User talk:Roydosan

Harangue me here...

LMS Links

 * No wish to harangue you, but I think we are charging headlong towards a violation of WP:3RR, so I have invited some more experienced wikipedians to consider the NPOV status of a narrow (to my perception, at least) selection of external links when a comprehensive list is undesireable.   Kevin McE 20:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you leave LMS links where the page is to a specifically diocesan based website. I will then not put up links to the national LMS website. I think this is a reasonable compromise and reflects your wishes (as seen by me) to have the entry specifically related only to the diocese. I resent the implication that the existence of specific links is either partisan or theologically biased. There was no text either supporting or opposing the LMS in any of the articles and the fact that the number of links is as you say narrow is because others haven't added any. Maybe you should add some links to organisations that you think are pertinent to the diocese? Roydosan
 * The link to only a diocesan LMS page would be more defensible, but the point remains as to how many links to diocesan organisations are sustainable in the wikipedia format. I still think that if a comprehensive list is not suitable, then any form of selective list is (from a NPOV attitude) undesirable, unless accession to that list is secured by a verifiable criterion.  If you believe that the addition of the LMS links was neither partisan nor theologically biased, then I would challenge you to add links to other key diocesan oprganisations that have their own websites, which might include the education offices, chanceries, youth organisations, Charismatic Renewal bodies, CAFOD agencies etc.
 * The LMS is, in terms of the number of participants, very much a minority interest, even among practicing Catholics, and I find highly distasteful the idea that somebody visiting a diocesan page here would be left with the idea that the promotion of this form of worship is an essential characteristic of the diocese (an impression that could easily be taken when there is only one organisation linked). In recognition of WP:3RR I will not delete these links, but I do not accept your argument that they are sound wiki practice on the grounds that other people can equally easily add their own preffered links. Kevin McE 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to claim a right of reply to some of the issues that you raised in our dispute under mediation. Your comments are italicised. I find the idea that a small selection of links is tantamount to stating preference and therefore in breach of NPOV is absurd. If links were not provided to increase the profile of a particular group, a POV enterprise, then for what purpose were they added? A fully comprehensive set of links is probably unnecessary on the basis that it would include many organisations which are fairly inconsequential to the life of the diocese and I would deem a body that arranges (in some of the diocese to which you wish to link) less than 10 Masses per month and none which occur with the bishop's participation as "fairly inconsequential" to the life of the diocese (although not, of course, to that body's members) I would also argue that a small selection of links is justified where they have a significant impact or presence in the diocese. I do not believe that the LMS can be shown to have a significant impact in any diocese of the UK: what is the highest level of active support from the diocesan authorities that you can cite? The LMS plays a part in the liturgical life of many dioceses and it is right that that should be recognised But can every organisation that "plays a part", regardless of impact, be meaningfully linked to.  You have not shown that the LMS plays a significant part. Not that this should be taken as either support for or opposition to the LMS - but merely a recognition of what it does for and in the liturgy of the diocese. I understand, however, that you are a member of the LMS and that therefore your contributions should be read in the light of this act of support for the group. In my opinion what you are proposing is basically censorship of the LMS on Wikipedia  I refute this: I would raise no objection, nor would I have a right to, to there being an article on the LMS here (which would properly be listed in a category of Catholicism in England or Wales or of similar name), nor that it be mentioned and/or linked on pages dealing with Traditional Catholicism or liturgical disputes. Your claims that the LMS is a marginal organisation amongst Catholics is not borne out by the facts:  you have provided no data about the number of people regularly attending services in the Tridentine rite in any of the diocese you mention.  I have provided details about the number of services offered, which represent in most diocese considerably less than the commitment of one priest (A priest would typically celebrate c.40 Masses per month: how many LMS Masses are celebrated in an average month in the UK?). Nor is the LMS an abstract organisation to list since it only helps to provide what was the normative rite in the Catholic Church up until 1965. A brief perusal of the articles linked to on the LMS website reveals a much wider agenda than facilitation of a particular liturgy.  Kevin McE 10:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Who said I was a member of the LMS?I have never claimed any allegiance to this organisation. And as for the LMS having a hidden agenda maybe you should have read the disclaimer on their website "Disclaimer: views presented within these articles do not necessarily reflect LMS policy, but they are presented to provoke thought and aid debate in the present crisis in the Church since the Second Vatican Council."Roydosan 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
Fasten 11:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Monument to the Royal Stuarts
Care to putt about in this article? IP Address 11:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you on about? Roydosan 12:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming that this article carries some weight in your life. I was surprised to see that this actually existed, but it also makes me proud. As regards religion, I think we (meaning you and me) are rather in the same boat. I have been trying to regain some sense of what has been deprived us--your edits are most helpful. IP Address 11:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am quite interested in the Stuarts yes, but I don't recall making any changes to this. Roydosan 12:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just curious if you desired self-involvement. What are your opinions on the later claimants? Would you rather have an ancient line instead, or is Plantagenet descent too widespread to find an heir representative? There are other Tudor and Stuart descendents alive, but this of course means nothing in the face of Sophia of Hanover's progeny...huh? IP Address

In the absence of direct male descendants I'd probably come down more in favour of republicanism to be honest or some form of elective monarchy. Although I don't find that to be an ideal option in the slightest. Perhaps the descendants of the Duke of Berwick would be preferrable. Though to be honest I don't see anything ever shifting the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Roydosan 13:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

When I think about things like the Spanish partisans during Elizabeth's reign and what sort of alignments my ancestors took...it really changes perspectives on life and makes me wonder. What was it like, to have a priest hole and be derided as a papist? I think about the religious freedom we have now and thank God that it has come to us, even in this fractured state of affairs. I was wondering about the (earlier descent--Charles II's illegitimate line) Duke of Richmond, since Richmond has been a continual fiefdom held by powerful royalties (Plantagenet, Capetian, Savoyard, Tudor, Stuart). Richmond has four ducal titles--one is defunct because France is a republic. To be honest with you, I wish that the Plantagenet claims to France were never dropped. We were the last hope for France's royalists, whom eke out the barest amount of interest in the royal arms of Canada. I don't believe in republicanism--it in our case derived from Oliver Cromwell. As you well know, that faction of our society has propelled the sad state of affairs between this Anglican usurpation and the dutiful adherence to our Holy Mother Church. IP Address 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi. I took the case for mediation. Please go to User:Jbolden1517/Westminster to make sure you are OK with me as a mediator. Either way email me and lets get started. Looking forward to getting this resolved jbolden1517Talk 00:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Its generally better to do this via email. I can't email you but my account is set to allow email. If you don't want email at all we can do a talk page here, but generally I like to start these things off more privately. jbolden1517Talk 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice you logged in on the 30th and didn't respond to the above. You just have to let me know if you want to
 * 1) do email
 * 2) me to setup an offsite page
 * 3) do this onsite

To send an email you go to my user page and hit "E-mail this user" and an email will be sent. (alternately my email address is jbolden1517 AT yahoo DOT com) and you can send direct jbolden1517Talk 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get chance to reply to you then. I've set up e-mail so you can e-mail me if you want - the problem is I may, at best, be able to check it once a week. If you're fine with that type of delay then we can use e-mail. If not I'd prefer we did this onsite. Roydosan 08:53 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By my count, as of tomorrow, there will have been no action on the above article or case for at least two working weeks. Do you have anything further you'd like to add, or may I go ahead and close the case? CQJ 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Note for Roydosan
Firstly, Royd old boy, you've got to learn to sign with four tildes ( ~ ), which will automatically produce your name and the date. Secondly, having looked at this, my feeling is that you are guilty of vandalism on a number of levels with your LMS links. LMS links belong on the LMS page. You are guilty of linkspamming, and using Wikipedia as a soapbox. So you are warned:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Of course, now it's in arbitration, we'll just await the outcome of that process. mg e kelly 11:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you would be correct if I was using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote the LMS and had used the article to promote the LMS above all other organisations. But I did not put in anything that could be construed in such a way just a link - which I think is justifiable since the LMS is an important organisation in many diocese. People could also put other pertinent links in which are not related to the liturgy, etc so that the entry is more complete. The fact that most of the articles are stubs may give the false impression that the LMS is being promoted - but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned just that the article is in need of expansion. I think that banning the LMS from being mentioned on non-traditional catholic wiki entries is censorship which, in itself promotes a particular view of the RC Church. Roydosan 12:15 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Royd, this justification doesn't work. The External links are part of the article, firstly, and secondly they should be there to allow people to find out more about the subject of the article. The LMS links do neither. There is no encyclopedic justification. There should be nothing, not one word in Wikipedia, in the mainspace, which is not encyclopedic! What these links do do is drive traffic towards LMS and increase its Google pagerank. For shame, vandal! mg e kelly 11:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be true if it was just a pressure group but it is not (although it does act like one) it is part of the liturgical life of the diocese and with Joseph Ratzinger as pope that is likely to increase in the future. Roydosan 11:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's completely irrelevant what kind of group it is. I'm not accusing you of using Wikipedia to gain any actual political leverage. I'm merely accusing you of doing detriment to Wikipedia's own encyclopedic aims. mg e kelly 11:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it contravenes Wikipedia's aims. Surely the aim should be to have as complete an article as possible not a trimmed down one which limits what can or cannot be discussed. Maybe the article should have a comment on the liturgical life of the diocese to qualify the inclusion of a link to the LMS but I don't think it should be excluded. You said that links should help the viewer find out more about the subject. The LMS is one aspect of the liturgy of the diocese so ipso facto if they look at the site they will find out about part of the liturgy of the diocese. Articles I started on specific parishes do not have an LMS link because it is not relevant in that case - see St George's York and Ss Mary & Everilda, Everingham. But it is relevant in the case of the diocese because it is not an abstract part of it but a contributor to the liturgy and the sacraments - which is what the Roman Catholic Church is about. Roydosan 11:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your criteria for inclusion are too lax. Now, if you want to write stuff detailing the diocesan life which includes mention of LMS, then you'd include a wikified link to LMS (Latin Mass Society), but that's it. Only if the LMS website was largely about this subject area would it be an appropriate link. Off topic, why do you support Everton, when you are both Catholic and not scouse? mg e kelly 12:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To be fair though, the style-guide seem to be ambiguous on this point - WP:EL. mg e kelly 12:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow that since if it was about the liturgical life of the diocese in general you could mention Polish mass centres, Ukrainian rite Catholics, etc as well as the LMS in the article - maybe including a wiki link to respective entries further detailing them.

I support Everton because most of my family is from Liverpool so I never really got a choice. Plenty of Catholics support Everton. There has been a lot of debate as to whether Everton or Liverpool is the Catholic/Protestant team in the city - to my mind none of it very convincing. My grandparents who lived in the city in the 20s - 50s describe Everton as the Catholic team - but Everton was originally a Church team, the Protestant St. Domingos. Liverpool was founded by a member of the Liverpool Orange Order. I've found that both Catholics and Protestants support both teams so I don't think it's possible to see them as a Merseyside version of Rangers and Celtic. Roydosan 13:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Two points:
 * 1) yes, you could mention these things, but that's not the same as linking them;
 * 2) you might link a Polish association if it is part of the diocese. Similarly, if you've got an LMS chapter or whatever that is specific to that diocese, yes, provided that it's somehow under the diocesan umbrella, not agitating from the sidelines (I don't know enough about LMS to say). But the LMS link you gave was a general one, to the organisation, hence in my view quite inappropriate. mg  e kelly 14:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to point 2 - I agree with you about this already and am only proposing that a link be maintained where there is a specifically diocesan based website as in Diocese of Leeds. I agree that a link to the main LMS website is not appropriate unless directly mentioned in or relevant to the article. Roydosan 15:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't see it. It's an association that's coextensive with the diocese, but are the masses in question celebrated under the auspices of the diocese? If so, then it's a valid link. If it's a parallel organisation, then it's spam. (I removed the link, but will happily put it back if you give me the right answer here.) mg e kelly 00:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think largely as a result of my deletion of that link, jbolden has brought me into the mediation process! I've spoken with him via email. mg e kelly 08:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No it's not a parallel organisation - all the masses are held with the knowledge and permission of the diocesan bishop. If the diocesan bishop doesn't want a mass to happen then it it doesn't happen - end of story. In the case of the Diocese of Leeds the bishop has actually asked the LMS to move the masses to the cathedral once it is renovated rather than the old chapel they currently use - which obviously shows his approval for the organisation. Roydosan 09:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, well that's clear - in this case, no linkspam. mg e kelly 13:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!!!
It is a scandal that no-one welcomed you before:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! mg e kelly 11:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Newpages created regarding parishes
Hi Roydosan,

I'm a newpage patroller. This is with reference to a number of pages you've created regarding the parishes. It is suggested that unless you have substantial information about the parish, you could tabulate all the parishes as a table under the Diocese of Middlesbrough. Cos, pages created with very less content (the pages you've created have a little more than 10 words) come under criteria for speedy deletion. The links shall lay there as 'red' links till someone has substantial information on the parish and develop it as a full fledged page. Cheers for ur effort anyway. - Chez  ( Discuss / Email ) • 01:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding this, Chez has given you some good advice. They have all been nominated for speedy deletion or at least a substantial proportion have. I have expanded All Saints, Thirsk so it can hopefully wait until you have further info. What you will need is material on the parish such as the church, any associated schools, history of the parish etc. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that guys - I was unaware of the procedure - I was actually planning to substantially expand all of the entries - but due to the sheer number it was something I couldn't possibly do in a short space of time. I have added info for a few of the parishes already so they're not all just brief stubs. Roydosan 11:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries mate. Your effort is understood. :) If you do a newpages patrol, you may notice the sheer number of pages created every hour. It is only that, creating pages in bulk without substantial information increases the bandwidth and usage of wikipedia's limited servers unnecessarily. Even as the prospect of seeing ads in wikipedia looms high, it is upto us to make the better use of what resources we have at present. Happy Editing. - Chez  ( Discuss / Email ) • 13:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

 * Hi. Concerning your edits in Byzantine Empire, it is a poor editing practice to remove chunks of texts that in your opinion are not referenced. Please use the Talk page next time. Miskin 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not merely my opinion, I removed something that was quite a sweeping statement and was completely unreferenced. The statement that during most of its history it was known to its Western contemporaries as "The Empire of the Greeks" or the "Empire of Constantinople", needs vefification otherwise it is merely coinjecture and should not be included. If you can find a verifiable reference I will have no problem with the statement being there. Roydosan 08:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have sent you this message if there was no reference on what you removed. How would you be able to find out whether or not there's a reference without asking for one in discussion (instead of removing information you're not aware of)?. Apparently it was merely your opinion since you were wrong to assume it unreferenced. Of course there is a reference(s), and the reason it's kept in the 'references' section and not in a parenthesis next to the statement is because the "Imperium Graecorum" is as common knowledge as "Byzantine" being an exonym. The "Empire of the Greeks" was the standard name of Byzantium in the West because nobody would recognise a Greek Empire as the successor of Rome. See the article of Britannica for a quick reference (if it's not available to you I can quote from it). Regards. Miskin 17:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't understand how wikipedia works. If you do text-blanking one more time I will report you for vandalism. That should help you understand quicker. Miskin 10:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Miskin, no reason to get so aggressive, and accuse Roydosan of "text-blanking", which is not what he was doing. As it happens, I agree with you about the substance.  But it should be properly documented.  It is not hard to find documentation.  A Google Book search finds, e.g., Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom, p. 385-386 (speaking of the 8th century): "The emperors continued to call themselves 'Roman'... But they now ruled a more cohesive state, made up of a largely Greek population.  Westerners called it, increasingly and with justice, "the empire of the Greeks." --Macrakis 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already cited the Britannica on the Byzantine Empire. If you read some medieval documents you'll find out on your own that it was a common practice. Adam Bishop who is familiar with the topic never question the validity of those claims. Plus the importance of this edit was decided after discussion, the fact that you Macrakis missed it is irrelevant. Miskin 12:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you wrote in my Talk page. However all of this is irrelevant to the fact that the non-Byzantines didn't use the term "Imperium Romanorum" but "Imperium Graecorum", which is the information that you blanked out. There's no real existence of national consciousness during the middle ages so we can't have common criteria on what's Greek and what's Roman. Yet there are two certainties in Byzantium: That the vast majority of Byzantines viewed themselves as Romans, and that the vast majority of non-Byzantines viewed them as Greeks. What most people don't know however is that the medieval and modern Greek "Rhomaioi" is not connected to the Roman Republic and Empire. The Roman history as perceived by the Byzantines and modern Greeks (pre-19th c.) began in the foundation of Constantinople by St. Constantine. Byzantines looked back at Justinian, Heraclius and Basil II, and not at the Latin Caesars. The Western nations were nothing but "Latins" in Byzantine eyes had no relation to Roman history (something which today is contradictory). The Eastern Church said to the Roman Church that "Romans crusified Christ". It's clear that the "Latin Roman" and "Greek Roman" has a distinction in Byzantine society. Another thing that many people don't know is that during the 13th century Byzantine scholars started to favour the use of "Hellenes" over "Romaioi", and the Byzantine Emperor was frequently called as "the Emperor of the Hellenes". Of course this was met by certain circles (especially religious ones) with certain hostility, since the name "Hellenes" had long meant "pagan". This can be regarded as the first awakening of Greek nationalism, and the transition from Byzantine to modern Greek. This national awakening was restricted within educated circles within the 16-17th century only to revive as "Greek nation-building" in the 18th. Adamantios Korais (Greek scholar from Asia Minor) wrote: "Not only inhuman but also stupid we should be named if we preferred the name of the Romans over the name of the Greeks... Whoever calls me Roman again will become my enemy. From now on I'm Greek". And of course, those statements were also met with hostility, just as 500 years earlier. D. Katartzis writes: "How can some supposedly great ones today go against the rules of grammar and dare to change the meaning of words, they call themselves Hellenes and feel no disgrace as Christians and Romans, whereas none of our Roman ancestors ever accepted this name except one, Julian the Apostate, who called himself a Hellene." And then again others such as Kostis Palamas, were in the middle of things: "Hellenes in the eyes of the world but Romans in reality". The last citation has a lot of truth, and it replies one of the citations you posted in my page: Why modern Greeks were so disgraced on their medieval past? The 'Byzantine' civilisation was until recently resented and neglected in the West. The Franco-British intellectuals and politicians who fought in the Greek revolution and the battle of Navarino, wanted to revive Hellas, not the Byzantine Greek Empire, nor Graecia Regards. Miskin 12:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire
OK, i got what u mean about the reference. however, i cannot understand why u made some other changes:. it was indeed seen by its citizens as the Greek Orthodox Empire that continued the Roman Empire ('Greek Orthodox' does not necessarily mean 'ethnic Greek'), to such an extend that many claim that it was in fact a theocratic state.

I don't disagree with you that it was seen as a theocracy but the term Greek Orthodox is inaccurate since the correct name is Rum Orthodox Church - so they wouldn't have seen it as a Greek continuation of the Roman Empire as you say.

this is not actually true. Rum Orthodox Church is the name that the Turks (and possibly others-Kurds, etc- in the Levant) give to what the rest call 'Greek Orthodox Church'. of course, the Byzantines would never have called it this way (the term 'Greek' is not a name that the Greeks self-identified with- i am sure that u know we call ourselves 'Hellenes'). but here we have to edit according to the terminology in english, so, we could probably solve the issue by saying 'Roman Orthodox Church' with an internal link redirecting to 'Greek Orthodox Church' (i really think that this would, however create problems, since there is also Roman Catholic Church...

in addition, the Byzantine Empire is really the continuation of the Hellenistic world (or of the Roman East, if u prefer... or maybe of the Hellinized states of the Diadochi), in terms or culture, language, literature, customs, and people (acknowledging that the Greeks were undisputably the dominant ethnic group-in a multiethnic state, as every empire is). lastly, it is considered, by the vast majority of scholars, part of the the Greek History.

Again I have to disagree - it was a continuation of the Graeco-Roman world but it was certainly not a continuation of the Hellenic States. The problem I think is that people confuse the term Roman for Latin when in fact they are not necessarily congruous. One could be anything but a Latin and still be an avowed Roman. See |this for an excellent articulation of the problem. The Byzantines did not have a problem with being Greek speaking, Orthodox and identifing as Romans. In fact they viewed the Holy Roman Empire and the other Western States as barbarians whereas they were the true Romans - but it was an understanding of Roman that goes beyond what most people think of as defining Roman today. It often excluded the Latin identity people associate with Roman.

U are right, i had not seen it this way... Even though (maybe this is my POV) it was indeed a continuation of Ancient Greek and Hellenistic world (Through the Graeco-Roman world) we cannot have it in the article like that.

Concerning this edit ...: why? do u believe that the contemporary western Europeans refered to it always as 'Empire of the Greeks'? come on! the Roman Empire was also called simply 'Rome' by its contemporaries... The same goes for the French, Russian or Japanese Empires.

Again I think it is disingenuous to refer to the Byzantine Empire as Greece. There was not a state that called itself 'Greece' until the 1820s. The Byzantine Empire was not Greece (in the terms of being a nation state) although Greeks were certainly the dominant ethnic group. If their contemporaries used Greece then they would be referring to the Greek region not the state. This is also a very Western centric view - their closest neighbours in the East always referred to them as Romans.

The neighbours in the east referred to them as Romans, but with 'Roman' meaning Christian for them (the muslim view identifying nations with religions). u are right by saying that there was not a state being called 'Greece' until early 19th century, but the term 'Hellas' ('Greece' in english translation) was a name attributed from ancient times to the areas that were considered the center of greek culture (i.e. excluding the colonies, however compare the term Magna Graecia). what i mean is that even though the Spanish Empire, as an example, covered large areas in 5 continents, its contemporaries used to call it simply 'Spain'. or another example, since i see u are from the UK, most of the times greeks refer to the UK simply as 'England' (and in maps-mainly older maps, but still published after WWII, the UK is written simply 'England'). i am not sure that i was clear enough... i hope u got what i mean (they did not refer only to the region).

I think u did well in deleting this, cause this is the POVish edit in my opinion: saying that even the 'unjustified' term 'Byzantine Empire' was invented by the Greeks:p. this edit is also fine, cause it is true and historically accepted.

about After Constantine's death, the city became known as Constantinople in honor of its founder : u did not have to delete this... by naming a city after a person, u give him honor, is that right? i want to re-add some of the info that u deleted, but i will first wait for comments by u. Regards --Hectorian 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - we can't possibly know that they named the city to honour him. You're right that you can honour someone by naming a city after them but we don't know that's why they did it so it's an unverifiable statement and shouldn't be there. Roydosan 08:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

there can't be another reasons for the name of the city. in fact, Constantine named the city 'Ανθούσα' ('Anthousa' = 'Spring'), the New Rome, but after his death, and cause he was made a saint (still is for all christians, if i am not wrong), the city became known as 'Constantinoupolis' to his honour. i do not know how else to explain it... it is like saying that Athens was not named after Athena to honour her... --Hectorian 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

mediation
I started the thread at Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster but for now you don't have to do anything but monitor it. jbolden1517Talk 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are recent comments to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster. Please go there and take a look at your earliest convenience.  CQJ 17:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty
Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine names: suggested moratorium
On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Roy, there seems to be a feeling that we are all worn out with arguing and it would be best to leave it for a short while. Do you think that might work? Andrew Dalby 13:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your reply. Yes, your point is perfectly logical. Having been involved with this kind of thing before (when it was a question of moving bits of card in library catalogues) I always tend to favour the fewest-moves solution. But that's just me. All the best Andrew Dalby 14:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy
Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! &mdash; A.S. Damick talk contribs 14:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

English RC parish stubs
I notice you've created a large number of very short stubs on English Catholic parishes. Trouble is, these are currently so short that they don't appear to give any more information than would be conveyed in single "list of" article, which might be a superior means of organisation of the material. From the content, it's not even clear if the intended scope is the parish as a geographical area, or the parish church per se. Also, they don't appear to have the most useful stub tags: in particular, why would UK-hist-stub be appropriate? As several of these stub types are oversized, I'd be keen on tidying these up in some manner. Alai 02:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Obviously that's indeed a much more useful and informative article, but it still has some of the same issues as I mentioned.  The article starts out as talking about the parish (in toto), but the body is almost entirely concerned with the church, so the scoping still seems unclear to me.  And the triple-stubbing seems excessive, as I mentioned.  Would you be agreeable to tagging them all as England-stub and RC-church-stub, or else with UK-RC-church-stub or England-RC-church-stub if WP:WSS/P is willing create one of those?  That'd deal with their "taking up space" in oversized stub types...  Alai 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Many thanks for helping fend off the vandals while Gregorian chant was on the main page. I wasn't prepared for the level of vandalism. It's heartening to know how efficient and diligent you WP admins and editors are to revert it! Peirigill 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman Empire
Nobody who studies history professionally would suggest that the entity which was conquered by the Ottomans in 1453 was still the "Roman Empire." Why would you revert without discussing on the talk page? The 1453 date was only inserted on October 30 (without discussion, I might add); it was properly listed as 476 before that. The Byzantine Empire has its own page. Please engage me on Talk:Roman Empire. Dppowell 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Identity et al.
Hello, and many thanks for your note. I do still think its important that the issue of Byz. identity be addressed in a more catholic (small 'c'!) fashion, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be productive to do so in the context of a larger entry on Byzantine society. This could deal with self-understanding and the status of "minorities" alongside other questions of social history -- i.e. marriage and family structure, rural and urban society, etc. It's a topic on which a large (if largely French) modern literature exists, and couldn't possibly be branded as OR. Provision of "reliable academic sources" is hardly a problem, as I'm blessed with good libraries. Of course the article would ideally be synchronic and unburdened by tendentious diachronic narratives. Let me know what you think. Best, --Javits2000 10:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire
Hello! I know you have been a keen contributor to the discussions at Talk:Byzantine Empire, so I am eager to know what you think about the latest proposal on that page. There is a vote about whether or not we should change the Byzantine Empire from pink to purple in all the maps of the article. I would be very happy to see your support or object, or even comment on this issue. Please let us know what you think! Thanks, Bigdaddy1204 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing. I also cannot help but notice that some of the editors who contribute to that page seem to have something against you. Having become involved in bitter arguments on wikipedia myself, I know how frustrating this can be. If the recent discussion at Talk: Byzantine Empire has caused you to become disillusioned, I could understand that.

Therefore I encourage you to enjoy your editing, and remember that sometimes it can be best to just leave petty "talk-page politics" to those that bother. Don't let yourself be dragged into getting fed up with wikipedia just because of one or two overly aggressive people. If you weren't feeling disillusioned after all, then I apologise for my presumption. Anyway, happy editing, and hopefully I'll see you around! Bigdaddy1204 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A WikiProject you may be interested in...
Hi there! I notice you're from Surrey - please take a look at WikiProject Surrey, which I started earlier this afternoon. Cheers.--Vox Humana 8&#39; 21:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Everingham Catholic Church High Altar.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:High Altar 2.jpg. The copy called Image:High Altar 2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 10:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am an innocent man
You should not be blocked any longer. Regards. The Rambling Man 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Everingham2024.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Everingham2024.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Strangerer (Talk) 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!