Contents

User talk:Wobblygriswold

Hello, Wobblygriswold, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your nameontalk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Anupam^Talk 04:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity: Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch) Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity Free subscription to our informative newsletter Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve Join today!

Dear User:Wobblygriswold, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to let you know that the recent revert that I made on the Stations of the Cross article was not to undo you, but rather, to undo this act of vandalism, which went unnoticed. In restoring those edits, I kept the reference that you added. However, I did retain the original version about the Stations of the Cross being a physical devotion as the movements are tied specifically with the mortification of the flesh—an important aspect of the devotion. Thanks for your undertstanding. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 05:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing, and appreciate your taking the time to explain! Wobblygriswold (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I appreciate your friendly and collaborative nature! Anupam^Talk 05:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise! Wobblygriswold (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I wanted to let you know that in most liturgical Western Christian Churches, violet/purple being the colour of the stole during Lent is a basic fact (you can read more about this on the article about liturgical colours). In the future, rather than tagging such statements, it might be easier to just find a reference online, as there are plenty that are available. Additionally, though I did not revert your edit that removed the word "Reformed", most clergy of Reformed churches do not wear business attire; rather, they wear the geneva gown (in many Reformed denominations, a stole of the liturgical colour will be worn on top of it too), unless it is a modern neo-evangelical church claiming Calvinist theology (there may be a few exceptions, but generally this is the case). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and will do going forward. Naturally, there is diversity in Reformed vestmentarian practice, but my impression is that the use of business attire is wider than non-Presbyterian churches with Calvinist soteriology and a few exceptions. At the denominational level, for example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's website indicates that the majority of its pastors do not wear robes. (https://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=97). Of course, that's one denomination. But my primary basis is Harry Boonstra's article. It indicates that "[t]oday, liturgical clothing style in Reformed and Presbyterian churches is extremely varied. The most common garb is the 'business suit' for men and similar business dress for women. But robes are still used. Some clergy still wear the Genevan gown; others, especially in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), have adopted more colorful robes or white robes with colorful stoles." Wobblygriswold (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wobblygriswold, I recently reverted a series of your edits (eg) related to how Indian money sums are presented for reasons explained in my edit-summaries, namely, "previous version presented the information better matching the sources and more accessible to both Indian and non-Indian readers". Please let me know if you disagree with this reversion and we can discuss the issue at WT:INB to get other opinions. (It is very likely that the topic has been discussed before but I don't, off-hand, recall when and where). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abecedare, thanks for reaching out. I do disagree, because MOS:Commonality specifically provides as follows:

"For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable.

Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English)." (Emphasis added.) Wobblygriswold (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing to that quote from MOS:COMMONALITY, which I had missed despite looking at that MOS guideline earlier. I have raised the topic at WT:INB to get a quick pulse of what other interested editors think and to see if this is worth pursuing further. Your thoughts would be welcome. In the meantime, could you pause making systematic changes related to this topic? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly--thanks for starting the topic, and I'll hold off in the meantime. Wobblygriswold (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider MOS:TIES as well. Regards, Nizil (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benjamin Keach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southwick.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]