User talk:Jfhutson/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Jfhutson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Michael Horton (theologian). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Reformed Christian confessions of faith

This was an interesting edit that I'm not sure about. I think there's a difference between Reformed confessions, and confessions of Reformed churches. The lead of the article suggests that it's about the latter, but the title indicates the former. StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the Reformed Episcopal Church is in Reformed Churches in North America JFHutson (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting comment on the lead, but I can't think of any examples of Reformed confessions of faith which are not confessions of a Reformed church. Changing the lead might open us up to confessions which contain some Calvinistic doctrines but are not Reformed in nature. JFHutson (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Good work!

		The Christianity Barnstar
		For tireless work on Calvinism-related articles. StAnselm (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed content from Calvinism, perhaps this may have been a mistake?

Looks like you tried to add some content to the Calvinism article. In doing so, it appears you deleted some other content, perhaps accidentally... Please look over your edit again to ensure everything is there. Midhart90 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussions

I notice you added a merge tag to a few short articles. It's a good idea to start a merge discussion, so that when someone clicks the "Discuss" link, it actually goes somewhere. Wikipedia:Merging actually puts the creation of the discussion before tagging the pages. StAnselm (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting those discussions. I have opposed several of them - please don't take it personally - I generally believe we need more articles rather than fewer. StAnselm (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. I don't care about it that much. I suppose I'm more pessimistic about the future development of subs, but who knows? --JFHutson (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

help on lists of churches

Hi, i noticed your addition of one English church to List of Presbyterian churches with the last few days, and just now your removal of two others in this edit. FYI, there is parallel list-article List of Congregational churches, to which I will now add the two you removed from the Presbyterian list, based on your assertion that these are Congregational. Thanks for your attention in helping to get these new church list-articles sorted out! I'll look at those items a little bit more, too, and try to see how those got in at first. I myself have only relied upon existing categories and Wikipedians' work in other ways, in identifying the English ones, but as we know categorizations can be multiple (or wrong). Please note if the churches were notable once as Presbyterian and later as Episcopal churches, however, they belong on both lists, with suitable clarification in their descriptions. Please do pay attention to both lists and to the other new lists of churches (mentioned in See also sections of each). Thanks again for your help! Sincerely, --doncram 16:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is the United Reformed Church cat was catted as Presbyterian, which appears incorrect according to the article (it has Presbyterian roots and polity but does not call itself Presby) so I'm removing it from that cat. Anyway, I checked the individual church articles to be sure they are not Presbyterian. --JFHutson (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Timothy J. Keller Theologian

I added the American Calvinist theologian tag back to Keller's article. I retained the American Calvinist clergy tag, but I see no reason to label him as a non-theologian. See Talk:Timothy J. Keller#Theologian Tag for details. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I was looking for "theologian" but I should have noticed that he's a theology professor, which counts in my book. --JFHutson (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you can email me using the email user feature or at wikiocaasiyahoo.com and I can manually send your code. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Harv refs

Hi, While I agree that Harv refs are good, the 2nd parag of that article needs to be handl;ed carefully, given what has happened before. Please look through the talk archives there. There were long, long debates on that which eventually settled and calm returned. Unless the Ehrman quote is more visible upfront, the waste of time debates may resume - people will not read beyond one click. Could you please bundle those in a way that the quotes (just in that parag) can be seen with one click? Else we are going to get very old and gray talking with many IPs who will come and type random sentences. The archives will tell you what we have had before... Mentioning the fact that Ehrman is an agnostic upfront will save lots of debate with IPs. A similar debate took place on the Historicity page... Long debates they were... You can reply here, for I will watch here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope I did not create the impression that your edits were not valid, or get in their way. It is just that the 2nd parag there has a very long history and I wish there had been half as much debate about it in the past. The same situation has persisted on several pages that relate to Jesus and history. A few of them have been eventually cleaned up, e.g. Chronology, Historicity, Josephus, Tacitus etc. after very, very long discussions. In fact, now that I am gradually achieving Wiki-liberation, it would be good if a few other editors such as yourself could be nudged into looking at those, commenting and/or watching them. I hope you will. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I'm just rethinking my strategy. If we need to keep all the comments, and I see why we do, then the harv refs don't really help, in fact they just add even more wikitext. I have some other ideas to bundle series of footnotes and reduce wikitext while preserving the comments. --JFH (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ideally the article should move to a proper style with the sources in a "references" section below, and just names (dates if necessary) & page numbers in the citations, which should be bundled as much as possible, combining all citations into a single ref. All citation templates are a menace in heavily referenced articles, imo. It looks ridiculous to have 5 note numbers after very basic and uncontroversial points. I also wonder if it was a good idea to just remove all the works not actually cited - unfortunately a more impressive collection than what's left. Some should probably be salvaged in a "further reading" section. But a change of reference style must (WP:CITE) be discussed on the talk page, though the support might well be there. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not willing to commit to doing it just yet. I'm just looking for low-hanging fruit. Feel free to revert my deletion of the extra biblio entries. I'm trying to eliminate unnecessary wikitext, but that can't be paramount. --JFH (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a drive in a quiet residential area on a nice spring Sunday morning and you will see many garage doors open, and inside is junk from 20 years ago that has piled up. I always wonder why people keep all that. This article over the years has had that effect with junk accumulating in biblio. Might as well clean that part. In 2011 I cleaned up most for the unsourced items in the body, but never got to the bibllio. You guys might as well do it before Spring gets here. History2007 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I put the longer myth theory section back, just because having watched that page (and the other historical pages) for long I know that if you make it short, it is guaranteed to get objections - logical and otherwise. You can argue WP:DUE about it for 5 days, and may well win, but you will be arguing every 2 months with a different angry IP. Having looked at these things there and on the other pages (also see the myth theory page itself) I am sure that the only way to achieve stability is to give it space, else there will be debate for ever with the IPs. History2007 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Template:Hebrew audio

While it was supposed to be a highly-visible template, I agree that it's not common enough at this point to warrant full protection. I have changed the protection level to semi-protection so you can edit it. Please be careful and try your changes in the sandbox though, the template is still used in quite a few articles. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Keeping to the middle ground

Well, I think by now it should be clear that "keeping to the middle ground" may be the best policy. Trust me, I have seen so many pages where people have tried to go away from the middle just because they interpret items in a certain light, and in the end it is just wasted time, and achieves nothing. My suggestion would be for you to acknowledge that the position we both see as the mainstream may be so indeed, but for the sake of pragmatism, the opposition should be given more breathing space - just because of the way Wikipedia works. Just look at all the time this has taken up, and I would note that the time you spent yourself has been minimal, and in the end it will likely end up close to where it started. I am pretty much on your side of the issues, but I would like to give pragmatism more breathing space instead of forcing them into a small corner. If we give the opposition just some more space, the world will not end, as long as we have WP:RS sources for our own view. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree pretty strongly, and I think policy is pretty clear about UNDUE. The "middle ground" is the scholarly consensus, not the opinion of the average WP reader. I don't know of any other high visibility page on a contentious subject that takes such a pragmatic approach. I'll add that I really didn't know much about how strong the historicity case is until I started editing the page, and I think WP does a good service by making that known. Since I started editing the page, not a single person has actually tried to edit out any of the existence material, which is actually rather surprising to me. If they did, I think anyone looking at the talk page would quickly see that consensus is against them. I disagree that it takes much time to argue with people on the talk page, and frankly, it doesn't matter. People spend MB of text arguing over much smaller matters than this on WP. --JFH (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we are going to agree. Four years ago, there were two editors on a specific page which had similar views to yours regarding "a rigid line" - and I actually agreed with most of their content, but not their approach towards other users. Anyway, they just pushed the limit again and again and in the end got backlash. Backlash resulted in more pressure and rigidity from them, and in the end they both left Wikipedia. I have seen it before. And I am sorry to say that although I agree with you on WP:RS sources, my view is that unless you soften up, you will generate backlash against yourself. I am on your side of the sources, but believe me that I have observed this web site for long. It will not happen immediately, but once you generate a background feeling that you are inflexible, you will get backlash and waste your time. It happens slowly, and by the time you observe the results it will be pretty much too late. I think you are a very good editor, but to survive on Wikipedia in the longer term, you will you need to soften your approach to the opposition. I will leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and advice. --JFH (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible new article for "George Kendall (theologian)"

Hi, should you have the time, I wonder if you would be willing to help me with an article about George Kendall (theologian) (1610–1663), a Calvinist. Someone keeps requesting an article be created with the title George Kendall (controversialist) which could be any number of people, but I think they might mean this George Kendall. Please see my sandbox if you feel you may know more about this person than I do, and care to fill it out more so it can be considered notable enough for Wikipedia's standards (it surely isn't at the moment). I contacted you because you've made the overwhelming majority of edits to History of Calvinism, and obviously are very knowledgeable and interested in the subject; I'm inviting the initial author of History of Calvinism (User:TimNelson) to contribute as well. And please feel free to invite anyone else who you think may be interested also.

You may also create a talk page for the sandbox, and add any comments you wish to there. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I know nothing about this person, and it looks like next to nothing has been written about him, but I added some things from a Questia search that will hopefully contribute to notability. Really I'm learning as I go with History of Calvinism, though I probably know more than the average bear. I recently found out a new book is coming out in June on the subject so I'm kind of holding off till then. You might also try WT:WikiProject Calvinism --JFH (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Your help is greatly appreciated. Don't worry about not being an expert on the subject; I know much less than you do. If that new book you mentioned perhaps sheds more light on the subject, please feel free to add more. Per your suggestion, I have posted it here. Again, thank you so much! -Hamamelis (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Article now created by me, hadn't seen this thread in your talk page until article uploaded, and then I saw link in "what links here".(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC))

Category:Religions

Hi, I received your message a while back and I thought of it for a while. If it should be empty, delete it. Thanks. Ashbeckjonathan (talk)

St. Augustine

Hi Jfhutson, I've carried out the moves of Botticelli's paintings of Augustine that you requested. For now, I just fixed incoming links; I didn't disambiguate terms like Saint Augustine (Botticelli), which would've entailed fixing a lot more incoming links. I think the hatnotes on either article should deal with any confusion (cf. WP:TWODABS), but if you wanted to disambiguate any of the incoming redirects, that would probably be fine; just see to the incoming links. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Fifth Commandment

I was disappointed, after watching the movie The Fifth Commandment, to see that it didn't have a Wikipedia article. I didn't follow the movie enough to write that article, although a detailed plot wouldn't be necessary, and I could find the details easily enough. I'm not ready to do even a stub, so I'd like you to look at how I handled the disambiguation page. Eventually, maybe the article will get written.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Per MOS:DABRL, it should really only be on the DAB page if there are redlinks elsewhere. If I were you I'd add redlinks to the actor and director pages if you're sure it's notable. --JFH (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on it. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Jfhutson,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Rembrandt van Rijn - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 19, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-05-19. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hi, I noticed you are not on this list for the Ichthus newsletter. From June 2013 there is a new "in focus... " format, book reviews, etc. that refer to some articles of interest. Please just take a look at the June issue (should be released soon) and see. They are also offering a 3 month money back guarantee deal on subscriptions next week. History2007 (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Netherlands Reformed Churches

Hi. Please don't delete the Dutch Gereformeerde Gemeenten from the List of Reformed Churches. It's worth for reading.Thasks. Cryxx88

If someone who can read Dutch wants to read the Dutch article, they can go to the English article and follow the link on the left of the page under "Languages." --JFH (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Reformed denominations

I think its worth for reading the Dutch article too (I know that it is the English language Wikipedia so if you insist it could be removed ), but I don't understand why you delete Old-Reformed Congregations (unconnected) from the list.

Looks like that was a mistake. I'm glad you caught it. I must not have noticed there was a different between it and a similarly named denom and thought it was a duplicate or something. --JFH (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

In the Presbyterian Church in Angola article I removed the Cathegory of Reformed denominations in Asia, because Angola located in Africa.

Thanks

I enjoyed reading your article on Reformed scholasticism.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. --JFH (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ringatū

With this edit you removed the only parent category of this category, Category:Christian denominations. I'm more than happy for it to be moved to a subcat or something, but casting it adrift doesn't help build the encyclopedia one bit. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed --JFH (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Bush family

The source uses the word "claim" and says that slave-trading was not "notable" thus the "notorious" adjective is not usable, and since the Atlantic Wire does not make a claim of this being "fact" it really fails WP:RS for the claim you wished to insert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Presbyteries

FYI, I've opposed your rename request. After doing that, I realised that you were the only contributor; as such, it's within policy for me to speedy the category under G7. Would you prefer to take it to a full CFD, or would you prefer to create the Presbyteries and classes category and have me delete the current one? I prefer the full CFD, but I'll do the G7 speedy deletion if you prefer; just let me know at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Kate Garvey

Are you certain about this edit: [1]. A Private Secretary is a specific position in the civil service - and I'm not sure that Garvey was ever a civil servant. It would have made her presence on the 'campaign bus' etc entirely improper. I am going to remove this as unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just reading the article, and Diary Secretary redirects to Private Secretary. Reading that article, I see that apparently they are not the same thing. --JFH (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Presbyteries

Category:Presbyteries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JFH (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Christian organizations

Hey there - I see that you removed Category:Christian organizations from Crisis pregnancy center. Can you suggest an alternative? The category was recently added to the article after another editor had disputed its use on Category:Crisis pregnancy centers. I thought the other editor's reasoning made sense and we agreed that putting the category on the article might be a good idea. The argument is that the vast majority of CPCs are Christian organizations, removing the subject from the category does a disservice to readers interested in learning about Christian orgs, even if there is a CPC here or there that isn't Christian. What do you think? I think that it's fine to acknowledge in the article's text (which we do) that there are some secular CPCs like Birthright and a couple of Jewish CPCs, while still helping the reader to find the article using the category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I put it in Category:Types of Christian organization as the article is on this class of orgs rather than an org itself. --JFH (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't even aware that that existed! Great. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-Sabbatarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabbatarians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Food and Drink Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the new Evangelical feast article, and for improving the encyclopedia's coverage of food- and religion-based topics! Northamerica1000(talk) 02:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And...an invitation

Hello, Jfhutson. You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Hospice général) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Hospice général, Jfhutson!

Wikipedia editor Senator2029 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for writing the article Hospice général—and for all your other contributions to Wikipedia. From one editor to another, let me say "Good job!"

To reply, leave a comment on Senator2029's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Consistory

Hi mate! I like what you did with Consistory - a dab page was the right way to go. I was thinking, though, of creating Consistory (Catholic Church) which I think there should be enough sources for. John Bargrave, for example, wrote extensively about the politics of consistories and there should be more than enough for an article. Thoughts? Stalwart111 23:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the Catholic Encyclopedia, maybe Papal consistory as a WP:NATURAL disambiguator. --JFH (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion - I'll start work when I next have some time. Cheers, Stalwart111 03:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've started Papal consistory with some information cut-pasted from older versions of Consistory (with a note in the history for attribution). Most of what is there now will be cut right down and I'll add more to the other sections. I've got a collection of references ready to go and the new content will mostly be based on those rather than what is there now. Feel free to contribute if you happen to have some time. Cheers, Stalwart111 05:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have little interest in Catholicism, but I do know that there is such a thing as a bishop's consistory (I believe that's were we Protestants got the term). Per the OED: "A bishop's court for ecclesiastical causes, and offences dealt with by ecclesiastical law; the diocesan court, held by the chancellor or commissary of the diocese. Formerly a court of great importance, having jurisdiction in matrimonial cases, questions of divorce, wills, administration, tithes, general ecclesiastical and moral discipline; now having authority only over ecclesiastics."--JFH (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough! Yeah, "bishop's consistory" is a strange one. Originally, all Catholic Church consistories were "bishop's consistories" I suppose, and were open to bishops from the various churches of Rome as well as those bishops who happened to be in Rome at the time. Those consistories also had jurisdiction over a wide range of things. I wasn't until the 12th century (and the emergence of cardinals) that "modern" consistories appeared. The jurisdictions were farmed off and they became glorified press conferences to announce new cardinals and not much else. Protestants adopted the term but they weren't the only ones. There are still "bishop's consistories", I think, but they run a distant second to "cardinal's consistories". But then, I'm still getting my head around the whole thing and the new article is going to take some time. Stalwart111 08:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think Feast day should redirect to Religious festival?

Why do you think Feast day should redirect to Religious festival? I don't think any other religion uses that term to describe its festival. (Don't you think at-least you ask should ask for a consensus to change a link that is present from July 9, 2003‎) The term feast day is explicitly used in Christianity and popularly meant to mean a christian feast day. You have mentioned dictionary definition is general. But wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names states: Use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. You can do a google search for that term to know that it is frequently used to denote a Christian feast day from calendar of saints. Also numerous christian articles (esp., saints) have linked to feast day previously, all of them are now linking to wrong page. --Jayarathina (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is going from a general thing to a particular one just because there are lots of Catholics and they have lots of feasts. Aren't Christmas etc. feast days too, even in Catholicism? My edit was motivated by needing to link evangelical feast. Almost every religion has feast days, so it is POV to redirect feast day to Calendar of Saints, just as much as redirecting God to God in Christianity just because most people are Christians. --JFH (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not getting my point. Please read the article Calendar of saints, it is not a Catholic one. It is generic christian article. My point is this term is to refer to christian calendar of Saint. Not specific to any denomination. I don't understand the problem you are referring in linking to evangelical feast. All famous dictionaries explicitly state that this term is used to denote a christian holiday (google oxford). Unlike the term God which is used by many other religions, term feast day is majorly used by Christians alone. If you are still not convinced, create consensus before changing. And please revert back while creating consensus. --Jayarathina (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Both of your definitions state especially a Christian holiday. There is clearly a problem with implying that even Christians always mean saints' days when they refer to feast days. Many Christians reject the idea of a cult of saints, and that is part of what the evangelical feast article is about. Reformed Christians reject saints, saints' days and the calendar of saints, but they do not reject the evangelical feast days, which are listed in the article. But besides all that, it is not true that "feast day" is limited to Christianity. See this (the sixth Google result for "feast day"), this, and this. --JFH (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said feast day is limited to Christianity. The sixth Google result you gave actually emphasis my point, is a "christian" result. (I cannot find even a single non-christian link in the first 10 pages of Google search, after which I gave up) I repeat: If you are still not convinced, create consensus before changing. Do NOT move unilaterally. And please revert back while creating consensus. Please see {{infobox saint}}, feast day is linking to generic article, when it is suppose to be linking to a christian article. --Jayarathina (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, you got me on the Indian saint days, I assumed it had to do with Native American religion, but I think my other arguments are sufficient, and here is another link on non-Christian feast days. I do not need to revert back before we build consensus, my edit stood for several months. --JFH (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Also it would be nice if you let me know where and how you plan to create consensus (suggestion: Talk:Feast day). Thanks. --Jayarathina (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have copied this conversation there. --JFH (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jayarathina (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Feast day

 – --JFH (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.--Jayarathina (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Westminster Assembly

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Westminster Assembly you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SlimVirgin -- SlimVirgin (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Westminster Assembly

The article Westminster Assembly you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Westminster Assembly for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SlimVirgin -- SlimVirgin (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You've done a really good job with this article. I hope you find the time to get it over the line for GA. StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just a note to add that it was the bot that added the template above. Obviously if you need more than seven days, that's fine, so please just ignore that part. All the best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Against Malaria Foundation.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Against Malaria Foundation.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — trlkly 17:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Westminster Assembly

Hi, it's been about a month since I last heard from on Talk:Westminster Assembly/GA1, so I'm wondering how to proceed with the nomination. Pinging you here in the hope you see the message. Best wishes, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Westminster Assembly

The article Westminster Assembly you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Westminster Assembly for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SlimVirgin -- SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)