Elizdelphi
Welcome!
editHello Elizdelphi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SolarElizdelphi,
I loved your comments on the Asceticism talk page! Just a heads up that I replied.
July 2009
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, it's true that my removal of content from that page was inadevertent. Elizdelphi (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Problem?
editHi, and welcome to Wikipedia. At first glance, it might have seemed that you were on a search and destroy mission with respect to the Rosary and Scapular page, deleting links, etc. But I looked at the rest of your (obviously Carmelite related) edits and they look like pretty good edits. So what is your problem with my article? The widely respected user Amandajm seemed to like it. So what is your problem? I am hoping to avoid World War IV on this issue. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dear History2007, definintely I don't want a war, let us continue to talk, I replied to you on the "rosary and scapular" talk page. I feel my changing the "rosary and scapular" links to "rosary" and "brown scapular" was justified, but let us discuss that and perhaps even seek other people's input about that. I am sorry that I didn't discuss things first before making changes that might be controversial. Elizdelphi (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, no worries. Remember: Catholics are good at reconciling. We will make friends and continue. Overall, the corrections you have made to various articles have been accurate (in my view) and constructive. Regarding prayer for you, I already did so. And since you asked about belief in prayer, in fact, this is one of my favorite topics/articles: Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. I did not include anything about the scapular in that article because it focuses on prayer, rather than sacramentals. But a section on promises of sacramentals may be good to have in the sacramentals article. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Wondering
editI'm quite out of my depth as far as knowledge of Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, but I'm always a bit troubled when I see cited statements removed without an explanation in an edit summary or on the talk page, as happened here. The citation does seem to support the removed statement, saying "Historical research has shown that the alleged fourteenth-century appearance of the Blessed Mother to Pope John XXII is without historical foundation." Respectfully, CliffC (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm grateful there are people watching to keep me honest or notice mistakes! In this case, I've been very extensively working on this article for a few days. I was the author of the text which you noticed I removed, the reference also was mine and the same reference is used in multiple places in the article, and I believe and hope the article still says the same thing, in different words. It is a matter of me tinkering with the wording and tone. I am open to suggestions about it. Do you think it was said better the way you quote it, than the way the article is now? This refers to the "Beliefs associated with the scapular" section if you want to look at it. Elizdelphi (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I see that now in the section you mention. I had assumed the removed text was longstanding text, not your own. I have no suggestions other than "keep up the good work." Best, CliffC (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Elizdelphi (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I see that now in the section you mention. I had assumed the removed text was longstanding text, not your own. I have no suggestions other than "keep up the good work." Best, CliffC (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The article Franciscan Servants of the Holy Family has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No indication of notability
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The reason why I created this article was because I had created another article for a very different religious order called "Servants of the Holy Family." I became aware of this order called "Franciscan Servants of the Holy Family" which I wanted to enable differentiation of to avoid confusing people. I unfortunately can find very little information about the "Franciscan Servants of the Holy Family" other than their own website. I invite anyone who has more information about this young religious community to add to the article. (wrote the same thing on the article's discussion page) --Elizdelphi (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sisters of Carmel
editDear Elizdelphi I have deleted this article following a complaint to the OTRS team (Ticket#: 2009121510016318). Essentially, the writer complained that the article was made up of negative allegations that were sourced to unreliable sources such as blogs or forums and after reviewing the article I felt that it would not be possible to salvage the article without removing all of the meaningful content. I am sorry that I had to take this action and I wanted to be very clear that in deleting the article for the reasons I have given I am not casting as aspersions towards your good faith or motives. I can see that you wrote the article as an adjunct to some work on the Servants of the Holy Family and I suspect that the article was unbalanced because there is actually very little material out their about this order. I would question whether the order are actually notable enough to justify an article anyway but, there would be no reason why you could not recreate the article with better sourcing, as long as you were able to produce a rounded article that looked at the whole picture of the order and not just the negative ones. If you would like the deleted text emailed to you, please drop a note on my talk page or send me an email ((see Special:emailuser/Spartaz)) but for obvious reasons I cannot put a copy of this into your user space. Spartaz Humbug! 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I am rather upset that you deleted this article, which I spent quite a lot of time (whole days) gathering the best available information about and composing the article and the one on Servants of the Holy Family. Indeed, there are not a lot of high quality sources out there about the Sisters of Carmel but I did what I could. Actually I became interested in researching Sisters of Carmel first, and the associated Servants of the Holy Family organization had more information publically available about them. The scarcity of available information online about either of these groups, but particularly Sisters of Carmel, makes it especially useful to have some information on Wikipedia. I would be happy if others (if not immediately, than in due time more information might become available) would help make the article neutral and substantial rather than simply remove a useful article about a notable topic. Certainly, within the sphere of the Carmelites, or of religious orders associated with traditionalist Catholic movements, they are notable and of interest and worthwhile in an encyclopedia. So, I would certainly defend that the article belongs on Wikipedia in some form even if exactly what I wrote is disapproved. --Elizdelphi (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Please be careful when you add sections to talk page
editPlease make sure you do not remove other people's posts when you edit talk pages. You removed one of mine on Spartaz's talk page. If you want to add a new section, you can click on the + sign between "edit" and "history" in the row of tags at the top of the Wikipedia page.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Ichthus: January 2012
edit |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
edit
Hello, Elizdelphi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
edit Hello, Elizdelphi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)