Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:24, 3 April 2009

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hello

Hello my friend; are you visible today? Scirocco6 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Various things relating to Daily Office

Hi, I saw your recent edits in the Morning and Evening Prayer articles and that got me to thinking about them myself. First of all, isn't it sort of stupid to have Evening Prayer be a disambiguation page, but Morning Prayer be specifically Anglican? Particularly since the Vespers article talks about non-Roman Catholic forms of vespers and includes Evening Prayer as one of them? Secondly, have a look at the way I re-sorted the headings in Evening Prayer, grouping them into the pre-liturgical renewal forms, which have 1662 as their model (why the 1928 BCP should be more "traditional", when it omits the Phos Hilaron and is more Puritan-Reformed-oriented, is not clear to me...don't you think that heading is problematic?), and those forms which reflect the liturgical renewal movement (Common Worship, BAS/ASB, 1979). Shouldn't we do something like that with Morning Prayer, too? The problem there is that the section about Common Worship is just so long that it is hard to integrate with the others. But it would have the added advantage of not specifying the 1979 BCP be particularly American. Three hours ago, I just completed an Evensong service done in the 1979 BCP form in the Federal Republic of Germany. Similar things will take place in Colombia and other parts of the world (Province IX) outside America. The whole ECUSA, TEC, etc. abbreviations are pretty problematic, I agree, but spelling out the word "American" doesn't help much, except to make clear we are not talking about Scotland.--Bhuck (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do like your recent change, but I would love something further reaching. I agree with your concerns expressed in this note as well. I think it's silly to have the Anglican and RC and Orthodox pages separated. Indeed, now that RCs use the terms "Morning Prayer" and "Evening Prayer" it's particularly silly. Detailed service outlines are not really that helpful in my opinion, but regardless, some unification and so forth is needed. As for "liturgical renewal", I think that's the wrong place to pin this. Indeed, despite the protestations of some, the 1928 BCP office is very similar to Rite One, which (aside from language) is virtually identical to Rite Two. Notice that the "service in tradition of the 1662 prayerbook" is almost a perfect description of the Rite Two office in the 1979 BCP! Tb (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I could easily live with a merger of the Anglican, RC, and Orthodox versions of Morning and Evening prayer all being in one article. We would have to figure out what to do to differentiate between Mattins and Lauds, though, if both are Morning Prayer. Or is Matins Compline if it is in the night watch?--Bhuck (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Compline is Compline. :) Matins is the same as Vigils; Lauds is the same as Morning Prayer. Anglicans came to call Morning Prayer "Matins" (or "Mattins"), because "matins" means morning--though it was always the *early* morning office, the same as monastic "Vigils", sung about 2am traditionally. Tb (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of that clear explanation, I find the "this article..." blurb at the top of the Morning Prayer article particularly confusing.--Bhuck (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I just came across these articles; seeing them, I'd like to note that Jews also have Evening prayers and morning prayers! They differ greatly, however, from Catholic and Anglican prayers. See Jewish services. As such, I am going to introduce a bit of disambiguation to these articles. RK (talk)

"a page" or multiple pages?

While I can live with this edit, and the IP who provoked it might learn an important lesson from it, the IP's argument that "Anglican America" "must point to a page" about Anglicanism in America is a bit short-circuited. It could also point to multiple pages about Anglicanism in America. British North America (now known as Canada) would be another likely target for such a page, so maybe if problems persist, we should set up a disambiguation page, where churches of the Anglican Communion figure prominently (Mexico has one, too, and that is in America as well--and even the Southern Cone is in America, though the very southern part of it). The disambiguation page could also list the various and sundry schismatic groups, or if there already is such a list somewhere else, the disambiguation page could incorporate such a list by reference. Just an idea, since you seem to be the one who is awake and editing at the times the IP is active (probably you are in a more similar time zone than I).--Bhuck (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A slew of these were all created at once, at the same time as the "ACNA" was formed out of the CCP. I don't mind a disambiguation page, I thought of doing that myself but didn't have the time. It's really quite pointless; these redirection links were created, in my opinion, purely to drum up points at ACNA, but now they're here, and a redirection page seems good. Tb (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

REC

Thank you for cleaning up that business about the REC and FCE/ECFCE. Man, that article is a "wreck" indeed, with anonymous editors on POV missions. Hey: I remember you from soc.religion.christian in the 1980s! Feliz Nav. Chonak (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to finesse the UK fractiousness by adding the disambig header. Sent the guy a note requesting clarification. I've never dealt w/the 3RR before, so will need to refresh memory.Chonak (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Augustus Wise

Hey sorry about that but when I first added the section you must have removed it very soon after because I thought that it simply did not save properly. I did not realize your action. Concerning the section in question, I admit, I added it somewhat hasty and I understand your reasoning. Thanks for contacting me. Daytrivia (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Chief of Protocol

Hi, I'm not trying to be a pain or do anything wrong here. The article as it stood was simply not accurate hence my additions. I'm new to Winkipedia and trying to learn the best way to source. I work at the State Dept. in the Protocol Department. All I can say is the website is NOT up-to-date and changes to certain sections can take months to be updated. The changes are formal and HAVE taken place and will be carried forward in to the next administration. The interview for the Washington Diplomat was the place this was announced and the quote is accurate. Hope this helps. -- 71.206.91.252 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.91.252 (talk)

As I said elsewhere (but I'll say here to be sure), we have a situation of two inconsistent, but equally authoritative sources; in accord with WP:V what it seems we should do is simply document the inconsistency. Those who work for your employer may want to encourage them to take seriously the need for accurate presentation of information; very old or inaccurate information reflects poorly on your employer, which should be of particular interest to the Department of State. Tb (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard

You're being complained about at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Another_user_has_taken_over_my_Userspace_Talk_page. I don't see where you've done anything too obviously inappropriate, but it sounds like you've upset User:Ad.minster. I think it's best if you just stop trying to talk to him on his talk page for now, and leave it however he wants it. Friday (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy with your suggestion, if it were not for the nasty negative comments about me on his talk page. Tb (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad.minster

As a compromise at User talk:Ad.minster, why don't you just strike your comments? That should end the drama between the two of you.

As a courtesy, he has opened a case at AN about this incident. Dayewalker (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with striking the comments. His comments are personal attacks against me, and I want them to be removed. But failing that, I am willing to have my comments removed, and then his cease being personal attacks--since they no longer have my name attached. Tb (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would you suggest you take your concerns to the AN thread then. Dayewalker (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

American and British spellings

That was accidental on my part. I do try to follow the rule about using American spellings for American topics.--Bhuck (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I assumed it was accidental; it's hard to re-program one's brain on command with different spellings! Tb (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Biblical commentaries

Thanks for your civil explanation of the edit. And I honestly appreciate your feedback. I think you're right, a link to exegesis does need to be there. I'll see if I can come up with a better introduction, but probably post it on the talk page first. Lamorak (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles Bennison

The article on Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania does not mention that the bishop was deposed, though I understand the verdict is being appealed. This is the most recent news item I could find. Do you think edits of the diocesan article or the individual biography are in order?--Bhuck (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall whether that article is the latest news or not. By now the court should have ruled on the sentence, which is necessary for the appeal to have been filed anyhow. There has not been an actual deposition, because the execution of the sentence is on hold until the appeal is concluded. My recollection is that the sentence (deposition) has been adjudged by the court, Bennison has said he would appeal, but the appeal has not yet been actually filed. I am by no means certain of this. It would be most useful to get the actual latest info, and then make the article say the right thing. Tb (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The diocesan website is not very helpful in this regard. A couple of days ago, their most recent post said that the "Bishop's Ball" (in December) had been cancelled or postponed due to an ice storm, but whether it was Bennison's ball or Bartlett's ball or maybe a suffragan bishop's ball was left unclear. I can't find anything about the diocese accepting nominations for a new bishop, though, which probably means something.--Bhuck (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Wikiproject Anglicanism should be all caught up soon in the rating department. I wanted to take on a big project that would be helpful and was unlikely to lead to much conflict with other editors. -- Secisek (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh

There are many things I do not understand about Misplaced Pages, so I would like to pass on to you a couple of things, one of which I was at least able to fix myself. I had included a mention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh in a historical paragraph within the Diocese of Bethlehem entry. When clicked, it went to the Southern Cone article. I changed it to go to the other one, although I suppose I could have been nice and made it go to the disambiguation page. The search function, of course, goes to the disambiguation page, as it should. Can anything be done to prevent every potential present or future link from going to the DOP Southern Cone page?

It took me a while to figure out what the proper name was to take the link to the right page, and in my searches I also discovered that someone had changed the Diocese of Pittsburgh entry for "Province 3 of the Episcopal Church in the United States" to lead specifically to the DOP Southern Cone. This was clearly deliberate, and clearly incorrect, so I changed it. I just wonder if any other tricks have been played. Looking at your exchange with the other "editor" on the DOP page did not reassure meRose bartram (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You can always go to the DOP Southern Cone page, and click "what links here" and then check those. That's the most efficient way I know of. Tb (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Church of England

I have added a section on use of infoboxes to Talk:Church_of_England#Use_of_Infoboxes as there seems to be some competition as to which infobox is best suited to that article. GrahamSmith (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Book of Occasional Services

While looking at the Tenebrae article (the German one is even more RC-POV), I noticed there is no article on the BOS, which is a shame. Other than this, I haven't been able to find much, but I think there should be an article. Any ideas or ambition on your part?--Bhuck (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It takes two

It takes two to move on... Try to give each other a wide berth if you could =) cheers, –xeno (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; my snarky comment was not needed. Thanks for your attention to this. Tb (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

appreciate it =) –xeno (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		For putting differences aside. –xeno (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Saint Mark

Hi Tb. The article Saint Mark the evangelist is not at all about Mark the evangelist, but about Saint Mark the apostle. As you can see there are seperate articles about Saint John and John the evangelist. S711 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Saint Gregory

As you said yourself, you may have violated 3RR on the above article. I would strongly urge you to use caution in the future and also note that reverting edits you consider to be tendentious is not listed at Misplaced Pages:3RR#Exceptions. As User:DGG already reviewed the situation and chose not to issue any blocks, I am going to respect his decision in this matter and not take any further action beyond this strong urging not to use rollback in an edit war or exceed 3RR in the future. –xeno (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)