I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Sam Spade 14:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sources for Southern England
Hello, good work on Southern England, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in Southern England? You can simply add links, preferably as the inline citations, or see citation templates for different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 00:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Any chance I can convince you to take a closer look. I agree that the "style wars" were somewhat rancerous on all sides (including mine). But that was 9+ months ago, and prior to 95% of my edit history. I believe if you take an open minded look at the last, say, 90% of my edit history, you would find me an excellend administrator candidate (if nothing else, most admins seem to be promoted with far less total history than the 8 months I believe you would find me problem-free for; and with far fewer edits than I've made in those 8 months). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Milošević was elected as the President of the Serbian League of Communists in 1986, not 1984, at the request of Stambolić, who took the Presidency of Serbia. It was at this time that the Serbian Academy of Sciences delivered a memorandum, based on the need to protect Kosovan-Serbs from Albanian domination in Kosovo. Stambolić lambasted this as leading to 'the obitary of Yugoslavia' to which Milošević took the same line. Milošević's rise to power is notable as he entered the Presidency of the Serbian League of Communists in 1986 and by 1989 he had ousted Stambolić, and under the guise of nationalism furthered his popularity amongst not only homegrown Serbs, but Croat-Serbs, Bosnian-Serbs and Kosovan-Serbs.
Information relating to the ascendancy of Milošević referenced from
Balkan babel : the disintegration of Yugoslavia from the death of Tito to the fall of Milošević - S. Ramet (2002)
Festival (Church of England)
Hi. I started the Festival (Church of England) article, and I noticed that you've edited it slightly. I was wondering what the "original" you mentioned in one of your edits refers to. You said that you tweaked the presentation to "conform with the original". Which original? I took the names of the Festivals from Common Worship (e.g. "Barnabas, Apostle"), but it's true that in The Lectionary they're written slightly differently (e.g. "Barnabas the Apostle"). Is The Lectionary the original you were referring to?
Also, I listed Christmas Eve and certain other days (which you removed) as Festivals because they appear in The Lectionary in small bold capitals, the style reserved for Festivals. On what basis did you decide that they are not Festivals?
In addition, I can't remember where I read that Sundays are treated as Festivals (probably in A Companion to Common Worship), and I'm in Japan now so I can't check, but the font style (small bold capitals) supports that statement. I'm not saying that they are Festivals (The Lectionary consistently talks about, for example, "Principal Feasts, Principal Holy Days, Sundays and Festivals"), but only that they are treated as such. I'm not entirely sure what "treating something as a Festival" means, but I think I read it in A Companion and thought I ought to add it to this page. Would you mind explaining the basis for your disagreement?
Thanks for your interest in my article. DTOx 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have a great library of liturgical materials, unfortunately, and most of the little I do have isn't with me at the moment, so I can't check on my sources and I'll leave your edits as they are. The lectionary I referred to is indeed published by SPCK, and on the front of it is written The Lectionary - 2006 - According to the Common Worship Calendar and Lectionary authorized for use in the Church of England (Year B) - According to the Book of Common Prayer and Lectionary for Holy Communion and Schedule of Variations (BCP) - CW & BCP - 27 November 2005 – 31 December 2006. I don't know if this book itself has been authorized by Synod (probably not), but it seems to simply be an amalgamation of sources that have been. For each day, for example, it gives you the liturgical colour, the name of the day (if applicable), the "Sunday Principal Service" or "Weekday Eucharist" readings, the "Third Service" or "Morning Prayer" readings, the "Second Service" or "Evening Prayer" readings, the BCP name of the day (if applicable) and the "Holy Communion" readings, the BCP "Morning Prayer" readings, and the BCP "Evening Prayer" readings. On the back, it seems to list all its sources:
- The Revised Common Lectionary is copyright (c) The Consultation on Common Texts 1992 and is reproduced with permission. The Church of England's adapted form of The Revised Common Lectionary, published as the Principal Service Lectionary in The Christian Year: Calendar, Lectionary and Collects, and the Second and Third Service Lectionaries and the Common Worship Calendar, also published in the same publication, are copyright (c) The Central Board of Finance of the Church of England, 1995, 1997; The Archbishops' Council, 1999. The Lectionary and Additional Collects for Holy Communion (Book of Common Prayer) and Schedule of Variations to the Common Worship Second and Third Service Lectionaries when the Book of Common Prayer Eucharistic Lectionary is used as the Principal Service Lectionary is copyright (c) The Archbishops' Council, 2001; the Daily Eucharistic Lectionary derives, with adaptations, from the Ordo Lectionum Missae of the Roman Catholic Church. Material from these works is reproduced with permission.
- So the readings at least are fully authoritative, but I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that its choice of typeface for certain days ought to be taken too much into consideration. Anyway, I'm off to an organ recital in Kyoto Cathedral. Feel free to send me a message back if you have anything more to say on this topic. DTOx 03:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that you have encoutnereed Commonworship. some of your alterations have taken the article a little further away from accuracy. Do you think you could consider communicating before altering? Some of your changes, not least that which refers to Order 2, might be a little difficult to justify. Some discussion might help. Roger Arguile 22:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As you will see from the page history of the VC, i have reverted you changes to the Lead. Yes, the GC is of equal rank as the VC, and this is explained and referenced later on. For the purposes of Post-nominals though, the VC is of higher rank and that was the sentence that you changed. I hope this clears it up for you and explains my reasoning beyond the edit summary. Leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Woodym555 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thankyou for taking my note in the spirit in which it was intended. I think yours is a good suggestion. I suggest a few amendments: The Victoria Cross (VC) is a military decoration awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of armed forces of some Commonwealth countries and previous British Empire territories. It takes precedence over all other postnominals and medals. It may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service and civilians under military command, and is presented to the recipient by the British monarch during an investiture held at Buckingham Palace. It is the joint highest award for bravery in the United Kingdom with the George Cross, which is the equivalent honour for valour not in the face of the enemy.
- I have separated the postnominals sentence into separate sentences as they are unrelated. (One does not follow logically in the same sentence as the other.) I have also expanded the George Cross statement for uniniated readers. The WP:LEAD is meant to be a summary of the whole article after all ;) Any qualms with this version? Woodym555 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Great, i have added in the amended version now. Much better, it was a good catch! I can see now how there was a slight ambiguity to that sentence. Happy editing! Woodym555 23:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi I don't know whether you have seen but there is a similar discussion on the article about Franjo Tuđman.
Similar discussion as with Novak Đoković: some guys want to change đ into dj at the name of the article.
Hey, I was just wondering...are you familiar with Esperanto? Because your username is conspicuously Esperanto-ish. I know it when I see it. :) -GC —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC).