User talk:Lima

User Page

You should establish a user page so you dont appear as a "red link". People in this place tend to take more seriously the "blue link" users. Its strange but true! -Husnock 13:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Monsignor

Saw your edits to the Monsignor section of Roman Catholic Church, and I was wondering if you'd share your reference with me. The reference I consulted was obviuosly outdated (or just plain wrong) and since it's a fairly well-known and respected reference (I've required it in for students in my undergraduate courses) I want to bring the inaccuracy to the attention of the authors. If you wouldn't mind posting a link or other source information on my talk page I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks for the good work! Essjay 13:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the Greek in the Catholicism Article

Sorry, I was in a hurry when I typed it the first time.--Jpbrenna 14:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Your latest changes to Mass (liturgy)

I appreciate your additional refinements in the introductory words to Mass (litergy). I am not a Catholic, but the previous intro seemed confused and a little misleading -- hence my changes. Thanks, Jim Ellis 19:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Communion article

Thank you for your edits! The introduction was truly a mess before. Good work! -Rekleov 17:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Greek

Thank God someone's finally come along to correct all our atrocious Greek spelling! I wonder if you could take the trouble to look at the Orthodox section of Vestments and make sure we've got the Greek right there, and maybe add it where we're missing it?

In your recent edit to Eucharist you remarked that you didn't know how to add a breath mark. You ought to be able to just use the Greek keyboard mapping and type normally. Wikipedia normally encodes its pages in Unicode, so anything with a Unicode encoding should display correctly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The default "Greek" keyboard types monotonic Greek. For older forms of Greek you'll need to install the "Polytonic Greek" keyboard, which has all the diacritical marks included. The method of typing is somewhat different, with different "deadkeys" to bring in the marks you want. You can get a Word document from Microsoft from this page that includes the keyboard layout. (As well as installation instructions, which seem needlessly complex to me.)

Go to the "Regional and Language Options" Control Panel, then the Languages tab, and click on the Details button. Select Greek under "Installed Services" and click on Add. There will be two different combo boxes on the "Add Input language" dialog that pops up. On the one labelled "Keyboard layout/IME" you should be able to find "Greek Polytonic". Select it, and then click OK on all the boxes. You will then have two keyboards to select from when you choose EL on the language bar -- Look for a keyboard icon next to the language name. You may need to make the bar a little wider than normal to see it.

Yes, in Vestments the older forms would be preferable. But when I was trying to check my spelling all I could find for comparison was the modern, so I used that rather than risk misspelling the koine. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for giving you incomplete information. I've been successful using the built-in keyboards for other Unicode encodings, and I just assumed the Polytonic Greek would work just as it does for the others. Still, I wonder if browser configuration has anything to do with it. In every case on my talk page where you were trying to show me it didn't work, it looked just fine to me. I see the {{polytonic}} template imposes a set of fonts to use, so perhaps your browser isn't set up to use a font by default that contains the Polytonic characters for Unicode encodings. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Traditional Catholicism

No problem on the incardination issue. I know that SSPX followers claim they have supplied jursisdiction, because they claim an "emergency". I think the issue belongs somewhere, I will think it through. Dominick 21:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The issues I had was the narrowing and obfuscation of the difinition with the term conservative. I think including the Integrist term is important, but I am not going to put a stake in the ground over it. My primary issue is tossing edits and redefining the term as Anonymous did. The page is on RFP. Dominick 16:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You can be dis-incardinated without being laicized. Priests can have incardination removed, and change incardination, but not be liacized. Dominick 13:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct on the canon, a incardinated priest who is no longer incardinated is a vagus, and is suspended. This is a minor technical issue in the article, the meaning is clear. Dominick 13:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I refer to three separate conditions. The first, a Priest in good standing; second, one who for some reason is no longer incardinated; and finally one who is laicized. A liacized priest is automatically disincardinated. Priests suspended "a divinis", are no longer incardinated if they follow an excommunicated Bishop. Thats what makes this important, but again, a minor issue in this article. Dominick 17:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Page is protected. I will not be hurt if you removed some of my comments here. I hope we can reach a consensus soon.Dominick 01:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you think progress is bring made? Dominick 12:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

DO you think true traditionalists is NPoV? Dominick 19:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Lima, I made some NPoV edits, and fixed that part, removed some tortured terms, that made thing so much more complicated. Our anonymous friend put a lot of "nonsense" in. Pathos reverted it. :-) Dominick 11:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I went to RfP again. I consider that a failure on my part. Dominick 12:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

RfP is request for protection. I imagine it is turned down, and the sillyness will continue. Next is binding arbitration. Dominick 18:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Shoud we pursue mediation? Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 17:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As a comprimise text, my edition is hopelessly flawed. I was trying to help. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

From Dominick

Thanks for the edits, you can usually see where I am going with something, and find a way to make the additions better. I appreciate the work you do! Dominick 12:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would love you to please read over Karl Keating, I am trying to de-stubify it. Maybe that would be more pleasent work! Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you done with Traditionalist Catholic? Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My profuse apologies for trying your patience. I am sincerly impatient myself, especially with the insults embedded in the article. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The comment section Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminology used in the Traditionalist Catholic debate is looking for a keep, delete or some such vote. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Used2BAnonymous Dominick ^(TALK) 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think things are settling down. Please accept my apologies for any offense to you in particular. I may have been pig headed, but I felt the core issue was behavior, and an RfC was the right way to address it. I hope that your patience will again return with me, in particular. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense! I don't blame you for not getting involved, or making those comments at all! Dominick ^(TALK) 16:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dankon

Thanks for your excellent work at Roman Catholic Church. It (still) needs all the help it can get. BTW, you make me very envious...kiel lernis vi tiel mutajn lingvojn? Hasta la próxima...--Dpr 18:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome

You are, indeed, welcome. I appreciate your thanks. God bless you.--Midnite Critic 05:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Terminology Section of Roman Catholic Church

Hi Lima,

I wonder if you could add your thoughts to the section headed 'Terminology' on Talk:Roman Catholic Church? Your changes don't really address my concerns about the quote; but I don't want to start a revert war.

Unfortunately Talk:Roman Catholic Church is almost useless now because it's so long; my proposal that the quote be removed has been awaiting comment for about 4 months, and no-one has disagreed with it on the talk page; but obviously in the case of this article that doesn't mean that no-one actually disagrees with it. TSP 09:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hiya. You might not have noticed but the St. John Lateran is located at the Italian version of its name, thanks to a four person vote in April, even though English speakers worldwide (except in the US) don't use the Italian version of the name. I've proposed a vote to move the page back to its original location. It is at Talk:Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano. Please drop in and vote. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic

You can view the draft consensus vote at User:Pathoschild/Sandbox. If you have any suggestion about or opposition to this draft, please respond here. Note that opposition to the vote itself is best left on the Traditionalist Catholic talk page, where it will be read by the other voters. Thanks. // Pathoschild 03:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The rough consensus vote has failed to achieve any clear agreement. Do you have any opposition to formal mediation? // Pathoschild 19:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

help?

Lima, I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stup of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. When you have time, would you go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation you think necessary? I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if you checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh

"I am curious as to the reasons for the changes you made to Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh...", someone who did not sign wrote on my Talk page.

The "Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh", as it was described on the page of that name, was not the Metropolitan Archeparchy, but what is officially called the Ruthenian Rite or particular Church (cf. pages 1138 and 1141 of the 2005 Annuario Pontificio). Page 1141 lists the component local Churches of the Ruthenian Rite as follows:

• U.S.A.: Metropolitan: Pittsburgh of the Byzantines - Eparchies: Parma, Passaic, Van Nuys.
• Ukraine: Eparchy: Mukacheve
• Czech Republic: Apostolic Exarchate: Košice Lima 07:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church"

Hi,

You said in your summary you "rm falsehood". Can we discuss what is false with this statement: "It was not until the Vatican Council of 1870, did the Roman church officially called itself "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", laying exclusive claim to the name catholic."? KarmaKameleon 05:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)