Theloavesandthevicious

(I have made the additions to Wikipedia that I thought it needed. Therefore I am infrequently logged in and (therefore) I infrequently check my talk page. If you leave a message, it may be a great period of time before I read it.)

I guess this is my "talk" page.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Thanks for your help editing Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Your last edit summary on that article was a little raw though. Please see WP:COOL, and remember that you'll get a lot more support from other editors if you remain as polite and reasonable as usual. Thanks again, YrPolishUncle (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Antonin Sertillanges

1. Great job creating the article. 2. Thanks for the heads up. 3. How did you notice my userpage mentioned him?

Lawyer2b (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Gavin needs to learn how to read"

Exactly how did that comment help? Gavin Scott (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. And I'm not sure its worth figuring out, because I am not convinced that all edit summaries have to "help." If that were the case, it "helped" in at least a couple senses: (1) it expressed my strong disagreement with the edit I had undone, you had re-done, and then I had re-un-done; (2) it served as an indication that, following your edit summary, I read the article to which you directed me and found that it did not support the assertion; (3) it generally lets people know that I am not a nice guy.theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that being the case I will allow the collective editors of the Pope article discuss the change. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sertillanges.

Ah thats fine, I wasn't aware that was the intention of the footnote. (You do have it in < ref > code though. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Hi there, I have no problem with 'robust opinions', or arguing for your point of view. However, any communication with other editors must remain civil. In particular, name calling and a judgemental tone are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not 'telling you what to do', your contributions here are welcome, but must remain within the bounds of wikipedia policy on civility. Recent edits, such as this edit are more than sufficient grounds to block you. Please consider your affect before making such inflammatory statements, patience with others is a real mark of moral superiority. This is a community - with few rules - but that's one of them. Kbthompson (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

An administrator. You should take a chill pill and calm down. Kbthompson (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to National Catholic Reporter. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shirulashem (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference citation in the Benedict Viviano article

Greetings. I am the author of the article on Benedict T. Viviano. I'm writing this because it appears you are the user responsible for appending a notice about insufficient references atop the article.

If this is the case, I wanted to let you know that I've included some references to the article, but want to know if they are sufficient to have the reference note removed. If not, and if you're indeed the person responsible, can you guide me as to what I need to do to meet the criteria.

The pages regarding how to reference articles are fairly daunting, so I'm trying this approach first.

I don't know if it violates policy, but if you wish, you can email me at srd515@gmail, at least to let me know you've responded on the talk pages.

Thank you. Steve Devol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srd515 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

leveller

What is a leveller? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.52.174 (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)