User talk:JHCC/archive

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I find useful


 * Policy Library
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 19:26, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, Pope Pius IX, Edgardo Mortara

 * "In 1858...Edgardo Mortara was taken from his parents...President Ulysses S. Grant of the USA [asked Pius] to return the child to his parents."


 * Please clarify: Grant was president from 1869 through 1877. JHCC 14:21, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that James Buchanan refused to protest to the Pope; I seem to recall that David Kertzer's book said so. Buchanan was incessantly bombarded with letters from foreign heads of state (and many other persons, both foreign and domestic) incessantly protesting against the injustice of slavery then practiced in the United States, and he was in no mood to protest to foreign heads of state about injustices in their countries. Perhaps Grant did protest, 11 years after Edgardo Mortara's abduction. Michael Hardy 16:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Garzo
I'm glad you liked the new material for antimension. I'm wondering about the good many articles that mention Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox practice, but do not say anything about Oriental Orthodoxy. However, I don't know whether I'm countering systemic bias, or filling articles with minority info.

It's good to hear from you.
 * Gareth Hughes 17:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bowline
Hey. I'm not really sure how to make the lightning method of the bowline less confusing. It's kind of a complicated knot to show. Any ideas on how to make it less confusing? Also, I'm not too great at graphics either :) - sik0fewl 23:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for your earlier comments. Please take a look at the Talk:Sealand page and you will observe that I am being followed around by someone who already upset others under another name. I don't want anything to do with this silly saga. If on the other hand you have a serious and specific question I will answer it for you if I can and you can do whatever you want to do with it. Such is one of the drawbacks of this system which otherwise is very good. MPLX/MH 03:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

White House and west wing
Hi. Because you made an entry a few months ago on Talk:White House, I thought I should let you know I'm considering changing the line you edited on the White House page then. You can find details on the talk page. --Officiallyover 06:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki
Would you be interested in coming over and helping with OrthodoxWiki? If so, please come take a look and dive in. --A.S. Damick 22:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to get here at last (my ignorance). Thanks for your help! Left a reply for you earlier on on my own Talk Page. --Portress 10:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Panagia
At least early voting is for keep. Plainly more could be written -- bishops haven't always worn them, so there could at least be something about their history. I have no idea where one might find resources outside a seminary library though, and even then probably not in English. I am, sadly, very far from any of the Orthodox seminary. Csernica 15:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...and, alas, even the seminary library to which I have access is sadly lacking in a number of points (which, eerily enough, are things in which I am interested). I added my keep vote, though. Not sure what else might be done. (Perhaps this article could be exported over to OrthodoxWiki at some point.) I did add a bit to it today, including a photo of a panagia in my own collection. --&mdash;Preost talk  contribs  13:15, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Deacon
You caught my gaffe on Deacon! As I said on the talk page, I was the one who made the mistake; when I divided the sections and moved things around, I forgot to remove that clause. I'm sorry! Anyhow, for catching my mistake, I hereby award you a partial indulgence. Good work!.

Pax tecum! -- Essjay ·  talk 04:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Eucharist
Thanks for your note! I'm sure I'm going to get a nastygram from Lima, because I changed his text, but I felt it was confusing as it was. (They are, after all, Aristotle's terms, and quite a few philosophy students don't understand them, much less the Average Joe; most Catholics don't understand them!)

I'm putting Transubstantiation on my To-Do list; I have to go to an appointment at the moment or I'd do it straight away. The text I added was an expansion of what I'd written in Perpetual adoration. I've added a redirect from Eucharistic Adoration to Perpetual adoration because I think the two are similar enough not to need separate articles; while not all Eucharistic adoration is Perpetual adoration, it's close enough.

I'm glad to see someone else appreciated the change to Eucharist; sometimes I wonder. Thanks again! -- Essjay ·  Talk 18:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, all perpetual adoration is Eucharistic adoration. Perpetual adoration simply means that the church is open 24/7 for Eucharistic adoration; it's difficult to do because the Eucharist must never be left exposed without at least one person in constant attendence. With today's busy schedules, most people aren't available to go adore the Eucharist at 4:00 a.m. I'm going to make the move, and if anyone disagrees, they can move it back. -- Essjay ·  Talk 18:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hummm...Well, since an actual perpetual motion machine would be a miracle, and miracles are performed by Jesus, and the Eucharist is Jesus, I guess you could argue that perpetual motion would be Eucharistic motion. And now, I'm going to my meeting! -- Essjay ·  Talk 18:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hey JHCC, I saw your edit to Basilica of the Sacré Cœur; Catholics believe that the consecrated host becomes both the Body and Blood, and so does the consecrated wine. This is confusing, because the Eucharistic Minister says "The Body of Christ" when he distributes the host, and "The Blood of Christ" when distributing the chalice. However, the offical stance is that because Christ is risen, his Body and Blood are reunited, therefore, each host is both the Body & Blood, and each sip of consecrated wine is both the Body & Blood. I'm going to make the change back, but I wanted to make sure I'd let you know first so you'd know why. -- Essjay ·  Talk 20:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

JHCC: I changed the link because it was redlinked under the other spelling; if you got it to work, more power to you! -- Essjay ·  Talk 21:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's working; if you check the history (look at the edit for 22:28, Jun 16, 2005) you'll see where it was redlinked. Thanks for fixing the problem and avoiding the redirect. Good work! -- Essjay ·  Talk 21:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

JHCC: The same thing happens in the Latin Rite. It's called the "Rite of Fraction and Commingling" (what a name!). The Catechism (Section 1390) relates that either species is the "fullness of the sacrament." Even better, the all knowing Council of Trent decreed that all of Christ, his Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity are fully present in each species: For we do not receive in the Sacred Host one part of Christ and in the Chalice the other, as though our reception of the totality depended upon our partaking of both forms; on the contrary, under the appearance of bread alone, as well as under the appearance of wine alone, we receive Christ whole and entire (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. iii). It is a strange doctrine, and confusing since they hand out the elements as though it is separate, however, the standing doctrine is that the risen Christ cannot be separated. Hope this helps! -- Essjay ·  Talk 21:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

JHCC: I think you did an excellent job with Eucharist. I left my comments about worship on the talk page; like I said there, it is an acceptable term, but very much open to misunderstanding. (Plus, it just sounds POV; if one doesn't know that the Catechism says "worship" then it looks like something put in by an anti-Catholic crusader.) I think your compromise of "adore" is a good choice. -- Essjay ·  Talk 06:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop you a note commending your quick expansion to the gluten controversy bit. It's much more comprehensive than it was. -- Norvy (talk) 14:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox stub
I reverted two articles to the "Christianity stub" (Hypostatic union & Early Christianity), as they are for all Christians, not only Orthodox. With respect, please be careful that you don't "overdo it" with the new stub. Thanks. KHM03 6 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
 * Enthusiasm is good! And, as a Methodist, I have a healthy respect for Orthodox Christianity (as did John Wesley), so I am all for anything Orthodox!  It's a nice looking stub, too, by the way.  KHM03 6 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the book tip! KHM03 6 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about Template:orthodoxy-stub. One thing about your note, though&mdash;watching categories doesn't alert you to new articles that get included in the category. I rather wish it did, though. &mdash;&mdash;Preost talk  contribs  July 6, 2005 16:18 (UTC)


 * Very nice! I found myself wishing for one the other day, but too lazy to make it myself. Thanks! Csernica 6 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

spelling?
I 've just read the wikis about Epanokamelavkion and Kamilavka, and I m wondering if the spelling is correct. In greek it is καλυμμαύχιον, from the word κάλυμμα which means cover or covering.MATIA

In greek επανωκαλυμμαύχιον or (modern greek) επανωκαλύμμαυχο. I m just checking a lexicon and it also has the επανωκαμήλαυκο < επανω + καμηλλαύκιον spelling. I haven't heard it before, it seems that epanokalemavkion or epanokalemavki are used more often.MATIA

Semicolon use
No, but I'm afraid this is a stylistic tic many Wiki editors have that tends to get very much over-used, and used in inappropriate places. I'm beginning to react violently to it, especially when, as in (I'm sorry to say) this particular case when two perfectly good sentences were joined by this method for no discernable reason. There's simply no call for it most of the time I see it here. Csernica 21:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll concede it's perhaps not grammatically incorrect, but just because we can doesn't always mean we should. The semicolon denotes less of a pause than a full stop, and this very often strikes the ear badly.  Try reading both versions out loud.  IMO the full stop yields a more satisfying cadence. Csernica 01:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Clerical clothing additions
JHCC: No problem about Clerical clothing; I didn't pay attention to the header and flubbed. I'm going to check the vestment article to make sure the additions wouldn't go better there. I'll put it back on my to do list to add non-liturgical vestments. Thanks for catching that! -- Essjay ·  Talk 14:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Infant Communion
I saw your move; that's fine with me. Is it okay for me to go ahead and delete the subpage now, or do we have to do some kind of page history merge? -- Essjay ·  Talk 18:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm deleteing. -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks


Good work. You are now in the company of User:Essjay and User:KHM03 for your assistance in fixing that up. :) --User:Jenmoa 04:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

John Anthony McGuckin
Hi. Do you think JAM would be better stubbed as both UK & US, or put back up to "People stubs"? I'm happy to go along with whatever you think is best. Kjlewis 16:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Communion
I don't know how to otherwise respond since I do not have an account. So please forgive me if I do something wrong.

The term "cracked" is similar to a door open only partially. "Cracked communion" is somewhat of a middle ground between "closed communion" (i.e., members only can participate) or totally "open communion" (i.e., all professing Christians can participate regardless of church affiliation). It means that those holding similar Christian views can participate, but not all Christians can participate. (For example, some Baptist churches will let other Baptists from other groups participate, but would exclude Assemblies of God members.) My background is Baptist and this term has been used in our circles, though the churches I attend (and attend now) practice open communion.

Thank you for good idea: "wrath of God" => "death by sin" etc et seq.
In my edit summary "comments," I acknowledge all the editors of recent for work, but overlooked you. I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you as well, and I changed the "Hell Fire and Brimstone" language of the "wrath of God" language to something more uncontroversial. Thx again for the team effort in the Christianity article.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have placed the page you created Wikipedia talk pages discussing the categorization of religious beliefs as mythology (disambiguation) at User talk:JHCC/Wikipedia talk pages discussing the categorization of religious beliefs as mythology (disambiguation). DJ Clayworth 18:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Oopsie
How did I do that? Thanks for fixing it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I left a note for you, on my talk. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Christian mythology
Point taken. I've responded accordingly there. Thanks for all your work in sorting this out! --G Rutter 17:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to fiddle with your comment on the talk page, copyedits, formatting, etc. with your permission. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the question. I've answered on my talk page. I'm sorry about how windy and wordy I've been - it happens when I get tired.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, you said "do necessarily" but meant "do not necessarily". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Divine grace
JHCC...I have been tinkering with the "Further reading" section on this article, trying to add a few resources from the Orthodox, the Catholic, and the Protestant traditions; it had featured only a few Protestant works. When you have time, it would be great if you could look at that and edit the Orthodox resources as you see fit...you might know of more good resources on the Orthodox view of grace than I do. No rush...and thanks. KHM03 12:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, you may want to look at Binitarianism, which makes some interesting comparisons between this heresy and Eastern Orthodoxy. KHM03 18:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Rfc
Requests for comment/Essjay KHM03 12:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the book tip...hope your holiday goes smoothly...don't be a stranger! KHM03 18:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

hello again
I'm looking for someone who can help me with parts of Theotokos. I've included some stuff (mostly dates), that I have added in the greek wikipedia but I need some help with my english. Can you help? +MATIA ☎ 22:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't let me postpone your wikiholiday, that article can wait.

I've added some names and dates from St Nectarios at Theotokos, the rest (greek) text is in html comments and can be seen if you hit the edit of that section. I'm stuck with some names and words that I know or I understand in greek but I don't know the english equivalents. +MATIA ☎ 22:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianity, tolerance, and equality
This is an article that was started (not by me!) in relation to Criticism of Christianity. When you have an opportunity, please take a look at it and give your take on the article talk page or make edits. I had redirected it to the "Criticism" page, but the original author didn't seem to care for that option. Any help would be great...thanks...KHM03 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Will keep an eye out for my own spelling errors (I'm a two fingered typist, so it happens often)!  KHM03 16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Mythology...
I don't mean to offend anyone. It's just that your PC wording suggestion can't really be applied to this situation, as the article is on mythology, and, if the word is POV, it still can't be avoided. We are not even discussing that issue, but whether a Biblical example that is accepted by all rational Christians as a myth (EVEN by the informal definition of that word) should be used in a particular section of the article about eschatological myths. Codex is stubbornly insisting that the article should not include this example, yet has no problem with other religions' myths being called such. The only difference is that not only are Christians in the majority here, so they have the potential to make it so things don't represent a worldwide perspective in their favour, but their religion has historically perverted the word to mean such a thing as a falsity. elvenscout742 20:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. You cite a 1961 edition of the OED that only gives the informal definition, but this would be universally acknowledged as incorrect if it were around today - I have in front of me a copy of the more recent Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Tenth Edition) that says
 * 1 a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. 2 a widely held but false belief. > a fictitious person or thing. > an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing.
 * The clear implication here (and in most other dictionaries I have seen) is that "myth" primarily refers to (or at least should) "a traditional story...", rather than a mere falsehood. The disputed section itself says that [s]ome [predominantly and historically Christians] use the words myth and mythology to portray the stories of one or more religions as false, or dubious at best. One must agree that a religion with a history like Christianity, with people like Olaf II murdering those who don't convert, whose scriptures explicitly state that those who do not follow Christianity will be cast "into everlasting fire", are a lot more likely to ridicule and attempt to discredit the beliefs of others. This is why I think that that definition of the word is popular among Christians. But the disputed section itself then points out that this belief is incorrect: "myth" does not always imply that a story is either false or true, and so any future uses of the word in the article should not be taken to mean such. I simply think that Codex is demanding that we compromise the academic integrity of the article so as not to offend narrow-minded, brittle people who are offended by a neutral presentation of the facts. Have you even read the "compromise" you advocate? It openly and blatantly apologises for using the word to denote something in the Bible (in an encyclopedia article!), and uses wishy-washy language like that it is "seen by some" as being an example of such a myth (I'm not even going to bother to type "eschatological" anymore)! elvenscout742 01:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole dispute is spurious. The article clearly defines "myth" upfront. It says that it does not always imply truth or falsity. It describes Revelation, which is a myth in the sense discussed, as a myth. It doesn't say Revelation is not true -- how could it? Revelation is a prophecy, not a piece of history.

The point is, I think, that NPOV does not mean "be sensitive to the views of every editor who has a problem" but it does mean "present all views on a subject". You haven't presented any view but your own, which as original research is not allowable, and Codex's. If you wanted to include sourced material from scholars who say Revelation is not a myth, or that mythology is the study of untruths or not, your approach would be a lot more tolerable. As it is, you are simply trying to push a POV (that Revelation is true or at least cannot be said to be false), whose opposite is not even stated (it would be POV to state it, and you would truly have a case if the article did state it). James James 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Spelling fix


For correcting typos in my very speedily typed manifesto, I hereby award you this Plenary Indulgence, forgiving all your Wikisins. Peace be with you! -- Essjay · Talk 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ordination congratulations
Thank you! :) &mdash;Preost  talk  contribs  21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

204.228.117.202
Hi, JHCC; thanks for the notification. Since 204.228.117.202 hasn't engaged in vandalism for weeks, I don't believe an immediate block is called for. Instead, I've warned him again, but his contributions currently show no activity. Vandalism warnings on his talk page should become less lenient if he returns. Thanks again! Sango 123   (talk)  20:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Myth vs. mythology
After some thought I now support your idea of having a separate myth article if it means we'll be left alone with the academic definition of the word on the mythology article :) - Haukur 17:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts came at a timely point. i was just thinking whether i had time to wade through all the changes. I think you make a lot of excellent points and in this case a POV fork might actually be preferable to an article that falls between the stools. I will comment soon but do not have time to make a thoughtful contribution just yet. David D. (Talk) 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciated your note on my talk page; I don't know how much help I am being but I am certainly trying. There seems to be a good bit of residual irritability from previous disagreements, which hopefully we can work past. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Born again
Please take a look at the discussion going on here when you have a chance. I'm trying to work with a new editor who doesn't seem like he wants to work with me, regarding a particular link. Any help is welcome...feel free to let me know if I've acted inappropriately. Thanks...KHM03 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Eucharist and Lutherans
Hi. Thanks for writing on my talk page. You know, I was actually unaware that I had removed the Wittenberg Concord line from the information. I did not intend to do so. I'll check back and try to re-insert it. Thanks! Nrgdocadams 00:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Anamnesis
The section on religious usage still had no source (the reference you gave showed the existence of the quoted passage in the liturgy, but didn't use the word "anamnesis" anywhere). If you want this section to be included, could you find some verification this is a genuine usage of the word? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great, thanks. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Spirituality
Thought you'd be interested in this. KHM03 02:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian Wiki
Hi,

Just wanted to let you know about a christianity wiki that was recently started and has now moved to it's own server. Because of your interest, I think you would be a valuable member of our team and I'd love to have your contributions.

We are just about ready to go live!

As soon as we finalize the CPOV policy, I think we're ready to "go public" with this project and invite the world! We can submit to DMOZ and Google and start getting some real active hits on that site.

Please take a look and see if this project is something you would like to get behind. the URL is: ChristWiki

-- nsandwich 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian Wiki
Hi,

Just wanted to let you know about a christianity wiki that was recently started and has now moved to it's own server. Because of your interest, I think you would be a valuable member of our team and I'd love to have your contributions.

We are just about ready to go live!

As soon as we finalize the CPOV policy, I think we're ready to "go public" with this project and invite the world! We can submit to DMOZ and Google and start getting some real active hits on that site.

Please take a look and see if this project is something you would like to get behind. the URL is: ChristWiki

-- nsandwich 04:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)