Talk:Prayer in the Catholic Church

message: If there is a specific statement that can not be traced to a source, please list it here. As far as I have checked, all sources included all statements mentioned in the article. History2007 (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for sources 

message: After a few suggestions for a title, this page has assumed the
title Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer as of December 9, 2007, among the other plausible and possible permutaions of those words. Given that this has been discussed below, please try to let it be. Thanks History2007 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New title

message: A number of "redirect to a redirect" edits took place on this page, based on new titles that someone suggested. The reason I selected this page title when I started this page was that it is closest to what a Wikipedia user may search for. Obviously, pages need to be easy to find as users search for them. I have reverted the page to the way it was.  The first paragraph on this page clearly defines what it intendes to do and what it is not about. Therefore, please do not redirect this page again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the message on your talk page. This is not the right way to effect a name change. The presence of a redirect means that a user who types in one article name is automatically taken to the article he's looking for; it's no more difficult. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That doesn't matter, as long as the redirect takes you to the article you're looking for. At any rate, the article is now at your preferred name. If anyone else wants to rename the article, please follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and do not do cut-and-paste page moves, and do not have the same contents under two different article names. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 02:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: I'm a bit confused. I get the impression the contents of the article is limited to Catholic prayer rather than any/all Christian prayer but the article title refers to "Christian prayer". Also I think "Powers" would be more meaningful in the title rather than "Power". Can I suggest rename to "Powers of Catholic Prayer"? Barrylb (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I see in the page history a previous title Catholic beliefs about prayer. Can we go back to that? Barrylb (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My concern about the current title is that it may not conform to the principle of NPOV; having this title suggests that the encyclopedia's editorial voice itself is claiming that prayer has certain power, which would be unacceptable. The previous title Catholic beliefs about prayer takes no position about the issue, but simply announces "this is what Catholics believe". Using "Christian" rather than "Catholic" in any version of the title encourages editors to add information about Protestant and Orthodox beliefs about prayer to the article. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 08:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be happy with the title Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. Barrylb (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian or just Catholic? 

message: Ok how about Catholic Beliefs on the power of prayer. The whole point of the article is to discuss the beliefs about power, without claiming the efficacy of the prayers. Catholic beliefs about prayer would miss the issue that Catholics believe it has power, and use that as a tool for group cohesion, regardless of whether the beliefs can be substantiated in a clinical or scientific setting. The article has gone to great length to repeatedly state upfront that it does not claim any powers, but just reviews what they believe about them. And again, (yes again) not having power in the title reduces search capabilities. The article does not relate to Catholic beliefs on "the duty to pray" but on the power attributed (allegedly) to prayer. One could write a whole article on the "duty to pray" and it would be a different artiicle and they would both relate to "beliefs on prayer". The 2nd article may be a needed on its own anyway for the sake of completion, but there is no need to mix the two.  This way if any one searches for "catholic + prayer + power" the page will be found. Hence power needs to be there in the title, but if adding Catholic beliefs to the front of it will end this discussion, then let us agree and I will just move it as such.Thanks History2007 (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy with the title Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. Barrylb (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duty vs Power

message: Before I opened it, I thought this article would be about a Sunday radio show from the 40s, since the article Efficacy of prayer already exists. The neutral title of this subject is correctly Efficacy of prayer; the asserted "power" is unsubstantiated. Employing "power" in the very title itself is a common rhetorical trick that embodies the correct significance of "to beg the question." (This page is not on Wetman's watchlist.)--Wetman (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed above, the efficacy of prayer is another topic. It is likely this article will be renamed very shortly to Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer. Barrylb (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's excellent now. See how authentically neutral that is. --Wetman (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[Efficacy of prayer]]

message: I have waited over three weeks for someone to point out where the alleged "unpublished synthesis" took place within this
article. There have been no responses. I will wait 2 or 3 more days. If there is no response, and a specific mention of which sentences have been synthesized without attribution, I will remove the tag from the top of the page. If anyone has a specific item that they think is improperly attributed please point it out exactly on this page, state your point clearly with suitable references
and I will either remove that item, or rework it so it will have completely correct attribution. However, without any specific items, the allegation of improper attribution can not, as of now be supported, and unless anyone has a specific logical point to make, I will remove that tag in 2 or 3 days. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unpublished Synthesis?

message: I reverted a name change. The page was specifically written to be about POWER so that has to be there. The title had been discussed before and after a discussion became this one.  Please discuss these things on talk page before sudden actions. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: I've added several tags because this article has multiple problems.  The article itself, and the title, appear to be nothing more than the product of original research.  The content of the article is rambling, and the New International Version of the Bible is used instead of a Catholic Bible.  The NIV uses a dynamic translation which the Church does not.  Also, there's a claim being made that all these prayers share a common link because they offer 'promises,' and then there's a claim that Bishop has approved these promises with the Imprimatur.  Any Catholic knows that's not how Imprimaturs, or the Church hierarchy, works.
Also, it reads more like an essay, an uninformed one, to be sure, and not at all like an encyclopedia.   
And in several places, there is a mention of "Catholic tradition," yet there are no references, etc. to support the claims, which, in any event, would not center around 'tradition,' but would center on doctrine, etc.  It does not reference a single Papal document that supports any of the claims made, nor does it reference any Catholic scholars' works.
I'm thinking it needs to be deleted rather than rewritten, just for the lack of notability as there is no such entity commonly known among Catholics or non-Catholics as the "Catholic Beliefs on the Power of Prayer," nor is there even an article in Wikipedia regarding "The Power of Prayer." 
:Malke, you are 100% wrong. See  Power of Prayer Power of Prayer The Unseen Power of Prayer: A Catholic Perspective. And there are many more here. The title "Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer" was suggested byanother user, Barrylb, before. It was not my invention. "Power of prayer" would imply that there is power in prayer, hence it has to modified to say what Catholics believe about it, not assert it as a fact. And given that it does not discuss Hindu beliefs, or Lutheran beliefs, it has to have a focused title. You are 100% wrong Malke. History2007 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Malke, it has been a day since I asked for a list of your claim copyright violations and you have remained quiet on this page, but not on others. If you do not provide a list within another day, I will have to assume you have abandoned this discussion. You can not just add flags and walk away. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Malke, It has been 2 more days now, and you have been quiet on this page, but active on others. Therefore, I must assume you have no answers. Given the history of debates we have had elsewhere, this issue must be concluded. I will remove the flag. You can not just add flags and walk away. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues are clearly outlined above.  Until they are addressed and the corrections are made, the tags must remain, strawman arguments notwithstanding.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations such as this one, http://www.theholyrosary.org/index.html, are not reliable sources.  Sources must be reliable.  Homemade websites do not qualify.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article problems 

message: Malke, As I stated above you were 100% wrong on the "Power of prayer" title. Now, start by listing the copyright violations you claim one by one so they can be addressed. Vague claims are not allowed. No games, no vague accusations, just start by listing the copyright violations one by one. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Malke, it has been a day since I asked for a list of your claim copyright violations and you have remained quiet on this page, but not on others. If you do not provide a list within another day, I will have to assume you have abandoned this discussion. You can not just add flags and walk away. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Malke, It has been 2 more days now, and you have been quiet on this page, but active on others. Therefore, I must assume you have no answers. Given the history of debates we have had elsewhere, this issue must be concluded. I will remove the flag. You can not just add flags and walk away. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues are clearly outlined above.  Until they are addressed and the corrections are made, the tags must remain, strawman arguments notwithstanding.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations such as this one, http://www.theholyrosary.org/index.html, are not reliable sources.  Sources must be reliable.  Homemade websites do not qualify.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Addressing the claims made above one by one

message: Malke: I asked for the issues to be handled one by one, not as a "vague set".  Answer the questions one by one now. Is that clear? Is the request for clarification one by one clear? So:
* Question 1: Do you agree that you were 100% wrong on notability and article title. Answer that, then we continue. Is that issue resolved? As stated above:
::See  Power of Prayer Power of Prayer The Unseen Power of Prayer: A Catholic Perspective. And there are many more here. The title "Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer" was suggested byanother user, Barrylb, before. It was not my invention. "Power of prayer" would imply that there is power in prayer, hence it has to modified to say what Catholics believe about it, not assert it as a fact. And given that it does not discuss Hindu beliefs, or Lutheran beliefs, it has to have a focused title. 
:So has this issue been resolved? Please answer this question ONLY, so progress can be made systematically. Please answer this question first, and theother questions that will be posed "one by one". There is no need to make gumbo in this discussion. Is the request for systematic "one by one" answers clear? Has this issue been resolved? History2007 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues: one by one

message: You are hereby asked to answer the questions one by one regarding your tags. Answer teh first question on the talk page please. And ONLY the first question because the accusations you have made are all mixed up and I want to address them ONE by ONE. So answer the first question now please. History2007 (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep all discussion to the article talk page.  Please do not post on my talk page.  In this way, all editors will be able to view all discussion.  Thanks.  Also, bear in mind, this discussion is not confined to you.  The tags are in place per Wikipedia policy in order to alert other editors.  There is no time limit on Wikipedia.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted several concerns if you would like to begin addressing them.  I will not engage in straw man arguments.  If you would be kind enough to answer the first concern about the use of a non-Catholic bible, that would be a good start.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I won't posting every few minutes today.  I am very busy with work, and now I'm afraid I have to go for several hours.  There is no urgency as apparently none of my concerns in my original post have not been addressed.  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving post to article talk page 

message: User Malke has challenged the notability of the topic of this article. I have stated above that the topic of "Power of prayer" is notable given that there are several books on this very topic and stated that:
:See  Power of Prayer Power of Prayer The Unseen Power of Prayer: A Catholic Perspective. And there are many more here. The title "Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer" was suggested byanother user, Barrylb, before. It was not my invention. "Power of prayer" would imply that there is power in prayer, hence it has to modified to say what Catholics believe about it, not assert it as a fact. And given that it does not discuss Hindu beliefs, or Lutheran beliefs, it has to have a focused title. 
I am not getting a direct answer to this issue. This key issue needs to be addressed before minor issues are dealt with. I have hence requested a 3rd opinion, only on this issue.History2007 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I declined the third opinion request as no discussion has taken place in this thread; discuss it with the other user first. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As in the discussion above, I have asked the user for a response, and obtained comments on other issues, not this one. What happens if Malke continues to change topic and not answer the key question, instead move from subtopic to subtopic? In any case, Malke you are hereby asked to address the issue of "notability" as you have made that accusation above and only this issue in this thread. I am asking about this issue only again. So please address this specific question regarding "notability of the article topic" instead of responding about the version of the Bible used in the references. History2007 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  My mistake; you directed the request specifically to this thread though, so it appeared as though you were asking for a third opinion before you had waited for the other user's (second) opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So please clarify it for me Giftiger, is the 3rd opinion request I made ok, or not? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; another user has removed the request because they intend to answer it, so I'll leave it to them. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, thanks Anaxial. Regarding confontation, it is of course not desired, but you must also see Talk:Holy Face of Jesus and Talk:Rosary_of_the_Holy_Wounds, with a very long 3rd Opinion discussion, to guess if there is WP:WIKIHOUNDing on articles that I edit. Anyway, do I understand that your 3rd opinion on the specific topic of "Article topic notability" was that the article topic is notable? I understand that your opinion here does not extend beyond this issue, but I am hereby assuming that on this issue of topic notability, your opinion was that it is notable. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The question to answer here is, "What is the Catholic belief on the power of prayer?"  How do you define that?  Does the lead/lede answer: "Catholic belief on the power of prayer is defined as:. . ."  Malke 2010 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't the question I was asked to answer. But, since you raise it, I'll comment that, in my opinion, the lede doesn't necessarily have to provide a definition, but it does have to provide a summary of the topic, and, in particular, of the rest of the article (I make no judgement at this time as to whether it adequately does so or not, however). To my mind, a definition would not illuminate much in this instance: "Catholic belief in the power of prayer can be defined as the belief that Catholic theology holds regarding the efficacy of prayer." Well, yes, but... Anaxial (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a collection of prayers used by Catholics.  The name of the article implies that there is a particular belief here, a Catholic belief.  The collection of prayers and the 'promises' that are claimed to attend to these prayers, is being made to seem that these promises are the belief.  They are not.  Some of these prayers are related to visions people have had and they have reported that Mary said this, or Jesus told them that, etc.  These are not verifiable.  But since the person reporting these visions does not seem to make claims that go against Catholic teachings, Catholic doctrines, Catholic beliefs, if you will, they are allowed.  This article has made claims about the use of the Imprimatur by a particular priest or bishop approving these promises or claims.  No such thing exists in Catholicism.  These so-called promises attending to these specific prayers, are not Catholic doctrine.  These are things that are common among the laity, they are not prohibited by the Church because they don't contain anything that goes against doctrine, but a specific belief taught by the Church, does not exist.  The article needs to be retitled, needs a complete rewrite, and needs to have reliable sources, and not sources that lead to websites that are selling rosaries, etc.  This is my point in asking the question, what is the Catholic belief in the power of prayer.  The article should be able to answer it.  These 'promises' are not it.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Search for the term lede/lead on this talk page. Where does it occur first? In response to the 3rd opinion! This is the first time you have complained about the lede! So it could not have been the subject of a 3rd opinion.
The trend here is that as soon as a question gets close to getting focused on, a separate issue is discussed by you. If you think the lede has problems, I will ask for a separate 3rd opinion on that. The challenge here is to keep the discussion focused, as in "one issue at a time". So please answer questions, "one by one". Do not jump from one question to another. Please answer the questions regarding your claims, "one by one" to stay focused. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: You seem to be asking a third opinion on a single question, e.g., the notability.  There are multiple issues with this article.  I've already outlined multiple issues.  It might be a good idea to start with those.  For example, the lede/lead should address the issue of the 'beliefs,' citations should be from reliable sources, the article is about Catholic beliefs, yet no Catholic bible is used, etc.  Perhaps you could respond to those.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the 3O request was on a specific topic. This doesn't, of course, preclude raising a new 3O, or an RfC or any other form of dispute resolution, for that matter, if you would find it helpfuln (which you may not). Equally, if you'd both find it helpful for me to comment on other specific issues, I'll try and do so - but, if one or the other of you doesn't, or would prefer someone else, that's fine by me. Certainly I'd agree that the reliablity and applicability of the sources, the relevance of the article title to the text, and so on, are important questions that ought to be resolved.Anaxial (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

text: And again, What is/are the Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer?Malke 2010 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will, of course, respond to issues "one by one" in a systematic and orderly manner. Next topic: copyrights. Let us settle that, then we move on to the next issue. Again: we can only do this one by one in an "orderly manner". Next topic: copyrights, below. History2007 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of article topic

message: The issue of references to the Catholic Bible vs the New International Bible has been brought up as a problem by Malke several times now. I found one, and fixed it to be a generic reference a few days ago, as in most other articles in Wikipedia, so the reader can select the version. Malke, please provide a "complete list" of Bible references that have problems so I can fix them. This, however, is an unusual (yet minor) claim and I have never seen it brought up anywhere in Wikipedia after over 100 articles I have written on Catholic topics. However, I will readily fix these if a list if provided. I can not fix them unless I know where they are. Just now I did a search on "NIV" and found nothing in the article. Malke, I am again asking for substantiation of "this specific claim" to remove the issues in the claims "one by one". Please provide a list of Bible references that you object to, so I can fix them. Please stay focused on this issue so the issues can be resolved one by one. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The NIV is, according to its own article at Wikipedia, explicitly Protestant, so I'd agree that it's not a great source for illustrating the beliefs of Catholics. But it's surely not very hard to fix all of the references to it en masse? In fact, I've just made a start, using the Douey-Rheims version. Of course, one could change that to, say, the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (available online via ) if that would be more comprehensible. Anaxial (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)Yes, the Douey-Rheims is an excellent source, as is New Revised Standard.  Also, St. Joseph edition of the New American Bible.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your edit Anaxial. I thought it meant the online links, so I searched for NIV in the article and found nothing. Somehow the NIV item by itself does not show in the text search. Over the next day, it will be easy for me to substitute that. No big deal. However, the substance of the Gospel passages does not change at all, as the text changes. But thanks for your edit. History2007 (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Three, that I can see (49,50,51). The non-biblical references look generally Catholic to me, but I'm no expert, so I may have missed some. Anaxial (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I will change those later today, then this issue will also be put to bed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Anaxial, please respond to my post in the thread above, thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded and pointed you to 4 articles on logic as to why your argument is logically inconsistent. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

text: "An angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him" was changed to "And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him." 
Big deal. No major difference to the article. Much ado about nothing.
However, in the process I got some good ideas on how to expand this article. So I guess we will be seeing much more text in this article, because I have now decided that it needs further expansion, e.g. the issues relating to the Holy Spirit, etc. That material will be interesting to add. Thank you for making me think of expansion. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible versions: Catholic vs other

message: The following issues have been addressed so far:
:1. Article notability: Article is notable. .
:2. Copyright violations claims: None were presented after much debate. Not a single one.
:3. Bible versions: Easily replaced. Trivial changes.
Next: Missing citations. Please keep focus on the topic. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues addressed so far

message: Please provide a list of claimed missing citations in this article. Please ONLY deal with missing citations here, not article lede, copyright or copyleft issues, etc. Please do not debate the nature of theology in this thread but focus on missing citations. The goal in this thread is to keep focus as mentioned before. Article lede will be the LAST topic, since it needs to summarize the article, and it must wait to the end. So please list the missing citations. The article has over 80 references, so it is not exactly citation free. Anyway, please provide a list, and I will delete/modify/expand text to deal with each missing citation. I will not address other issues in this thread. Please start the list of claimed missing citations below:
Item 1:
::Here is the Catechism at the Vatican website History2007 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a commentary on the words of Christ.  It is an example of prayer and faith "that does not doubt."  You are twisting this around in all your edits of today to make it appear that there is a Catholic belief on the 'power of prayer,' yet you can not list any number of specific beliefs.  So I ask again, please list 5 Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer,using reliable sources.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, again I ask, please provide reliable sources for this section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Prayer_as_a_source_of_strength and the newly added ones, please provide a direct quote and page number here for all editors to examine.  Since you obviously have access to these volumes, this should be easy to do.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Malke, Please read this link and stop. You must assume good faith. All you needed to do in your own link was scroll down to page 278, end of page. If I typed the exact words, then it would be called a copyvio, right? This is amazing. Now I will stop for the Afd to end. History2007 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the problem with the edits here.  You are cherry picking a quote from an unrelated chapter in a book and claim that is evidence of Catholic beliefs in the power of prayer.  No, that isn't a valid reference.  And again, my user name is Malke_2010.  Please remember WP:CIVIL.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: No 43 goes to the encyclical I think. In any case the encyclical is a clear item on the Vatican website too. Please feel free to be constructive and point to it. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing citation claims

message: I've nominated the article for deletion.  There seems to be no progress in the 3O discussion.  The article does not offer any illuminations on Catholic beliefs, there is no notability, possible copyright violations, as well as original research and complete lack of sources to confirm Catholic beliefs.  Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good approach to take, given your concerns. I don't happen to agree with you on this particular point (as I've posted at the AFD), but wider discussion can only be beneficial. Anaxial (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your note.  I think you did a good job with the 3O but given the lack of civility and the refusal to provide sources, or answer questions, it seemed to me to be the only solution.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

text: No problem. But for Heaven's sake, tell me that I misread "possible copyright violations" in what Malke wrote just above here. Are we still talking about copyvio after no single example could be produced (including the book marks referred to) following multiple requests to Malke? We talk for ever and a day about copyrights and no single example can be produced, then it is part of the claims for deletion? I must be misreading this. Am I? History2007 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to fail to provide sources for these edits.  Here's one.  What source to you have to show where this came from?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Prayer_as_a_source_of_strengthMalke 2010 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

text: In this edit  you are making it appear that the Gospel quotations from Matthew and Luke are directly from the Catholic Church as if somehow this supports the title of this article.  Just because the quotation is mentioned in the Catechism, doesn't mean the Pope said it.  Jesus said it, and Matthew and Luke recorded it.  The edit is incorrect and I corrected it.  You've reverted it.  Please explain the reason for reverting this.  The true source of the quote is the Bible, not the Catechism.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In this section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Power_of_the_Rosary, on the first citation at the end of the paragraph, #43, leads to another Wikipedia article.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where exactly does it say in the Catechism about this power of prayer?  Why aren't you quoting it directly?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Excuse me? There is a thread for that above. I did not delete anything just moved it to its own thread. I do not really know how to respond to this type of logic. I will wait for the Afd to complete before I respond again. As stated above in "Item 1" your edit was incorrect. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot move another editors' comments without permission.  I put my comments where I believed they were best placed.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its probably best not to move another editor's comments, even if you don't change them, as it might be seen as attempts to alter the record (even if that wasn't your intent, as I'm sure it wasn't). Anaxial (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that there was a specific thread for it, I was actually following WP:DNMG, (WP:do not make gumbo) to organize a discussion that was getting scattered all over the place. But anyway, that is beside the point really. History2007 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Your metaphorical anthill seems to be harmless these days. Please feel free to make edit as you see fit - your AAS point is valid, etc. I have been intending to come back to edit here, but have been busy with other things. So help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: :In this edit  you are making it appear that the Gospel quotations from Matthew and Luke are directly from the Catholic Church as if somehow this supports the title of this article.  Just because the quotation is mentioned in the Catechism, doesn't mean the Pope said it.  Jesus said it, and Matthew and Luke recorded it.  The edit is incorrect and I corrected it.  You've reverted it.  Please explain the reason for reverting this.  The true source of the quote is the Bible, not the Catechism.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In this section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Power_of_the_Rosary, on the first citation at the end of the paragraph, #43, leads to another Wikipedia article.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where exactly does it say in the Catechism about this power of prayer?  Why aren't you quoting it directly?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: citation problems

message: Please do not move my posts, as you did here  without my permission.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? There is a thread for that above. I did not delete anything just moved it to its own thread. I do not really know how to respond to this type of logic. I will wait for the Afd to complete before I respond again. As stated above in "Item 1" your edit was incorrect. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot move another editors' comments without permission.  I put my comments where I believed they were best placed.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its probably best not to move another editor's comments, even if you don't change them, as it might be seen as attempts to alter the record (even if that wasn't your intent, as I'm sure it wasn't). Anaxial (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that there was a specific thread for it, I was actually following WP:DNMG, (WP:do not make gumbo) to organize a discussion that was getting scattered all over the place. But anyway, that is beside the point really. History2007 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive editing

message: Please list 5 Catholic beliefs in the power of prayer, using reliable sources and not links back to Wikipedia pages.  Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your metaphorical anthill seems to be harmless these days. Please feel free to make edit as you see fit - your AAS point is valid, etc. I have been intending to come back to edit here, but have been busy with other things. So help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Beliefs

message: In case anyone is wondering, the section on Vocal Prayer is longer than that of Mental Prayer and its expressions because (1) it is likely that most familiar to most people, and (2) the latter group each has its own Main article. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: Catholic prayers is a redundant, low-quality, short article.  If there's any worthwhile content there, it should be merged into this article.  Jujutsuan (Please notify with  talk | contribs) 15:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion