User talk:Tb

26 September 2024
In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws" Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections? Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia? Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

I set up a disambig page instead.--Bhuck (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I added a number of third party RS refs today to the Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis) article (the subject of the AfD that you've participated in). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still doubt it is notable, but regardless, I'm certainly delighted to see the considerable improvement in the quality of the article. Tb (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- nice of you to say. Sorry it took me a few days to move the google search stuff into the article. Thanks for your forbearance.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A media file you uploaded, File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif, may be affected by the outcome of a non-free-image-review discussion for File:TEC arms.PNG. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:TEC_arms.PNG. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm @#$&@(#742# pissed at the whole thing, and I wish the @*#($*@ admins could get their @#*$(@#* act together and stop just deleting images, refusing to discuss, and saying "oh, do this", and then we go around again. I can tell you what will happen already, but instead, we get to play this unending game. Tb (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I marked it for deletion then undid my actions when I law some old discussion indicating it might be public domain. I then opened the current discussion. PS: I am not an admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. Its all seems reasonable and I'm happy with the arguments. The only thing I must note is that you'd better talk to me first before reverting my edits en masse. There is no intrinsic contradiction with linking an author, but there might well be in this case. As you noted, the notability of JoAnn E. Manson is borderline and there was a clear pattern of its promotion by MedicineMan555. In such case, I do not see any reason why that author should be linked, especially when she is a 3rd or 4th co-author in an article, especially when it is a mass linking. This may well bias the reader, that she is the major contributor, which is not - she just happened to have a WP page. As to MoS and COI policies, it can not possibly cover all scenarios and is especially vague on references, simply because there is no accepted policy on those. COI concerns are often handled by the community or individual admin actions, such as this case. If you're planning to bring this specific COI concern somewhere and see what happens - that could be fine, if not - let us talk, as I'm not entirely happy with your global revert. Materialscientist (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) (i) I treat this situation as specific case (ii) Even abstracting from COI, how about my comment above - why a 4rd co-author of an article should be selectively linked? Materialscientist (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think linking authors of journals is of questionable WP:notable. Having one user go around and promote this physician is a COI aswell.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the JoAnn E. Manson is notable, then the subject is notable. If it's not notable, then an AfD is in order. As I indicated on User:Materialscientist's talk page, I am on the fence about whether it's notable, though I'm very much annoyed that it seems to be a giant COI problem. I agree that links to non-notable authors shouldn't be present, but there are only two ways that can happen: it's an external link, or the article itself is of a non-notable subject, and should be deleted. Perhaps that is the right course here, but I don't know. Now that I've given it some mental energy, if an AfD is opened, I'll investigate more carefully, think more carefully, and weigh in with my opinion at that time. Tb (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Episcopal Church Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't realize that I was complicating things until after I changed the page. I was simply intending to upload a superior file type to gif. I've sent an email to images@episcopalchurch.org and hope to request formal permission for the image. -Vcelloho (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, I'm sure that will confuse them since I sent such an email myself. Tb (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got permission over email unfortunately the image that I uploaded was deleted -Vcelloho (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm very disappointed in ZScout's rush to delete, although to be fair he was probably acting on both your request to close and my pre-struck motion to close.

Tonight's activities were made worse by facts changing by the minute.

One minute, the claim that a vector image was copied from the church web site appeared false on its face. A few minutes later it was clarified and *poof* I knew the image was drawn by the church.

For several days, there has been no movement. I see you asking to close. I write up a detailed concurring statement. Then *poof* I see there is an email correspondence which means we should put any closures on hold until that winds down.

Here is what might have happened if I had been asleep today:

• You would've made the statement you made to close the discussion.
• Some admin, possibly ZScout, would've started deleting images and replacing image usages in articles with commons-hosted images.
• Vcelloho would've done his thing, you would've corrected him on the source, and he would've fixed that up.
• When I woke up, I would've found the articles with commons-hosted images and the Wikipedia images deleted, along with their talk pages.
• The discussion may or may not be marked "resolved"
• If either you or another editor sent an inquiry to the church and got a reply, you would then have to act on that reply.

In other words, my being here tonight wasted several editor's time but didn't do any harm beyond that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered at all that you were here tonight. :) I am bothered that when Commons deletes the image, as they will, we will be back where we started, and you and ZScout will probably be gone, as the previous people who played your roles in this little game in the past have also vanished. Did you notice than ZScout deleted the images citing F8, which does not even apply, because the images are not identical and of the same format? While I would be happy to see his drawing stay on Commons and be the sole one which we all use, this points out that admins can and do delete images in wild contravention of not only consensus, but clearly stated guidelines. On the other hand, the fair use rationale I uploaded, was clear, and has lots of very clear precedent behind it on Wikipedia. If you had only been willing to let it be, as I requested you back when you thought it would be fun to stir this up, it could stay for years, because we know that admins will leave non-free logos with clearly stated explanations in place. Instead, we'll be back here again, if not next month, in six or ten. Tb (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout370 (talk · contribs) took the time to draw the shield commons:File:Shield of the US Episcopal Church.svg and put it on the commons earlier this month. He also re-drew the flag commons:File:Flag of the US Episcopal Church.svg at about the same time. He deserves some thanks for this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. [1] [2]. Tb (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tb! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 19:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tb, I saw you had also reverted some changes made by an IP (71.145.162.148) who insists on dropping the "Roman" from "Roman Catholic." This appears to be the latest outburst of something that's been going on for longer: in December last year I ran into User:Rev.JamesTBurtchaell,csc, who was making the same changes (and User:Sunray got involved also), and before your flurry of activity I had one of my own, with User:71.145.168.215. I am going to guess that between "your" IP and mine it's not intentional IP hopping, but it's something to keep an eye out for anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a long-standing thing. Precedes December too. Tb (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tb, I noticed that you had been quite active in the semi-current discussion regarding Episcopal shield images, and I have suggested to Zscout370 a path toward resolving the deletion merry-go-round once and for all. I remember the same crap going on 4-5 years ago when I was first active on WP, I couldn't believe that this cycle is still ongoing. Anyway, if you're interested, have a look at my suggestions on Zscout's talk page and let us know what you think. Cheers! Wine Guy Talk 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tb, You are quite right. My reading of the page as it was infuriated me. I felt it was hardly neutral, but painted the Diocese in a very poor light. I will try to neutralize my edits to see if they meet the standards of WP. Thanks. Revzoom (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is never a good idea to edit Wikipedia when you are infuriated. In particular, your expectation that you can simply remove mention of the views you disagree with is not a good sign. Tb (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please dont add back the chart, nasarani evolution in the Indian Churches wiki pages. The history depicted in the chart is a manipulated history created by some catholic historians in the 19th century. It is not the official history of any Indian church(Marthoma, Orthodox etc).

Facts:

1.Portuguese brought Catholicism to India. 2.Potuguese found the sea route to Asia only in the 15th or 16th century. 3.Kerala had historic connections with the Middle East, Syria, Iraq etc. 4.There were several migrations from the Middle East to India from the 4th century onwards. 5.The middle eastern Christians are mostly Orthodox, Chalcedean and Assyrian. 6.Catholism spread throughout the world through the Spanish and Portuguese Colonialisation, after the 12Th century AD. 7. Catholic church spread rapidly only after the Spaniards mastered cartography and the sea routes.

Eg: Spaniards & Portuguese in Latin America
    Spaniards             in Philippines
    Spaniards             in Japan (Never Succeeded)
    Many many more ......

Now in India, the history of Catholics begins only from the 16th century, like in many parts of the world. However, since being excellent manipulators of history, they would like to claim to be first everywhere. These chart is an example of it.

You are hurting the sentiments of many indigenous Christians of India, who have no ties with catholic church, by allowing them to add their chart in other christian denominations website. The original chart is the exact opposite of what is being shown.

So I would sincerely urge you not to side with people who distort history. At least why would other Indigenous Christians have a catholic chart on their page. Please think and Many Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.97.34 (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This chart was agreed by all concerned, and your edits have been disruptive. You need to discuss it, and not simply make unexplained and POV blanks. Tb (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, the proper way to proceed is not by blanking, but by improving the chart. That will require you to engage in good faith discussion on the talk page for the chart, and propose NPOV alternatives, working together with other editors. Tb (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi..

thanks .. i will surely open a discussion topic.. til then please hold this .. and not add it back.. please go to Marthoma Church ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Thoma_Church ) discussion page and see what they haev done to this chart. Again no indigenous local christian church would allow such a chart to be put on there webpage.

plese guide me through the proceedings.. appreciate your help. Thanks .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.97.34 (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not your web page, it is Wikipedia's web page. Fix the chart by fixing the chart, not by deleting it. Tb (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tb: Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to do an improvements re: indigenous Christianity in India--though I am very interested in learning more. If there is aything else I can do for you, please do not hesitate to call upon me. MishaPan (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@tb. The reason why it is told, that there is no common history is because of the numerous history that floats in India. Get to each of these churches webpages and find how different it is. What is correct for the Indian Orthodoc church is not correct for the catholics and not correct for the Jacobites and not correct for the pentecost and so on and so on. Why create a commotion here, by adding a chart. The present chart is floated in almost all necessary and unnecessary places, even in Oriental Orthodox wikipage.. Is this really necessary. One guy is trying to propagate his version of history whereever he could. When you initially told, the chart was accepted by the wiki editors , did you ask, whether any one of this editors belong to the Orthodox church which has around 2mn ardherents. Did any one out of the 2 millions gave the consent to add another churches history here ????????? This is clear act of vandalism.