User talk:RelHistBuff/Archive2008

Peer review of Huldrych Zwingli
Sure, I'll look at it. Do nag me closer to the time though. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done it (skimpier than I would have liked but I don't have a lot of time until mid-March). Good piece! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Noticed you got this to FA, congratulations! :D
 * Sorry I was too slow to help contribute.
 * I've read some parts of the article. Very nice text, lots of content, but very clear and engaging. Deserves that FA!
 * Love Zwingli, nice to see his entry is so exemplary. :D Alastair Haines (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

History buff?
Nice work on the Zwingli article. If you're a history buff, you might like the Humanities Reference Desk. There's always a bunch of history questions just waiting to be answered, and we have quite a following of history buffs already.  bibliomaniac 1  5  I see no changes 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cranmer
(copied and reformatted from User talk:Secisek in order to keep the thread in one place)

Hello Secisek. I noticed that you are the shepherd of the Cranmer article and got the article to GA. I was wondering if you are planning to advance it to FA. I'm hunting for another article to adopt and I am interested on the subject of Cranmer. If you already have plans on it, then I got some other candidates to work on as well. Drop me a line on my talk page! --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * NO! NO! NO! NO! Please, I would LOVE to see Thomas Cranmer go FA! By all means, make it your next project. I do not WP:OWN the article and would be happy to pitch in again if a push was made. Do you think it is A class right now? I think it is already very nearly FA. I worked very hard last summer to make it so, it had supporters, and almost passed. It got [bogged down in the FA process] due to one editor who just wasn't having it no matter what I did. I settled for GA, but would certainly take another look at it. Go for it! -- SECisek (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the frustration. After long work hours of work, it’s hard when it appears that more barriers are placed in the way. I went through a similar experience with John Knox (see its talk page). The reviewer was a historian specialising in that period and the article went through a hefty grilling before it finally went out on FAC. But his criticisms were fair (although he has his own biases, as we all do). He helped me take the article to a higher standard and I really appreciated it. I think Cranmer will also have to go through the same. Once I have finished with Zwingli, I will start gathering the sources. The article does need some reorganising, more depth, and some rewriting. I will come back to it after I do some research. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks! By the way, I will come back to Switzerland (Calvin) after I take a detour to England (Cranmer). I had already found some interesting sources on him in the library here. And because of you, I am seriously thinking of visiting Germany again in the future! ;-) --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hearty and happy congratulations from me, too! The article is beautiful; you wrote it wonderfully. :)  I'm sorry that I missed my chance to support it — I'm away right now and can get to a computer only fleetingly — but I hope that you'll do many more in the future, so that I'll have more opportunities. :)  Are your interests mainly in the Reformation, or wider ranging?  I've been interested in bringing some Christianity-centric articles to FA, once I get out from under my heap of unfinished projects — whenever that might be. :P  My favorites would be Origen, the Desert Fathers or maybe something on Biblical text reconstruction, such as Constantin von Tischendorf or א — do any of those interest you?  If so, perhaps we might work on them together? :) Willow (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You should say, "we wrote it"! Frankly, I really appreciate how everyone like you, Awadewit, Roger, and Ealdgyth have helped out. I really want to return the favour. So before I start researching again, I will look on WP:PR and WP:FAC for articles to review. Unfortunately, I am not as prolific a writer as everyone else, so I am pretty slow, but I will give my best effort to contribute some reviews. I got started on the Reformation because I noticed the articles were rather weak as they were mainly copies of the 1911 Britannica or Schaff-Herzog articles. But my interests are wider. Working together on one of the church fathers (Origen or maybe Augustine of Hippo?) would be great. My only limitation is access to decent sources, although I am finding my library is better than I thought for scholarly books in English. I will let you know after I have made my attempts with Cranmer and Calvin. By then, maybe your "heap" will be reduced as well so that we could start a collaboration! --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this honor for Knox! I'll try and spend some time helping to revert the vandalism! Awadewit | talk  15:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was a surprise. This will be an interesting experience! :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well! On to Cranmer! ! -- SECisek (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In the returning the favor department...
Care to take a look see at Augustine of Canterbury? I'm not a Anglo-Saxon scholar (that's an understatement) and would really appreciate a few good eyes looking it over for prose and other issues. I'm actually rather proud of it, Anglo-Saxon issues and all. This was what it looked like when I started Back in September and you can see what it looks like now. I have a few others I'm working on in my efforts to get the medieval bishops of England up to snuff, but Augustine's the current big push, I think. I'd like to take it to GA then FAC. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure, just give me a few days and I will get to it. Is it on PR? Or do you want a review on the talk page? --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken it to PR yet, and not sure if I will, honestly. My luck at PR sucks. I have one up now, and its being ignored (as usual). The others I've sent get ignored too. Better just put it on the talk page. Mike Christie is going to take a look at it soon too. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note of advice. It is very rare that a good-hearted reviewer will randomly stop and review an article on PR, although that did happen to me once (mainly because the subject interested him). Once the article is on PR, you will have to use the PR volunteers list or any other known friends and then ask. Not surprisingly, the best reviewers are quite busy. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no, thank you for the comments. I know I write like an academic! In fact, I'd hardly call my prose anything more than "utilitarian" at best. I greatly appreciate your comments, they will help a bunch! I'll leave some specific replies on the article talk page, but just wanted to let you know I greatly appreciated you looking at it. Especially as you aren't familiar with the period, which helps a bunch. I may beg a full copyedit off you at some point, so be warned! Ealdgyth | Talk 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, took care of the easy stuff. AND distracted Mike Christie from copyediting Augustine by giving him a huge list of stuff for his latest FAC (mmmwhaaaa.... I'm so sneaky!) so tonight, after the teenager goes to bed (and turns off the XBox360) and I can hear myself, I'll do the read it aloud thing. Then Mike can rip it apart and then I'll come beg you again! Whee! And as far as your researches, please let me know what you need, and I can try to find stuff for you. Like I said before, Reformation stuff isn't my strong suit, but I do have some sources. I can at least "fill out" after you get the bones up. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ??? I didn't add the content to which you placed the tag. In any case, if you take a look at the article's talk page, I am in the midst of a complete rewrite and the intention is to have the article cited to the best possible sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Main page nomination for Manzanar
Thank you for putting up the main page nomination for Manzanar. For obvious reasons, I wasn't watching for open slots at 5:45 AM PT! :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you still do GA reviews? Would you do one by special request?
Hi Relhistbuff,

Long time no chat. :-) Do you still do GA reviews? Would you do one by special request? Johnbod, Ceoil and I have expended some elbow grease on Funerary art, which I just nommed for GA. I note that there is a closely related nom immediately above ours... but if you have the time and the inclination, I'd be honored if you could do a GA review, adding any comments that you feel will help the article forward through the Content Review process... if you can't do it, of course that's OK! Thanks!Ling.Nut (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been a long time since I worked on GA. I'd like to help, but I don't think I know the current GA "culture" to make a decent review. Sorry! The article looks great though. It looks like a rather wide topic area so if you ever take this FA, I assume you will use summary style with forks to various geographical areas or epochs. Drop me a note when you take it to WP:PR before the FAC; I can contribute to that. Good luck! --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Points for Israel
By the way, I responded to your statement about the number of points for the Israel nomination on Today's featured article/requests. --  tariq abjotu  14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

General relativity
One of my wiki-friends, Markus Poessel, is working on getting General relativity ready for FAC. He has already done a wonderful job with Introduction to general relativity. I was wondering if you had some time to offer a peer review? It's not everyone that can read this article and offer insightful commentary. Oddly, not many articles on fundamental scientific concepts like GR are FA and I am so excited that Markus is working on it. (We had a great time on Introduction to GR, by the way - I learned much.) If you feel like tearing yourself away from religious disputes for a moment, I am sure Markus would appreciate the help. I contributed the image of Einstein's manuscript. That is all I can do. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I printed it out and will see what I can comment on, but the article looks great already! There are not many science articles that reached FA (or GA for that matter) due to a misunderstanding of WP:WIAFA, specifically 1c. But Markus seems to understand the FA concept so I hope other science editors will emulate him. Funny though. I've spent a significant portion of my life doing research in physics, but I'd rather work on articles in other areas. I guess I'm sort of like Mike Christie, i.e. working on articles of current interest. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll try to throw other topics your way, too. I know plenty of people who avoid their areas of expertise. Interestingly, they are all in the sciences. We literary people probably feel some desperation when we look at the abysmal state of articles in our field. The science articles, particularly in physics, tend not to attract high school students writing book reports or fans dedicated to laying out every detail of their favorite novel. :) Awadewit (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Review from Alastair Haines

 * I'll drop by now or I'll miss out all together. I'm really bad at reviewing, I'm not critical enough. I'll try to be mean this time. ;) Cheers friend. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to be lazy. I've copy edited the first two and a half sections. Easy work because your prose is fabulous. It is full of content, appropriate vocabulary selection, grammar used nicely to give subtle variations and stop the reader going to sleep. :) I really felt drawn into the facts, small questions came to mind, which meant I was engaging with the material. No big questions came to mind, because you were providing all the important answers -- no logical gaps really helps readers. I think you must think in a logical, systematic way yourself. Anyway, very nice prose.
 * I've only skimmed the rest of the material, 'cause I'm a bit busy. At face-value the rest of the article looks as featurable as the first three sections I inspected closely.
 * The only overall point for improvement I could suggest is variety of sources. This is a real nicety. Shouldn't affect an FA decision. I wouldn't imagine reliable sources would differ much on the important points that make it into an article like this, and it's not the kind of article that needs multiple opinions. The only reason I'd suggest more sources is that it looks more reliable if the reader can see that multiple sources have been consulted.
 * One way to do this is to cite sources your main source cites. If your source acknowldges his sources, you are not really doing him an injustice to pass those on. If they are primary sources, include them together with your main source, so a reader knows it is the expert, not the editor that has interpreted the primary source.
 * Well, I hope my time in your article has been helpful to it, and to you, and to readers in future. I would offer more, but there are many others around and I'm really pushed just now. It's a great article ... and an important one. It is so easy to read! Well done!
 * Compare your work with mine at Theognostus of Alexandria, you'll never listen to me ever again! ;)
 * Cheers friend, Alastair Haines (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did think about the number of sources. Major books on Cranmer are not published very often and when they get too old, they don't stand up well under FAC questioning. So the article depends on the last three major books published on Cranmer (going back to 1962). However, I will look for articles on Cranmer in general Reformation books and maybe on JSTOR. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review delay
I have had some family issues suddenly arise and the promised peer review will have to be delayed. I can probably get to it in about a week. Let me know on my talk page if that is too late. I'm so sorry. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm back. I will be doing the peer review soon. By the way, you might want to look at the previous FAC for Roman Catholic Church. Awadewit (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have finally, finally gotten around to peer reviewing Thomas Cranmer! So sorry for the delay! Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Dear RelHistBuff, this is copied and pasted from the Dominican House of Studies website: "Video excerpt (10 min) from a lecture by Fr. John Vidmar, O.P. on the history of the Dominicans in the Eastern United States, reflections on the 200th Anniversary of the Dominican Province of St. Joseph (1805-2005). Given in March of 2006 at the Center for Catholic and Dominican Studies at Providence College, Providence RI. Fr. Vidmar taught history at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington DC for many years and is currently serving as provincial archivist and teaching history at Providence College. He is the author of several books including The Catholic Church Through the Ages: A History (Paulist, 2005)." If you would like to view this for yourself, please go here:. NancyHeise (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To help you be OK with citations from Vidmar, I supplemented the ones that werent already supplemented with another book by a Catholic priest. It is "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" by Thomas Bokenkotter. This is the book review for this book written by a University professor "This expanded and updated edition of A Concise History of the Catholic Church is destined to continue the legacy of excellence established by pastor and professor Bokenkotter (Xavier Univ.) when the title was first published by Image Books. Now, 25 years later, he advances on the history of Catholicism to include contemporary issues of liturgical polarization, religious pluralism, theological dissent, and clerical immorality. The current reality of pedophilia and sexual abuse is incorporated into this honest and timely work. The text is divided into five dominant historical periods in Catholicism, beginning with the Church's triumph over paganism, the making and unmaking of Christendom (600-1650 C.E.), the Church in a state of siege (1650-1891 C.E.), and finally the Church in the 20th century. Each concisely written and fully documented chapter clearly develops those broad epochal sections. This new edition is appropriate for scholars, students, and the general reader seeking a balanced and thorough review of Catholicism's complex history. The 40-page annotated bibliography adds considerable depth and authority to the revised text. Black-and-while illustrations throughout and a helpful index add to the overall quality. Ecumenical, comprehensive, and accessible, this is recommended for all libraries even where the 1979 edition is owned.-John-Leonard Berg, Univ. of Wisconsin Lib., Platteville Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information." You may view it for yourself here:   Also, I just happened across this syllabus here:  that shows it is required reading for this professor's class on church history.  This book is published by Doubleday.  I think it is a nice supplement for Vidmar as they are both priests and give me the Catholic side of history that I need to make the page inclusive of all views. I hope this helps.  Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Email
Hi there. Email message from me! - A l is o n  ❤ 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note
Oh, I picked up pdfs of the following today, drop me an email if you want them: The Revision of the Ordinal, Thomas Cranmer's Register, Rule of Thomas Cranmer in Diocese, Correspondence of Thomas Cranmer, Public Career of Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Cranmer and the Godly Prince, Reformation in Action Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On the JC thing... Here and Here. I will attempt to get them tomorrow, I hope. The local university says it has them on file, we'll see what luck I have. Hope you found the others useful. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The stuff is brilliant! Thanks so much! I guess your university library has access to all the journal websites? I should check out the computers at my local university and see if they got access as well. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, they don't have quite as much as I would like. I have to go to University of Illinois for things like Speculum or Journal of Ecclesiastical History, but it does give me decent access. They just close in an hour and I can't be bothered to rush across town. And how in the heck can I explain better that the Amish aren't Zwinglian???? (beats head against wall). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that they come up with that kind of twisted logic means that it is a lost cause. Ah well! The person I really feel sorry for is poor Sandy who has to wade through it and decide. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your turn. I'm done and about to lose my temper at the stubborness. I guess I could point out that the Handbook of Denominations in the United States lists the Amish under Anabaptist, while the Swiss Refomation is under the Reformed, Congregationalist and Presbyterian Churches, but I doubt that would help much. Your turn! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Physics and math?
Hey RHBuff,

I seem to remember you saying that you were interested in physics and math, once upon a time? I'm a little in need of more eyes for two such articles, a list of scientific publications by Albert Einstein (which is a Featured List candidate) and the problem of Apollonius, which is a very charming and very old problem in geometry from Apollonius of Perga, an Alexandrian like our friend Origen. Might you have a moment to throw a glance over them? I'd very much appreciate any thoughts or suggestions you might have. Thanks muchly, :) Willow (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I see that you're looking for reviewers for Thomas Cranmer; I'll stop by there right now. :) Willow (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Willow! I will most certainly take a look. However, I must apologise in advance that I may not be as useful to the articles as you would be expecting. You see, I loved physics, it nearly consumed me, it was almost my whole life. But as my use of the past tense implies, I have moved on to other things and I have not looked back into my past very often. Too many painful memories and now there is a lot of rust inside my brain! Anyway, I hope I can add a tiny bit in the progress of your articles. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Buff,

I'm very sorry, I had no idea! You shouldn't do anything that would bring you grief and unhappy memories; I've felt a landslide of that recently, too. :( I'm sure that we'll have enough people over at those two articles, so you should go wherever the spirit takes you. :)  A few other articles have been inching forward, such as Sundial and Catullus 2, that you might enjoy more? They're still rudimentary and I'm a little embarrassed about them, but they might benefit all the more from your insights and charm you with their innocence. :) Willow (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise, you would not have known. Fortunately time does truly heal; I recently added a bit to the PR of General relativity (wonderful article). Once the Cranmer article is done, I will take a look your articles. It will be a welcome relief in a way. I really do enjoy putting the effort in these long articles like Cranmer and Zwingli and taking in all the suggestions and criticisms. But the effort does take something out of you, so looking forward to a little diversion! --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You won't like me saying this, but...
...you have the best userpage. I'm in awe. I was coming here to say something about Peter Wall, but I am too overawed. ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
FAC has restarted, if you would like to vote, please go here Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a comment or oppose? It's prefaced as a comment, but reads as an Oppose, so I'm unclear.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC
This message is being sent to all opposers of the Roman Catholic Church FAC. Thank you for taking the time to come see the page and give us your comments. I apologize for any drama caused by my imperfect human nature. As specified in WP:FAC, I am required to encourage you to come see the page and decide if your oppose still stands. Ceoil and others have made changes to prose and many edits have been made to address FAC reviewers comments like yours. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

 * The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
 * Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the  nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page.  Thank you. Xandar (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Different RCC help request
Hi RelHisBuff, I'm here to ask for your help with a different RCC help request. I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. Since you have experience in Catholic history topics I hoped you might be able to take a look at my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking a few other editors with interest in pieces of Catholic history to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will take a look, but I really do not think the major problem in the history section is the length. In my opinion, it is due to the selection of sources (and possibly a POV-reading of sources). The selection is not ideal. Even the fairly solid sources such as Norman and Duffy are oriented toward a Catholic POV. Concerning the POV-reading, several times I noticed that a source may say one thing and when it is paraphrased or re-written into the article by the current editors, a different statement is created. Making it shorter would make it easier to get to the POV problems, but nothing can be done in improving the article if the current editors just refuse to accept more neutral sources and stick with their own. Unfortunately, I am travelling which is why I have not been active but I will eventually respond. I am impressed by your dedication! :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to stay away from this article no matter how many times I try. I agree that it would be better to use a wider variety of sources, but I think that trying to move out sources that the regular editors consider reliable right now would stop any chance of having them look at other changes objectively.  NancyHeise has done an excellent job of putting quotations in the citations, and as I trimmed I tried to make sure that what was left in the text matched what was in the cited quotation.  Whenever you can get to this is fine, and thanks for any help you can give :) Karanacs (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Going to the library ...
This week, anything from JSTOR/etc. you want/need/lust after? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Got back from a short trip. Thanks for the offer, Ealdgyth. I am going to check the university library here and see if I have access to EBSCO and Wilson. I know the library has access to JSTOR. I haven't been active lately due to real life issues, but I should get going on the research later in July. Also, I am still trying to decide whether to tackle Hus or Bucer first, although I will eventually get to the other. If I find some gaps in the research, I will drop you a line. Thanks again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO
According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (Joseph K. Tkach) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Calvin
Please see User_talk:Flex. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

wiki-dishes and John Oldcastle
I'm busy washing wiki-dishes these days, but in a week or two I might be looking in the direction of John Oldcastle. Interested? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks very interesting; I have also considered Lollardy and John Wycliffe as well. Unfortunately, I kind of committed myself to a fairly big project (see previous section). Also, real life has often kept me away from wiki-life, so the speed of my efforts has slowed down tremendously. :-( So many articles to work on and so little time! Well, at least it is fun. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * John Calvin! Are you sure he's notable? :-P I may chip in a bit, if I happen to be around... Later! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA.  Nancy Heise    talk  23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

FACR
RelHistBuff, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FA notability criterion
You mentioned on the FAC talkpage that you had a proposal for an FA notability criterion. Now that the debate on the context proposal seems resolved, are you ready to introduce it? Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm traveling at the moment, but I will make the proposal once I get back to my home computer. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You guys rock. Both of yez. Maybe I should give both of yez a Barnstar of Awesomeness. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Calvin
I saw your query on Awadewit's talk. The image in question is by an unknown 16th century artist of the Flemish School, and held by the Bibliotheque Publique et Universitaire, Geneva. It's reproduced all over the place, so no idea where that particular scan comes from. I managed to find this by searching for "calvin Bibliotheque Publique et Universitaire" on google - it may give you a starting point. Yomangani talk 19:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK thanks a lot for the tip. --RelHistBuff (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Calvin PR
I'll try to get to it tomorrow. Today's the anniversary of my first husband's death, and it's never a good day. Probably not a good day to peer review something for you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely not a good day. But anyway take your time. I guess everyone will be busy preparing for the Christmas holidays! I figure everything will start to slow down in the next few weeks. So I am targeting this one for 2009. Which reminds me, I better get back to shopping! --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh, Christmas and Calvin. My... he's probably turning over in his grave thinking about us putting his article off to celebrate Christmas! And what'd he think of the holidays.... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a quote from him: "It is nowhere forbidden to laugh or to eat one's fill or gain new possessions or enjoy oneself with musical instruments or drink wine." So we can celebrate, have a nice meal, exchange gifts, sing carols with a guitar, and have a glass of chardonnay. But I am also sure he would tell us, "But absolutely no dancing!" (that conjecture is from the article) :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Flex. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stamata Revithi
Could I have your opinion on the above article. I think I did the best I could, the PR suggestions are implemented, and now I am not sure if I should go to GAC (where is however a biiiiiig backlog) or straight to FAC. What do you think? What is your opinion about the article?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will take a look and respond on your talk page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)