontroversial. If it’s written in veneration of the saint then ask the questions who, when and why? An illuminating prayer (in the secular encyclopedic sense, and as far as I could guess, in the spiritual sense, too) to Giuseppe Cafasso is likely to be different from one to Carlo Borromeo and different again from one to Julian of Norwich. A social worker, an administrator and a mystic: if saints were all the same, you wouldn’t need them. A pertinent prayer will bring out their particular characteristics. Then there is absolutely no problem in the fact that prayers, by their nature, are supposed to be POV. (Would an NPOV prayer be any good as a prayer?) But bear in mind that a not-very-obviously-pertinent-or-illuminating prayer, probably a copy-vio grabbed from the first church site that Google comes up with, and dumped into an info box, is going to look like propoganda. Non-pious readers are going to react against the whole article. As an atheist, of course, I will not be at all displeased if by doing that you turn people away from Christianity. But as a Wikipedian I tend to feel that the saints (perhaps excluding C. Borromeo…) deserve a lot better. —Ian Spackman 21:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Would an NPOV prayer be any good as a prayer? There's always the Possibly Proper Death Prayer from Roger Zelazny's Creatures of Light and Darkness. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And more on-topic, let me say that I agree almost completely with Ian here. Mere attribution is a minimal requirement. For it to be both inoffensive and meaningful to a readership at large, the more information about it the better. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was sure in the instant that I was making the claim that an NPOV prayer was a contradiction in terms that almost certainly it wasn’t. So thanks, even if the particular example didn’t quite cut my mustard. —Ian Spackman 22:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Our Lady of Lourdes
You asked me about my use of the word "report" for Bernadette's statements. Most of what she is quoted as having said was originally told to her family, some to Fr. Peyramale. The story of the apparitions in her own words that now appears on that page is probably largely taken from the account she gave the Commission, repeatedly. "Stated" might be a better word. Yeah, I can see why you said "admitted" due to the situation with Marie and Jeanne. Never tell your little sister anything you don't want all over town in 15 minutes or less. A lesson learned by Lucia Santos as well! Thank you! --Bluejay Young 07:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Style tip
Hi. Happy (belated) new year! I have a small style note. Per WP:MoS, one should not use uppercase in section headings except for proper names and first letter. So,

==The Fate of the Original Painting==

should be

==The fate of the original painting==

This is a small thing, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(And PD Article I think is more appropriate at the bottom. It would be nice if that no-copyright symbol were made smaller, see for example math-stub for the style.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Marian Star and Pentagram

 * I think the kind of comment you're suggesting is more appropriate to the Five-pointed star article. The Marian Star article incorrectly mentioned pentagrams, when I believe five-pointed stars were intended. I've fixed the Marian Star article. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marian star
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Marian star, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Major verifiability problems, as discussed on the talk page. The material that is verifiable (such as the Chicago flag) is off-topic here and better covered already on Star (heraldry).

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD article
Template:PD article has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Moralism (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Moralism (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pam D  23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 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 Articles for deletion/The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Slashme (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)