User talk:Dominics Fire/archive1

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, like with Barret Wallace. Putting the link to the merge discussion in the edit summary would be a good thing to prevent angry people from de-merging and reverting your edits. Thank you. Kariteh 21:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles) has now been created and there is a discussion taking place on the talk page. Readro 21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 'United Kingdom' is the OFFICIAL short name of the nation. Unlike 'Great Britain', 'United Kingdom' is an officially acceptable name for the country. Cynical 12:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with me being pro-independence (could you please explain why using 'United Kingdom' rather than 'Great Britain' is somehow a pro-independence bias?) - it is simply the fact that Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the whole UK, including Northern Ireland. 'Great Britain', by definition, excludes Northern Ireland and is therefore inaccurate in this case. 'Britain' is acceptably interchangeable with 'United Kingdom', but 'Great Britain' is not (because 'Great Britain' is the landmass). Cynical 14:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talkpage. I can probably provide cites for much of what you tagged, but long story short I've become something of a lending library with Illuminati books and before I go calling on my tin-foil hat friends to get my books back I want to make sure that the sources are acceptable and won't just be the focal point of a reliable source fight. I've got some decent sources that if used narrowly just to source the < 1790 stuff. The "Cultural effect" section needs a rewrite as well; some of that is easy to source, but some if it is just weasel wording that needs to be adjusted.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you contributions. Would you be interested in joining the Family Guy WikiProject? It's still getting started, and needs a few more sensible editors. / edg ☺ ★ 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cardinal Medinaat2005papalelection.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Polarlys 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Polarlys 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:O'brein and murphey.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Com0506c.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GERibbentrop.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not object, I would like to revert your page name change to the original "Catholic Church in England and Wales". This is because the official Church website states that the name is the "Catholic Church in England and Wales" WITHOUT the word "Roman". Please see [www.catholic-ew.org.uk]. I understand that you may want to make the article's title 'in line' with other England and Wales Catholic articles, but to my knowledge most articles about Catholicism in England and Wales just have 'Catholic' in their page title. Please let me know if I am wrong. Looking to hearing from you soon, 195.195.166.31 19:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. However, the signs on churches are issued by individual PARISH churches and NOT by the official Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales (note the absence of 'Roman' in front of Catholic in the official title). It would seem superfluous to add 'Roman' to the title of the article given that the Catholic Church in England and Wales OFFICIALLY addresses herself in this way (see their website, www.catholic-ew.org.uk).

195.195.166.31 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mordor.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Shendu2018.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Immaculate Conception (Star Wars), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Immaculate Conception (Star Wars). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Immaculate Conception (Star Wars), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaculate Conception (Star Wars). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actaully, checking again, it seems to now be less specific than it once was:

In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million).

it could be argued either way I suppose, but there wasn't really any need to chagne it from it's long-standing state in teh first place. David Underdown (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken in believing that it was policy. Gavin Scott (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and I share many things in common; we are both Catholic conservatives, I have lived in the UK most of my life and agree that it is frightening that the law is so anti-Catholic (or approaching it) but above all anti-Christian in general. Like yourself, I do not support the farse known as the "Conservative party", because right now all they do is attempt to oppose and ridicule everything the Labor government do without any conservative base from which to support on. I also believe in a monarchy, for conservative reasons, because I believe that a British republic would lead to something horrendous like France, which is so confused with its regular rioting.

I myself am an Eastern Catholic, (maybe you have heard of Assyrians or Chaldeans?), but served in the Latin rite for many years before I found my Iraqi Christian bretheren in San Diego. Well, see you around. Tourskin (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and friendly response! I don't have much else to say, so until next time. Tourskin (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome news about that tablet, good posting. Whilst faith is supreme in understanding Christ, it is helpful to have reason and empiricism, which this tablet only helps to add.Tourskin (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I fully understand what you mean. There were so many imposters at that time, it tarnishes Christ's image as the saviour. But I have a question for those skeptics - why is it that of all the people who claimed to be Messiahs and who were killed for it, why was it that Jesus Christ's story was spread far and wide and believed by all? It kind of puts a massive dent in the theory that it was "the same repeat story", as those skeptics put it, because only if the story was special in some way, such as being the truth, would it spread far. But yeah, we need to find out what its truly about. Tourskin (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That User:Carlaude/Sandbox is a list of links some of which are templates. I guess the templates links are what have that effect-- an effect I would not expect. I will try and work thru that list soon. --Carlaude (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gavin, thank you for your kind question on an LDS article on Joseph Smith. LDS view Joseph Smith as a prophet similar to Old Testament prophets or those mentioned in the New Testament. Also, LDS use the term saint as used in the New Testament meaning a disciple of Jesus Christ. LDS do not have a similar equivalent to the Catholic use of the term Saint, meaning a holy person like St. Francis, etc. LDS also do not have a veneration of Saints similar to Catholics. Does that help make the distinction for you? If not please let me know and I would be happy to respond to your questions. God bless, --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, I had a faint idea that the LDS-Church was led by a living saint- but after reading your message it came back to me that the office is Prophet not saint. Thanks for your answer. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my own talkpage, but I just noticed you opened a section on the article's talk page, so I suppose it will be discussed there.theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gavin needs to learn how to read"

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(I am re-writing this to be more polite.) Thanks for the picture you added. However, the footnote you deleted was a perfectly good way to forestall confusion over the identity (same) of AD Sertillanges and AG Sertillanges. I am going to undo your edit. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I use < ref > for all footnotes. If there is some other way to drop a footnote -- other than the absurd way of manually typing a number in text and then going to the bottom and typing in the contents of the footnote -- I'd be glad to be informed. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edit has confused me - why have you allowed such nonsense on the talk page? You know the extent to which the article gets a lot of stuff that has no relevance to improving the article.Tourskin (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have allowed it on just to answer against the idea that Jesus was married and died. Still, I personally would have just removed it. Tourskin (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was better to give a definitive statement on what he posted as to its relation within the article, otherwise it just keeps coming and coming. Gavin Scott (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.Tourskin (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just an "interested" editor who is inspired to edit off other people's (major) contributions! Thanks for your keeping up the article. If there's anything I can see, I will try to note it in comments or on the discussion page there. Student7 (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I re-read the article, I think you've done a great job between trying to record legends but not giving them excessive credibility. A fine line. Also, hard to "pad out" a bio when you don't have a lot of solid material to draw on. Good job!Student7 (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Michael (autobiography), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Wikilost (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I removed the speedy delete tag -- fortunately, I was familiar with the title. However, I strongly recommend that you add proper referencing and wikify the article ASAP. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted, I am getting there...wow, its barely been in existence for a few moments. haha. thanks Gavin Scott (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, that stinks. In future, I might recommend getting the references and categories into the text before you put the article online -- it will save you the grief and stress of situations like this. You are doing a great job with this article -- keep up the fine work! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ahh, thats a wise idea. I will get back to work on the article tomorrow morning, for now I must sleep! Hopefully I'll be able to find some other people who would like to contribute. I have some books which mention it myself so I shall use them- thanks for the advice and help...and the Wikismile! Gavin Scott (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, this issue has been endlessly discussed on the talk page of the article. See the archives. The phrase "not both in the same article" was taken to refer to inconsistent shifting between conventions, not consistent use of a double convention. Take it up on the talk page. I assume you are not aware how important this issue is to some Jewish and Christian editors. Paul B (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally care a fig about this, but there have been major edit wars in the past. The current situation was a way to avoid them continuing. Hence the reversion. Paul B (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you got no reply becasuse another editor added a comment to another section one minute after you had posted yours, so yours got lost in the "history" as was not readily visible. As I say, there is a lot of archived discussion. Paul B (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have opened up a discussion that we, those who favor the AD/BC system may not win. I would prefer AD/BC. However in the world due to secularization/political correctness/equality/anti-chrisianism (whatever fancy word one wishes to use) the BCE/CE system is gaining huge amounts of support everywhere. The current compromise allows us to see what we want in use at least. A more strict interpretation of the guidelines will see the AD/BC system lost in favor the ever more popular BCE/CE system. Therefore, if you insist on pursuing it, I shall throw my weight in behind you, though I suggest we do not antagonize a position that could be worse. Gabr-el 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats funny and interesting. I think 1) Jesus would be happy to see that we were zealous in this account 2) He would rightfully criticize both of us for not using our zeal to help others in a more effective way 3) He would ask us to delete these pages from our history, in the same way he asked the disciples to remove the dust from their sandals when they leave an unrepentant town. Gabr-el 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps; blasphemy is a serious crime against God; better it not exist. However, even the righteous existed amongst multitudes of unrighteous people. Gabr-el 18:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deo, IN EXCELSIS!!!!!Gabr-el 18:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if you were willing to go then go!!! Here, let me go there now and drop off my vote. Gabr-el 18:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dominics Fire, Tourskin has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Gabr-el 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Crusade has not been taken seriously; barely two responses. I was expecting a swarm of anti-Christian attackers lol Gabr-el 03:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]