This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fry1989 (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 14 August 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:51, 14 August 2012 by Fry1989 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
STOP removing the description of the Holy See's symbol from the "other elements" section of the infobox. The "Other Elements" section of the infobox is specifically for parts of a symbol that are not heraldic in nature, while the "Escutcheon" section is for describing parts of a symbol that is heraldic in nature. If you keep removing it, I will ask that you be blocked, I have zero patience in this matter. Fry1989 20:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please provide a reference. Thank you. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- A reference for WHAT? That the description is correct or that the "other elements" section is for symbols that are non-heraldic? If it's the latter, that's common knowledge here, and your continued vandalism can easily see you blocked. Fry1989 20:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Lets start with "interlaced in the rings Or". Well in the image it is clearly red not or (gold). Interlaced what do you mean by that? etc. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- If there is a minor problem in a description, you correct it, you don't remove it as you have done several times. That's called vandalism. Fry1989 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it is wrong, so I removed it. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- No it is not wrong, it simply was mistaken, which is why you correct it as I have now done. It's Two keys in saltire Or and argent, beneath a tiara argent, crowned Or. Fry1989 20:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is still wrong. Any how you've done some original research and used the vatican Escutcheon to come up with your own. If what you wrote is true then it should be easily citable. Please provide a reference for it. A secondary one will do. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Vatican Press Office is not original research, it's an official source, and there are others as well. I can line them off. Stop interfering with fact. Fry1989 20:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is still wrong. First you do not mention the ribbon. Second you are attempting to use an heraldic blazon. The Vatican website does not give one for this image. So please provide a secondary source. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- We can use whatever description we want on here, we're not bound by these silly laws that you heraldic purists make up and try to force on it. It's not wrong any anybody with eyes can see it's a silver key crossed with a gold one, with a papal crown. I'm asking for your block, your vandalism has passed my patience. Fry1989 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is still wrong. Any how you've done some original research and used the vatican Escutcheon to come up with your own. If what you wrote is true then it should be easily citable. Please provide a reference for it. A secondary one will do. Embattled Grady (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)