User talk:Ramos1990

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Basketball RfC

Hey, thanks for your contribution to the RfC at WT:NBA. The thing is, I forgot to clarify in the proposal that it was supposed to be for the lead. If it isn't too much trouble, do you think you could go back to your comment and edit it to specify if you want it in the lead, or just in the legacy sections of the articles? Ladtrack (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Poem of the Man-God has an RfC

The Poem of the Man-God has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence you added in "Secularity"

You added the sentence "In the Middle Ages, there were even secular clergy" in the first paragraph. This is misleading and probably should be removed. The meaning of "secular" in this case means these clergy don't belong to a religious institute or order or something like that, it doesn't mean those clergy are neutral in regards to religion. I'm hoping that this sentence can be removed, but as you rewrote a lot of the lead at that time, you might want to consider how best to present the information. 11USA11 (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources state "secular clergy" and it shows how "secular" is more universal than the modern understanding (relating to religion in some way). It meant mundane or of the world for most of history. The sentence is merely an example of historical usage. I attmpted to clarify, but source has link to definition either way. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. But secular clergy still exist today, so I think the current wording is still misleading. 11USA11 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]