User talk:Prattlement

 Hi Prattlement, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

 Good luck, and have fun.

Roman Catholic Church
I reverted your edit because it seemed too wordy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:James Wm. Chichetto
Not sure what the plan for this is. Do you really want this to be a template? It looks more suitable for an article. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Elizabethan persecution
A tag has been placed on Elizabethan persecution requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article was full of non-neutral POV, so I redirected it to the existing article at Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-catholicism
Please learn to use the talk page when your edits do not have agreement --Snowded (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian Theology - history section
Hi, Prattlement,

I see you've been doing some valuable work on Christian Theology, on the history section. There's a proposal on the talk page for that article for deletion of that section in favour of History of Christian theology; thought you might like to know about that before doing any more work on the section.

Best wishes,

--mahigton (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Pope Gregory I
Not sure why you believe that the Pope is not Catholic. There was no edit summary. So I reverted it. If you had a reason, perhaps you could give it. Student7 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism in England and Wales
Please stop reverting without discussion on Roman Catholicism in England and Wales. If you do it again you will have breached the 3 revert rule and may be blocked. Please join the discussion on the talk page to resolve the conflict.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your most recent edit is better, though I still fail to understand why you won't discuss your changes.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I won't bother you any more! Sincerely, Prattlement
 * That was never the worry! I just think it would have been more constructive if you had communicated with us, rather than just reverting over and over again. I encourage you to do that in the future, it makes editing around here much more pleasant for all involved.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, Cuchullain. That makes sense. Prattlement

Catholicism link
Can you temporarily refrain from adding internal wiki links to the 'See also' section of Catholicism? It is turning into an internal Link Farm; which we want to avoid. If you would like, please join the discussion on the articles talk page to resolve this issue.  Barkeep   Chat 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits of the University of Notre Dame
It is my interpretation of WP:INITIAL that initialed suffixes belong only in the person's main article. I don't understand how these suffixes are distinctions for the sake of clarification. --Pgp688 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"minor edits"
Prattlement,

I have noted that all, or nearly all, of your edits are marked as "minor". I encourage you to avoid that, unless your edit merely makes a cosmetic change (spelling, grammar, formatting, etc) and does not affect the content of the page in any substantial way.

I know this request may sound nitpicky, but there actually is a reason for it. Editors have the option to not have minor edits appear on their watchlists, for space constraints. By marking nonminor edits as minor, those editors will not be informed of significant edits you have made, and thus may wish to follow up upon.

Thanks for listening. Here is the page describing minor edits, what they are and their advantages (and disadvantages). If you have any questions, let me know.

Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
It is not true that Eastern Catholics NEVER refer to themselves as Roman Catholics. Some are proud to call themselves Roman Catholics, and "Roman Catholic" even appears in the compound name of some Eastern Catholic parish churches, e.g. St. Anthony Maronite Roman Catholic Church, Our Lady of Lebanon Maronite Roman Catholic Church, St. Mary Byzantine Roman Catholic Church.

Even those Eastern Catholics who prefer not to call themselves "Roman" Catholics are part of the Roman Catholic Church. Does this need demonstration? You surely do not hold that they belong to some church other than the "one true Church of Jesus Christ, which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church" - to quote Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi, the encyclical that he later said "teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing" (Humani generis).

Even if you personally prefer to use "Roman Catholic" in the sense of "Latin Catholic", and to blame the Popes and the Holy See for mistakenly (in your view) using "Roman Catholic" to refer instead to the whole Church and never to Latin Rite Catholics alone, do you think it right to force your personal preference on Wikipedia articles in which the long-established usage is different from your preference and coincides with that of the highest authorities of the Church?

So please undo your edits that suggest that Eastern Catholics, whatever they prefer to call themselves, do not belong to what most people, including the Popes, understand by "the Roman Catholic Church", and that they are members of some church other than the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops (eastern and western) in communion with the successor of Peter. Lima (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
It is not true that Eastern Catholics NEVER refer to themselves as Roman Catholics. Some are proud to call themselves Roman Catholics, and "Roman Catholic" even appears in the compound name of some Eastern Catholic parish churches, e.g. St. Anthony Maronite Roman Catholic Church, Our Lady of Lebanon Maronite Roman Catholic Church, St. Mary Byzantine Roman Catholic Church.

Even those Eastern Catholics who prefer not to call themselves "Roman" Catholics are part of the Roman Catholic Church. Does this need demonstration? You surely do not hold that they belong to some church other than the "one true Church of Jesus Christ, which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church" - to quote Pope Pius XII in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html Mystici Corporis Christi,] the encyclical that he later said "teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing" (Humani generis).

But that is before the nuances of Vatican II! Mc Brien is very clear about this, as is Pope Benedict!

Even if you personally prefer to use "Roman Catholic" in the sense of "Latin Catholic", and to blame the Popes and the Holy See for mistakenly (in your view) using "Roman Catholic" to refer instead to the whole Church and never to Latin Rite Catholics alone, do you think it right to force your personal preference on Wikipedia articles in which the long-established usage is different from your preference and coincides with that of the highest authorities of the Church?

Answer: I sincerely don't believe you understand Latin and Eastern ecclesiology since Vatican II. The Holy See and the popes never refer to the Eastern Churches as Roman Catholic Churches. I suggest you read Benedict XVI's coda on "Sister Churches" in its entirety. Fr. McBrien put it best when he said the Latin and Eastern Church in communion with the Holy See form the "Communion of Catholic Churches."

Furthermore, I don't think I force my personal preferences on Wiki articles; on the contrary, I think Wiki editors often misrepresent or lift out of context authors like McBrien to "force their personal preferences" in an article. For example, when Wiki editors use Mc Brien's definition of "Catholicism" for all forms of Catholicism, they force an interpretation on Catholicism he never intended. For McBrien, "Catholicism" is synonymous Latin/Roman/Eastern Catholicism, but never with Old Catholic/Anglican Catholicism. He has pointed that out in his books in a number of citations. Yet Wiki editors completely ignore that when they quote him to validate their agenda.

So please undo your edits that suggest that Eastern Catholics, whatever they prefer to call themselves, do not belong to what most people, including the Popes, understand by "the Roman Catholic Church", and that they are members of some church other than the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops (eastern and western) in communion with the successor of Peter. Lima (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer:

In Lebanon, Maronite Churches are never called "Roman Catholic." The Maronite Church sees itself as a Sister Church of the Latin Catholic Church, both of which are in communion with the Holy See. Fr. McBrien has frequently pointed this out, most notably in his newest book, THE CHURCH. The Maronite churches in Florida, for example, refer to themselves as "Maronite Catholic." Likewise, in the Ukraine. The Latin Catholic Church and Ukraine Catholic Church are often at odds about many things; however, one thing that they are in agreement about: they are sister churches in communion with the Holy See. Ukraine Catholics don't see themselves as a corporate "part" or a "division" or a "segment" of the Roman or Latin Church.

There are some very good scholars (with whom I am in contact) at the University of Notre Dame, including Fr. McBrien. I suggest you make use of those resources to broadern your understanding of Latin/Roman and Eastern Catholicism.

Mr. Lima, you are simply not a scholar as you demonstrate you have no or little knowledge of the nuances and distinctions within Latin and Eastern Catholicism! Go back to school! Prattlement


 * Of course, Maronite Catholics call themselves Maronite Catholics, though I have given you some proofs that they sometimes call themselves Maronite Roman Catholics. And of course, the Maronite Church is (not just "sees itself as") a Sister Church of the Latin Catholic Church.  That does not mean that they are not part of the Church that is called the Roman Catholic Church.  Please do not suggest that they are not part of that Church, as you do when you distinguish them from the Roman Catholic Church instead of from the Latin Catholic Church.  Lima (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Does that mean that they are not part of the Church that is called the 'Roman' Catholic Church? Please do not suggest that they are not part of that Church, as you do when you distinguish them from the Roman Catholic Church instead of from the Latin Catholic Church."

According the Richard McBrien, the Eastern Catholic Churches are not "part" of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, no segment or part of the Catholic Church is (or is in possession of) the whole Catholic Church (i.e., no one part of the Catholic Church contains all the component parts of that Church [ i.e., 24 particular Churches]). To quote McBrien, "The Catholic Church is itself a communion of local churches, known as dioceses and patriarchates, and of Roman and non-Roman Churches." Elsewhere, "To be Catholic -- whether Roman/Latin or non-Roman/non-Latin -- is to be in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and as such an integral part of the Catholic Communion of Churches." (McBrien, The Church, p. 356) And still elsewhere: "In fact, the universal Catholic Church is itself a communion of Churches, the largest of which by far is the Roman Catholic Church." Ibid., 5. But that Church ("Roman Catholic Church") is not "The Catholic Church," only a part of the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Ibid.

I don't think Wiki editors realize that whenever McBrien uses (in his writings) the term "Catholicism," he is only referring to the "Catholic Church" or the "Communion of Catholic Churches" in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Never the Anglican Communion. Never. I mention this because Wiki editors erroneously draw on Mc Brien (in the opening paragraph of this article and elsewhere) to explain the place of "Anglican ecclesiology" in "Catholicism." My point is, why use a Catholic theologian to uphold an Anglican ecclesiology to which the theologian (McBrien) doesn't subscribe. It is like using the late Owen Chadwick's writings to uphold Vatican II's ecclesiology to which he didn't consent. To do so in misleading and dishonest.

PrattlementΆ


 * Richard McBrien (read the article about him!) is certainly not a source whose sole authority outweighs that of the Popes - and of many other writers. And in Wikipedia your sole opinion does not outweigh the consensus of the other editors: they consider that Roman Catholic Church means Catholic Church, as you will see if you click on the link "Roman Catholic Church".
 * To sign and date your comments, just type 4 tildes, thus: ~ . Lima (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of quadruple tilde in edit summaries
The use of quadruple tilde ( ~ ) is to sign your name specifically in Talk pages. It's not for placing in "Edit Summaries". For example, below I am signing my name in your Talk page with the quadruple tilde, which leaves links to my own personal and talk pages to identify who made the comment, as well as the date/time to know how long ago the comment was made. Adding quadruple tildes in the edit summaries doesn't do anything.

Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Roman Catholicism in the Netherlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archbishop of Utrecht (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) 10:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catholic Church in England and Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Margaret of Scotland (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) 08:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A national church?
I haven't changed this but I was reasonably sure that the whole point of the Church of England under Henry was its claim to be the true Catholic Church and so claiming there is self description of particular church at that particular time as "national" seems a bit odd; do you have a source? In later forms the CoE took anti-Catholic forms of course (especially post Regnans in E) but Henry was still martyring Protestants at the time and was theologically entirely Catholic as far as I am aware? --BozMo talk 22:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catholic Church in England and Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal (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, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but..
be reasonable. Page 280 of which of Diarmaid MacCulloch's books? --BozMo talk 10:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

subsequent reference
In the first reference to a work, Boz Mo, one uses the full citation; in subsequent references to the same work, one lists only the author's last name,followed by a comma and a page number. The only MacCulloch work used in the first few paragraphs of this article is his REFORMATION, which citation is fully fleshed out in an earlier paragraph (footnote #1). The full citation: Dairmaid MacCulloch. THE REFORMATON. New York: Viking, 2003. p280.Prattlement (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

logical transition
BozMo: Logical transitions are necessary in a narrative of "Catholic Church in England and Wales," especially between and among paragraphs. The history of the English (Christian) Church since the Reformation is a shared history or narrative with other denominations (i.e., Methodist, Catholics, Anglicans/Church of England, Quakers, Pentecostals, etc.). But Pre-Reformation Church was Roman Catholic. The archbishops of Canterbury were Roman Catholic and had to be in order to receive the Pallium from the pope. If the "English Church adhered to the pope" (which all recent scholarship, Anglican and Catholic, attest), what else could that ecclesial entity -- the Pre-Reformation "English Church that adhered to the Pope" -- be labeled (though the term itself is a curial or Roman appellation for an ecclesiastical region of the Latin/Western Catholic Church) except the English Roman Catholic Church?Prattlement (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

==regarding "post-schism" terminology: In the Roman Catholic narrative, it was certainly not a schism (as it was between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism. From the Perspective of the RCC (and this is a CATHOLIC NARRATIVE, NOT ANGLICAN), the newly created Church of England was "heretical," sadly, whose orders were and still are null and void. That's not talk of schism, but of heresy. I lament that, but those are the historical and theological facts. Can you came up with historians who share your narrative peculiarities (biases??) on the history of the English Roman Catholic Church?? You don't seem to want to give it continuity (in ITS OWN NARRATIVE) with earlier the Pre-Reformation Church, thus denying the Pre-Reformation Church was Roman Catholic, something with which most historians today would take issue. You seem to favor a certain point of view that is pre-modern Anglican, though contemporary Anglican theologians like Alister McGrath would rebut you, think the English Reformation was Protestant; as American church history, Martin Marty, has likewise pointed out -- how severe the break was between the pre-Reformation English church and the post church. Likewise, Diarmaid MacCulloch also notes this. Can you come up with historians who support your point of view that the Pre-Reformation English Church was not what we would call "Roman Catholic" today? Ironically, pre-Reformation archbishops are listed as Roman Catholic by Anglicans today. Recently the current archbishop of Canterbury reminded the Pope of the Roman Catholicism of his Pre-Reformation predecessors, since Roman Catholicism suggests adherence to the pope.Heavens, I feel like I am in 101 Church history! Have you any academic background, Boz???Prattlement (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I do indeed have an academic background; well spotted. That makes me terminologically pedantic certainly. As far as I know the Catholic Church did not self identify as "Roman Catholic" until the last hundred years of its history; the concept did not exist, only Catholicism existed as a concept, and there was no need for a qualifier. I am basing that largely on discussion on Wikipedia over ten years ago about whether "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" should be used of the modern Church in Communion with the Pope (it was decided to refer to it as the Catholic Church despite other claimants to that title); there were many sources. The term first appears in second Vatican Council I think but I would have to check. So if you want to have a continuity in expression then you need to use a term actually used continuously. Roman Catholics generally prefer "Catholic" anyway so why not stick with that, and just call them Catholic? BTW do you have a reference for "pre-Reformation archbishops are listed as Roman Catholic by Anglicans today"? This is certainly not universal; pre-reformation martyrs and Saints (like St Edmund) are regarded as entirely part of Anglican adoration in everything I can see, and even Foxe's book of Martyrs includes the pre-reformation ones? --BozMo talk 21:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Incidentally there are Anglo Catholics who refer to pre reformation as Catholic; giving rise to two branches, Roman Catholic and Anglo Catholic. The Oxford Movement contained many and many headed back to Roman Catholicism (although nothing like as many priests as moving the other way... mainly to get married of course). I am not one of such and think this rather a hard position to defend, also this is not an article about them. If we call the current RC in England "the English Catholic Church" we should stick with that title all the way through its history (since it would have been understood at least). Just "Catholic" when referring pre and post reformation would be understood as intended by the vast majority of people. --BozMo talk 21:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

the English Catholic Church
BozMo, Why do you have such a difficult time associating (in this "Catholic Church in England and Wales" ARTICLE) the "English Church that adhered to Rome" with the English Catholic Church today that still adheres to Rome?? We can write about ourselves/our historical likes/biases on our own terms (as you seem to do in this article without any citations or scholarship), but to write about the English Catholic Church's ties to Rome (for at least more than 1500 years [since Pope Gregory sent the Roman monk Augustine to the Kingdom of Kent] one should rely on some source of scholarship outside of one's imagination, Anglican loyalties, and wits. In May, 2014, in a sermon at St. Paul's Cathedral to mark 20 years of Anglican women priests, Justin Wilby, current archbishop of Canterbury, spoke of the Church of England's "about 450 years of history," suggesting the date for the founding of the Church of England was 1564, certainly around the time of the Elizabethan Settlement. Until that time the dominant religion of England was the English Catholic Church in communion with the Pope (not the "Anglo-Catholic segment" of the Church of England; Anglo-Catholics don't constitute a separate church; rather they are a small part of the Church of England that separated from Rome). The archbishop of Canterbury's comment is in sync with historian, Diarmaid MacCulloch, who has noted that Anglicanism "really didn't take shape until some determined reconstruction in 1660-62." (See his review of "Our Church by Roger Scruton -- review" in GUARDIAN, 6/22/2013, pp. 1-4 online.)The idea that the Tutor Church as simply the modern "Church of England" projected backwards in time simply does not stand up to serious scrutiny as some have noted before. As MacCulloch notes in the same GUARDIAN review: "St. Augustine of Canterbury, sent by Pope Gregory I in 597 to establish Roman authority in the old imperial provinces of Britannia, would have been puzzled to learn that his mission had created such a body [the Church of England]."


 * Last time I checked, Justin's surname was "Welby". Aside this, your posts fails both in trying to grasp what I said and in providing adequately substantial answers to points of your own invention. --BozMo talk 07:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Welby/Wilby
Yes, Welby -- a typo on my part.Prattlement (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"...in trying to grasp...."
In the narrative of the "Catholic Church in England," that Church needs to be "visible," as it were, from one paragraph to the next, in the various logical transitions of the narrative. There should be a beginning, in regard to that institution "the Catholic Church in England), a middle, and a contemporary conclusion unfolding into a future. Continuity! Mary I's restoration of Catholicism (according to historian Eamon Duffy) is part of the Catholic story (albeit a positive part, according to many Catholics), which alienated the Protestant/Anglican segment of the English church; yet you insist that the Marian persecution be included, highlighted, in the Catholic story at the expense of the Catholic martyrs during Henry VIII's reign and his daughter, Elizabeth I, both equally brutal monarchs as Mary I. When I noted that Mary I restored Catholicism, you objected, I guess "trying to grasp" why it was a Catholic restoration (i.e., reinstatement, reddition, recovery, return, renewal, revival, repair, recuperation, recovery for Catholicism!!!) in a Catholic narrative. But what else was it in the Catholic story??? But not for you, BozMo! I guess you want Catholics to despise her for her bloodletting, yet ignore her father's and her half-sister's proportionate and parallel and coextensive barbarity against Catholics? Nothing requires a fairer intellect/judgment than willingness to see his or her biased equations, historical or political, written out. Then you had to insert the modifier, "established," before the English Church, when historians recognize "establishing" a national church was part of Henry VIII's agenda along with the dissolution of the monasteries, among other things; that there was no national, "established church" before Henry's break with Rome. Are these statements, insistences, "unrecognizable"? The narrative is meant to describe the Catholic Church in England, not diminish its formal presence and history since 597.Prattlement (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I answer only the parts which I recognize in your comments. Clearly I would rather Roman Catholics (since I talk of now) repented of Mary's brutality just as Anglicans do for Elizabeth's (I have even tried setting up a service of mutual penance once decades ago and but the Roman Catholic side finds admitting previous sin by the Church rather difficult). On proportionality, I am not so sure. There were at least 280 named people publically burned at the stake in the five years of Mary's reign, with estimates much higher, whereas there have only been three hundred Catholics martyred by the Church of England in the 146 years in total that legislation was in place. The Church of England also had the defense that for much of the period Catholics had an allegiance to a foreign power committed to overthrow the English state. That's not a universal view of history of course; in plenty of instances (Northern Ireland springs to mind) the balance was very much the other way. Henry also burned Protestants as I am sure you know. Anyway I am much happier with the version now. --BozMo talk 05:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

pre-Reformation archbishops of Canterbury
They are listed as Roman Catholic in Wikipedia articles, though they should be simply "Catholic." No one, for example, would call Augustine of Canterbury, who was a personal friend of a Pope, a Roman monk, and recipient of the papal pallium, an Anglican. In her article "Binding Identities," Lucy Wooding, scholar in early modern history at King's College, London, notes that "Archbishops of Canterbury have been Catholic for much longer than they have been Anglican...." (See THE TABLET, 26 June 2010, p. 26.)


 * I am not sure why you are making a number of comments which seem to miss the point here. Why do you insist on writing "Roman Catholic" in circumstances where "Catholic" is more accurate? Particularly referring to periods before Roman Catholic was a recognized term. You seem to be inventing a completely unrecognizable version of my position in order to trying and lampoon it. Please could you take a great deal more care? I am relieved anyway to see one outrageous claim withdrawn --BozMo talk 07:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

good suggestion

 * that "Roman" be deleted as modifier of "Catholic," at least in the second paragraph.Prattlement (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Better edit
thanks. --BozMo talk 07:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Thanks. BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:32, 7 June 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) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Catholic Church, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cardinal and King John ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miserere ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cantiones sacrae ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recusancy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Christina ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Recusancy check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Recusancy?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

April 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Pete Buttigieg, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 00:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Marbe166 (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

DK (publisher)
Please refrain from original research and editorial commentary. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Catholic Church by country. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what happened with tohse edits, but the website you cited is spam or malware and you did not write validly-formed URLs either. Please be more careful. Elizium23 (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi Prattlement! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Scottish people that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wilton Daniel Gregory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wilton Daniel Gregory
Why it is so hard to understand that Gregory is not a cardinal until the ceremony on 28 November? You actually put this on Wikipedia: "Pope Francis raised him to the status of cardinal at a consistory held on November 28, 2020."

Even a pope can’t do things in the past/future. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Use of ibid in citations
Hi Prattlement, Wikipedia doesn't use ibid and other Latin abbreviations in citations because subsequent edits by other editors may change the sequence of citations and insert citations in between the first full citation and the ones containing ibid. Would you please go back to the citations you just added to Christianity in the United States and correct them - I would do it myself, but I'm not absolutely sure what they should be. Indyguy (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2023
Hi. Pursuant to your edits in Religion in Spain, I feel compelled to warn you that Wikipedia articles are best dispensed of your (or any other editor's, for that matter) personal interpretations of what people think (or what they mean by ticking a box in a survey) and your (or any other editor's, for that matter) personal feelings on religiosity. Happy editing.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Catholic Church in Germany
hi, can you check recent deletions from the article? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)