![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Article with said info can be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/pope-removes-key-benedict-xvi-protege-25164244 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.190.150 ( talk) 03:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Masioka (
talk) 17:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
Thank you for saying you don't have an issue with my web page, I have spent many hours on it. I have used it to create greater unity among other Christian denominations. I now have over 500 followers on my 4unity.net google + profile.
I understand that you don't have time to do everything and I'm thankful that this page is write protected. Thank you for correcting the broken links, I appreciate it. Kind regards, Daniel Skilling Dskilli ( talk) 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
Some thoughts for your consideration:
1. When you want to explain on a Talk page what the rules are for a bishop's appointment/transfer/timing, you might be better off doing so in plain English. A few clear declarative sentences. Most editors, I think, react negatively the moment they see that huge block of text, especially italic and bold italic text. That formatting doesn't emphasize your point. It just inhibits readability. I know you include citations, and you should, but tell us you are linking to Canon Law. Not just bare URLs. It might improve the responses you get.
2. If you are at odds with another editor, it seems harsh to use the disputed tag, which begins with this blanket statement:
The editors, often many editors, who have contributed to an entry deserve more respect than that. The guideline says "Articles for which much of the factual accuracy is actively disputed should have a Disputed warning place at the top". You use that tag when you dispute one small subset of an article's content. The issue may show up in the entry at several points (infobox, lede), but it's really just one issue, no? Wouldn't two or three carefully placed dubious – discuss tags suffice to alert the reader to what info is disputed? Without tag-bombing, of course.
Same point for "crystal" and "inaccuracy". You'd be better off -- and Wikipedia readers would be better off -- if you pinpointed your objections. When I came, for example, to Rainer Woelki the other day, I at first had no idea what the problems were. Imagine what the non-editor Wikipedia reader thought. And you didn't return promptly to remove those tags following his installation.
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The information is not incorrect; the total gross of $3,503,000 is dated as of 14th Sept. As you can see from the below in 'foreign' section of the page on BoxOfficeMojo, it's current gross in the United Kingdom alone already outstrips this figure, standing at $4.1m.
Count the figures together of the grossing countries on BoxOfficeMojo, which is dated as of 21st Sept (not 14th), and the figure is actually $5,095,592.
94.2.101.203 ( talk) 00:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems you've misunderstood the point of my edits. The problem with your wording is that it describes the dioceses as being 'in England', which is simply wrong – they both cover substantial areas outside of England. Any reader will interpret your wording on the Province of Southwark as that province covering areas in England only. 85.166.79.218 ( talk) 20:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hola Elizium23!
Como usted habla español y esta interesado en los artículos de la Iglesia Católica, solicito tu ayuda. Estoy haciendo los escudos de armas de los obispos católicos, ahora estoy enfocado en los prelados estadounidenses y es por eso que escribo. Necesito imágenes o información de los emblemas de los arzobispos Roger Schwietz,y Joseph Naumann, y me preguntaba, si por favor usted se podría comunicar con las respectivas arquidiócesis y solicitar información de los escudos, yo no hablo ingles, por lo cual no podría tener una comunicación fluida, tendría que usar un traductor en linea, los cuales no son muy precisos que digamos. Del arzobispo Naumann solo encontré esta pequeña imagen de su escudo, no logro identificar el elemento que se encuentra entre la cruz amarilla y la escuadra blanca, si tan solo tuviera la descripción heráldica o una imagen de mejor resolución saldría de sudas.
Mira el armorial (álbum) de los escudos de los obispos de norte América, la mayoría los hice yo.
Por cierto, ¿me podrías por favor decir que es lo que dice este mensaje que me dejaron en mi discusión? no entiendo nada, uso dos traductores y el texto traducido no tiene sentido, solo se que tiene que ver el el lema en latín de mis escudos.
Gracias por la atencion prestada, saludos.
-- SajoR ( talk) 19:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled at your second warning. Would you rather a template remain on the page than that the page be edited to address the template's concern? That's not what templates are for, and as a longtime editor, you should know better than that - templates are not to be used as badges of shame, but as incitement to improve the article. (And I could have sworn there was a WP shortcut for badge of shame, but I don't know where it is.) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
could you right me an 8th grade report on spain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.247.130 ( talk) 17:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Elizium23:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
–
JudeccaXIII (
talk) 18:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Elizium23, I came across an edit by this user on the article Eh, where the user made an unsourced claim that seemed to be from original synthesis. Upon visiting this user's talk page, I discovered that they have a long history of these sorts of edits, and that the last message there was a warning by you for them to stop.
The edit that they made on 'Eh' was small, and I would have otherwise overlooked it, but I thought that you might be interested in knowing that this user continues to violate important wikipedia guidelines. They have made some other edits in the last few days as well, but I couldn't tell just from looking at them if these were also violations. I am a new user, so I don't feel confident in my judgment of his other edits.
I hope that this is helpful and not just nit-picking! -- Sennsationalist ( talk) 14:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Elizium,
I'm writing in regard to my removal and your restoration of a section on language translations for the Paschal Greeting. I removed Klingon and Dothraki because they are made up languages for television shows. Klingon is the language of the warrior aliens in "Star Trek" and Dothraki is a made up language for fictional warriors in the book series and HBO television series "Game of Thrones". Including these fake languages is not in keeping with the reverence associated with the Paschal Greeting, Christ is risen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.15.130 ( talk) 21:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You're a lot more experienced than I am here. What can I do to get some more neutral editors participating? The problems with the page at issue become pretty glaring once you read the sources, but so far there's been a bunch of participation by friends of the "other side" who appear to share an agenda.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 22:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to follow the WP:DR directions. Unfortunately, the other editor does not feel bound by the rules. After starting the POV discussion, the other editor declared that there was a consensus within hours, and repeatedly removed the POV template. She's been cited for abusing templates before. This time it results in protection for the page. She also works closely with two other editors, on each others' pages, which creates an impression of broader involvement.
I don't see any indication that she's ever attempted to work toward compromise or consensus on anything, ever. She appears to be coordinating with the other editors off the site.
As I'm going through her prior edits to see additional problems, I see a host of issues with a similar pattern. The editor misstates a set of sources. When someone tries to fix it, she and her group then pile-on, claiming in a conclusory fashion that the new participant is ignoring facts and sources, that the new participant must be a biased political operative trying to advance an agenda, and declaring any edits but their own to be vandalism or disruptive. In most cases, though, the outside editor was correct; she was misstating sources, and altering the text of articles to advance what is apparently a personal political agenda. I'm not sure how to get involvement by someone actually neutral. Djcheburashka ( talk) 04:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello this is jarvis9251, thank you for your talk message regarding my edit to the List of people with bipolar disorder page. I understand that my reference does not link to any related article. The reason for this is that I am adding myself. I am self disclosing that as a member of the band Scissorfight, I have bipolar. I was not sure of the best way to list this in the reference section, so if you can think of a better way to list as reference, that would be very helpful. From my understanding this does not fall under the unacceptable self-published sources guidelines. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional coments you may have. Thank you. -- Jarvis9251 ( talk) 18:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Come on, Elizium. You're not a troll - you know that you need consensus for changes. Why this insistence on adding material for which consensus has not been obtained? I mean, you presumably have realized that the new additions are ludicrous original research, so maybe this was just your mistake, but you can't be unaware that Esoglou, despite the presence of a couple of sockpuppets/meatpuppets, has nonetheless failed to gain consensus for these additions despite having been trying to edit-war some of them in since July. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Jxleung ( talk) 05:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Jxleung ( talk) 05:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the link, obviously I did not finish the job! BTW, consider restoring a mention of the United Nations in the lede? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I see you are an expert. Thanks. Rick570 ( talk) 00:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I responded to your question on my talk page, but in future before posting to a user's talk page about their changes to an article, please check the article's talk page to see if there's already a discussion there about those changes. Thanks! BeIsKr ( talk) 20:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean to cause controversy when I created those episode sublists. I was just trying to make space for television episode lists so it'd be easier for me to sort out the writers of primetime TV series for Primetime TV Writers Wiki. I'll understand if you think I should be blocked to convince me not to do it anymore. -- StewieBaby05 ( talk) 23:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Please provide an example of the "personal opinion" you say I added to this page.-- Sfarney ( talk) 09:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney
I'm afraid I've taken an opposite stance to yours rather strongly on the talk page. Just wanted to say, no ill feelings on my part, and hope there are none on yours. Evensteven ( talk) 16:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I would to apologize for my rebuttal on my talk page. My comment seemed a bit "smart-ass" like rude. I hope I didn't upset you. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 02:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!! |
Hello Elizium23, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. |
You're correct, of course. But, what about the subsequent section, "Oriental Orthodox"? The sections should be analogous, so methinks you need to divide up the latter according to rite. Vincent J. Lipsio ( talk) 21:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
My heartfelt wishes for a blessed, joyful, and festal Christmas season, with all the best for the coming year. My thanks also for your pointers when I was new here - always good to go, and still appreciated. Evensteven ( talk) 00:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
A see also doesn't need to be sourced. Did you look at the image on the top of the phillipine mass page? it refers back to the rorate page. -- evrik ( talk) 04:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Evrik. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Red Mass because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks! --
evrik (
talk) 05:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Blue Mass. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox.
Administrators have the ability to
block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. --
evrik (
talk) 06:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi-Would you please look at the article about Bishop Robert C. Morlino? An anon editor deleted some cited materials with no reasons given. Robert Morlino is controversial and I am not sure what should be in the article. Many thanks and Happy New Year- RFD ( talk) 19:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why you reverted my edits. My goal was not to create any ill will. If I erred, I apologize, but I thought eliminating the extra space between sentences was correct internet usage and that eliminating the comma before "that" was correct in that context. Please let me know your thoughts. Grammarspellchecker ( talk) 23:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Please list them correctly; they go in the uncontroversial moves section at WP:RM, and are not performed by using the Rm template on the article talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
In view of what you wrote to me on this matter, you might like to add a comment here. I have usually made the request as uncontroversial and had it accepted as such, but two were accepted with the comment "presented as uncontroversial". I made this one request as potentially controversial, in order to have something to refer to, if opposition ever arose to making such a change. This one I chose as one of the incipits that people may be most used to seeing capitalized and therefore more likely to be controversial. The Vatican website text of the encyclical in Latin is here. Esoglou ( talk) 08:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I made a change to an article, Eucharist, which you reverted. What is a reliable source in your definition? I quoted a biography about William Booth [1] by Edward Harold Begbie and linked to a website with further quotes from the same book. Unfortunately I didn't have time to go through all relevant biographies, various editions of The Handbook of Doctrine, vintage articles of The War Cry and various books and pamphlets on the subject to find the exact quotes, I was looking for. But I placed the main quote, stating that Salvation Army simply didn't practice sacraments, because in the beginning the Army did not intend to be a church. I was simply trying to establish the difference between early practices - practical theology - and later attempts to create a systematic theology in salvationism on the matter, which the article clearly lacked. Not even academic thesises demand, that every sentence is documented with references. ;-) Gywerd ( talk) 01:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
If neither Esoglou nor Roscelese (I'm not pinging at this time) is willing to file a request, perhaps can you yourself or I myself file it? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"""Comment""" Apologies for thinking the Call to Action site had been deleted Tomcapa1 ( talk) 13:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Please note that we don't use former in the intros of living retired officials. For examples: Albert II of Belgium, Jimmy Carter, Kim Campbell, Beatrix of the Netherlands etc. GoodDay ( talk) 18:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
«Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.»
The author of the article, that additionally happens to be the owner of the company, has used duplicate accounts to modify it, and also to reinforce his arguments while, BTW, using offensive language against other editors. I think that's surpassing a limit to assume good Faith by far.
On the other hand the article itself hasn't been marked as non noticeable before, that was other different article that happened to be fused with this one, AFAIK. 95.16.146.53 ( talk) 06:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your request to add the article history of Midnight Rider (film) to split article: Midnight Rider train accident. If possible could you review: Talk:Midnight_Rider_(film)#Split_article_authorship_issue and offer any advise as to best way to address issue. DFinmitre ( talk) 07:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I knew my redirect would be reverted, but long experience has taught me that this is the only way to get any attention to problems at Wikipedia. The article is nonsense. It completely fails to establish its basic premise, that the Copts are an ethnic group, as opposed to a religious minority. The impressive-looking set of references is irrelevant to this central point. There is no point in editing an article which is based on a false premise and should not exist at all. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 03:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I have begun to wonder about Athene cheval, but I have nothing to go on other than nationality and the same excessive confidence in mistaken ideas. Esoglou ( talk) 07:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Elizium23/Archive 8, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
RE: reverted changes to [WP:Jesus,_King_of_the_Jews#The_INRI_and_.CE.99.CE.9D.CE.92.CE.99_acronyms] The footnote I added is not original research, but a correction of the mistake in the verse. While the KJV of this verse says "Greek, Latin, and Hebrew", no other translation possesses this line. This is because the Greek text of the NT does not have this line. The KJV added it by mistake. but even if you don't accept that, it does not change the fact the Greek does not say " in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew". I did not add original research, I simply corrected the diagram. In a footnote, btw.-- XKV8R ( talk) 19:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place:
For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC).
Hello, Since you seem to know quite a bit about such things I am wondering if you can clarify for me to what extent bishops such as Richard Williamson are understood to still be (Roman) Catholic bishops (and not just bishops with valid but illicit orders) when they have been ordained without canonical authority? I partly ask this because of a disagreement I've recently had over the article name for Michael Cox (Catholic bishop) who is, in my understanding, more of a vagantes bishop. How do you understand the differences in recognition between someone such as Williamson and someone such as Cox? Cheers, Anglicanus ( talk) 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
When you left me a comment saying I had done a personal analysis in the material, you showed you had not actually looked at the reference I gave, the Huffington post article, which covered everything I included. If you don't agree with something, then by all means bring it to the talk page. Or if something isn't referenced then ask for a citation. But your comment made a presumptuous and erroneous accusation, which is not a good Wikipedia approach. Remember, comment on the issue, not the person. Want another source for the same material you thought was my personal analysis? http://www.religionnews.com/2014/09/08/new-nuns-bus-tour-tackle-political-dark-money/ VanEman ( talk) 05:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leadership Conference of Women Religious, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gerhard Müller. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Stop threatening people for adding material you think is NPOV, when it's accurate, up to date, well referenced material. If you think another point of view should be added, then add it. But don't delete other material with Wikipedia acronyms you use in place of "I don't like this." Your threats will not work. VanEman ( talk) 19:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
What does one do when incorrect information is posted on Wikipedia and attempts to rectify said information are rebuked as unreliable? XenoRasta ( talk) 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I notice your recent edit of Pope Francis page. Did you notice the recently posted video on youtube claiming responsibility for the fires in the churches in Israel? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzPuDnmmtE I wonder if this should be brought to the attention of the authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesread77 ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry, but I don't understand the message you've send me with regards to the Timothy Radcliffe page. What is it about? JonahOP
Hi Elizium23, I understand that it is acceptable to remove article talk page comments if they are harmful, especially if they are disruptive and off-topic. In this case the editor deliberately misgendered someone, and claimed no knowledge of WP:MOS:IDENTITY right after they had contributed to a discussion on it. It was pure trolling and has no place on the article talk page. -- haminoon ( talk) 03:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't intend to troll. It is not at all clear to me that the talk pages are subject to MOS and it seems a gross extension of discretionary powers to assume so. In terms of my recent history, in anything controversial my postings are on the talk page, which is where things are talked about. If there is a Wiki policy referring to language choices on the talk pages, please let me know and I will follow it. Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 16:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome#Consensus to change from ref to sfn style citations. Thanks.
BoBoMisiu (
talk) 23:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
No one was taking out the "facts". I was only clarifying the facts as the earlier IP editor had added the episcopate to the "generally restricted" which is unfactual. Afterwriting ( talk) 04:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I joined Wiki last night and made some edits on the ISKCON page for what I thought was important information with what I thought were reliable sources, but then I found a short time later that the whole section I wrote has been deleted. Then I found your message saying to go to your talk page about it, but no links about how I'm supposed to contact you on it. I'm still trying to work out Wiki. Can you please tell me if this is the correct way to contact you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GemmJones ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I've just made an edit at this article that links the text "Catholicism" to the article "Roman Catholic Church". That's not inappropriate, since I'm just trying to keep the article text brief. What I'm saying applies to Orthodoxy too, and what I'm wondering is if there is a better link to use, which would include the Eastern Catholics, since I think they're also in agreement. Do you have a suggestion? Evensteven ( talk) 01:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
...as far as I can tell, the only mention of religion at WP:SYSTEMIC is the observation that the Christian POV is overrepresented. The existence of gay people is not a systemic bias issue. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Everything I changed on Anno Domini is either cited (the peculiarity of medieval latin with the irregular ending of -o instead of -us)or common knowledge (latin doesn't use articles is common knowledge, as is the fact that an 'ablative' noun would have to be taken as the object of a preposition and this is not a prepositional phrase, of is a genitive phrase hence nominative Anno, genitive Domini). There is a common interpretation that it is Anno ablative as in 'in' the year, but that one point of contention isn't enough to undo the other less debated statements in my edit about articles being interpolated into the translation, so you reverted everything over one point instead of editing that singular point. Please don't revert without starting a convo in the talk page. What exactly do you feel needs to be further cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I provided a single source from a WBUR Boston, an NPR station and a very reliable source. Everything I wrote is in either in that source or the original source materiel (movie and book that the article is on). I see no need to provide further sources. Please elaborate and explain. Yserbius ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. This is regarding the page edit of Cardinal Baselios Cleemis. Earlier as you have writted he is not a Catholicos. Pls check the vatican siote http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/documentation/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_thottunkal_bc.html
This is a wrong message telling him to be the Catholicose. The post of Catholicose is eaqual to the Papal Chair. How can a Cardinal be equal to the Pope. In the year 2005 this Church was elevated to the status of a Major Archiepiscopal Church and suddenly the Church began to address its Primate as Major Archbishop Catholicos. Catholicos title has not been granted by Vatican and that has been clearly mentioned in the letter (Port.N. 2581/2005/h) sent on 18th June 2005 by His Excellency Cardinal Walter Kasper, the then President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity to the late Metropolitan Philipose Mar Eusebius , the President of the Ecumenical Relations Department of Indian Malankara Orthodox Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldilex ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking to help revamp the Percy Jackson Task-force, a project dedicated to maintaining articles related to Rick Riordan and Percy Jackson & the Olympians. I noticed your edits on some articles that fall under this task-force's "jurisdiction", and I wanted to invite you to join! If you're interested, I'd like to invite you to become a full member; please note that the difficult requirements for membership are going to be lowered in the near future, so you can join worry-free (I know they scared me away on the first try.). You can also become just a "supporter", if that's more your speed.
Head on over to the project page if you're interested -- and no hard feelings if you're not. Thanks again in advance, and feel free to contact me on my Talk page. 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 06:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)