This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SebastianHelm (talk | contribs) at 17:11, 3 January 2009 (reply to {{adminhelp}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:11, 3 January 2009 by SebastianHelm (talk | contribs) (reply to {{adminhelp}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
{{adminhelp}}
To an administrator: I would like some assistance. A while ago, the user User:Ad.minster made a variety of edits that I found objectionable. Some of them included offensive invisible comments in pages, for example, . "TEC" there refers to the Episcopal Church. I requested User:Ad.minster not to leave offensive comments such as this in articles, here: . He also created a large number of redirects to point to a newly renamed page; in this case, they were POV redirects. See, for example, Anglican America. Another editor and I have since arranged for these redirects to point to a suitable non-POV page. In no case that I can find has User:Ad.minster engaged in discussion of disputed points. Recently, he began a tirade of personal attacks against me on his user talk page. See . , ,
, . Here, he edits another user's comment to make a complaint look like high praise. Then he changed the section headings under which I posted my comments, and I had enough. I would like to remove my comments from his talk page, and tried to do so twice, , and . He has changed the context in which my comments were made sufficiently that I no longer regard them as mine, and I do not wish to have them continue under my name. Those who wish can look in edit logs, but the current contents of User Talk: Ad.minster is not appropriate IMO. I would like to have nothing further to do with him. I do not know what the proper procedure is to follow to have my comments removed. Tb (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- This does not require specific admin help. The generally recommended procedure is to follow the steps laid out in WP:DR. What I would do in your place, since this issue seems to be related to Anglicanism, would be to turn to the good folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anglicanism. — Sebastian 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
"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)
Dec 2008
History2007 (talk) 14:14, 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)