| Revision as of 23:06, 29 November 2014 edit2602:306:bd61:e0f0:644a:5508:1251:8d09 (talk) Response: Also posted at your Talk← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:36, 13 January 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| == Your Grace == | |||
| Archishops outside the UK are styled "Your Excellency" and not "Your Grace". Your widespread changes all had to be reverted. You should really have discussed or tested this on one article first before changing so many without ]. ] (]) 17:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Furthermore, your purported "source" for style of address links to a sedevacantist, heretical organization that does not represent Catholic teaching or the Church. I suggest you find better sources. ] (]) 17:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* Clearly your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. You are plainly factually wrong as my source clearly proved. The fact that you dislike that source only means that you need to produce a ''superior one.'' It does ''not'' give you license to wholesale revert my edits. I provided a reliable source, which met my obligation. ''That'' is how this works. While you provided absolutely nothing of substance to counter it - except your own, unsourced and uninformed ramblings. That is ''not'' how this works. Suggest you review ], not to mention ]. In fact, I suggest you also review ]. Because if you bite this newcomer, you will learn that I bite back. | |||
| :: Further, and equally troubling, is the fact that your response fails to address several critical issues: | |||
| :: First, it appears that you are somehow unaware that ''WP is a secular project.'' Its sources do not require anyone's ] for inclusion - least of all, yours. So in that context, your claims of what is "heretical," are not only irrelevant here, but are simply bizarre. | |||
| ::Second, you alone certainly do not qualify as "consensus" of any kind. You do not even constitute a ]! Nor did I - or do I - need ''your'' "permission" or a "discussion" with ''you'' prior to my edits. Really?! Who are you? As you well know (or should), the place to address any concerns with my edits, would properly have been on a talk page - '''before''' you reverted them. | |||
| ::Third, you are also apparently operating under some misguided delusion that edits addressing a Roman Catholic ] of a certain rank with the honorific, "Your Grace" - which is more accurate than the generic, "Your Excellency" - is disqualifying if the source comes from an organization you believe you can blithely dismiss with irrelevant and unsupported claims of heresy? Seriously? Your position would be laughable if it wasn't so transparently false and patently ridiculous. ] for your unschooled and uninformed view of who is, and is not, "heretical," or worthy as a source, especially when it comes to something as fundamentally non-controversial as the proper styles of address. | |||
| ::Sadly, like most Americans, you appear clearly clueless regarding the proper use and style of honorifics. For example, you don't address ''"Her Majesty, the Queen,"'' or any sitting monarch, as ''"Your Highness."'' It is a lesser title. Nor do you write ''"Dr. John Smith, M.D."'' One may either use the honorific or the post-nominal, but never both. Nor do you write "John Smith, Esq., J.D." as it is functionally redundant; or "Dr. John Smith, J.D.," because, while the ] is technically a doctoral degree, it is not viewed as a ], as ] and ] degrees are more advanced. Likewise, American prelates and their congregations are largely uneducated about honorifics. So while an archbishop is always a bishop - hence "Excellency" is simplistic, yet marginally accurate; a bishop is never automatically an archbishop. So "Grace" is internationally accepted and used to distinguish between the two ranks. The head of an archdiocese is automatically an archbishop - never a bishop. While an archbishop, once installed, is rarely demoted to a diocese, and when he is, he generally retains the title, archbishop. | |||
| :: But back to you. I will revert your unsourced edits. And will do so with additional ] - like the Should you wish to counter, then I suggest you try providing reliable sources of your own. Because the nonsense that was your initial response, just won't cut it. Try some genuine effort next time. As I have. But if your "research" is anything like your sloppy writing - it may still be problematic. So what exactly are ''"Archishops?"'' ] (]) 23:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:36, 13 January 2023
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.