Received; may be I'm not too clear what you're trying to imply, but it sounds like taking bits of The Next Doctor and the 8th Doctor and drawing conclusions from them. This is synthesis and not permitted, by policy; if you can find a reliable source who has discussed this somewhere, by all means it can go in. Otherwise, afraid not. --Rodhullandemu 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I see you added a number of successions claimed by various churches, which another editor then removed. The problem with your addition is that you didn't cite any reference sources, so the claims you made didn't meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiablity. Please feel free to reinstate your edits, adding a reference to a reliable source for each claim. Don't worry if you're not familiar with the format for references: if you can supply the information and it stands up as reliably sourced then I or any of the other editors who watch the article can help to get it into shape. Best regards -- Timberframe (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi again! Thanks for adding the refs. I added descriptors to two that lacked them and in the case of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem I drilled down to the page in the doc you'd cited to direct the reader to the claim. Trust that's OK with you, if not feel free to improve it. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Apostolic succession II
Hi again! Thanks for your suggestions for improving and expanding the article. Rather than putting them in HTML comments within the article, please would you put them on the discussion page where they will be more visible and other editors will be able to discuss your ideas with you. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Crosslet, Dumbarton
Hello Dava4444, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Crosslet, Dumbarton has been removed. It was removed by JIP with the following edit summary 'removed prod notice, I don't see how being a street automatically means it has to be deleted'. Please consider discussing your concerns with JIP before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"In my personal note to you, I encouraged you to find an area of Wikipedia that is within your area of expertise and add new material to it. One of those was the Humanist article. I suggested that a common flaw for new editors was to fall into a deletionst role of wanting to remove things they did not agree with. All of this was before your many, many, many posts, and before your crusade to remove both the video and the image from the ejaculation article. I gently recommend, and encourage you again to find an area within Wikipedia that is within your area of personal expertise. Please add new stubs, add detail and references to articles in that area. I don't think that ejaculation should define your contribution to Wikipedia. Atom (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)"
Hi Atom! er just an FYI, Humanism, is a religion, that some claim is a lack of... but many Satanist are humanists. " a set of core beliefs to define ones life and interaction with the universe/creation" can be applied to both. just to be freer and to not hide anything, I am Catholic. but if I tried to put my perspective on the immorally of a man ejaculating without stimulation from his wife at the top of the article it would (would of as it is locked just now) undoubtedly be quickly moved, so then does it follow a Humanist perspective is as outwardly bias? Dava4444 (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Humanism is not a religion, it is a philosophy. There are Secular Humanists and Christian Humanists among others. There are many Catholics that are Humanists. An interest and concern on the human condition does not make one either theistic or non-theistic. Likely the God that mostChristian believe in is a Humanist. I am not sure what to make of your comment. Humanism has nothing to do with whether a medical image of a bodily function is appropriate on Wikipedia. The only reference given was where I gave DMSBel advice to edit within articles that are his area of expertise. He cooicidentally happened to have edited the humanism article once. And for the record, I am a Buddhist (which is non-theistic) as well as being a humanist. Lets stick to the topic though, okay? Atom (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I really don't want to argue with you and you really have an air of neutrality about you, but Humanism and Humanity are different concepts, (I know you weren't saying that, I'm just making a point) Humanisim is the belief "there is no God so Man is God" to wit they say they can do as they please. (so beware! they have a sinister agenda) Do you believe our Father Adam Kadman acted like this? this is not Zen, this is debase. peace :). on another note I wont be back to that article again because this is depressing me, I felt inspired when I heard "the sum of human knowledge" but ah well ..this is a bit sad.Dava4444 (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem: Clan Shaw of Tordarroch
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Clan Shaw of Tordarroch, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.theclanshaw.org/summary.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Clan Shaw of Tordarroch and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Clan Shaw of Tordarroch, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Clan Shaw of Tordarroch with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Clan Shaw of Tordarroch. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Clan Shaw of Tordarroch saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Alexrexpvt (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I had wondered about what was and wasn't okay to copy. I am a Shaw myself, and finding the information, understandably was very very hard, seeing that the subject is so very very old... so at the time, I guess i just gave up and copied. apologies. I will not do it again. His page is the only complete history of my clan. and other places only have one story repeated over and over.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Townend, Dumbarton may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- <ref>"[http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_201140_en.pdf</ref>]] is a moderate to large housing scheme in [[Dumbarton]]. It stretches from Dumbarton Central
MfD nomination of Talk:Clan Shaw of Tordarroch/Temp
Talk:Clan Shaw of Tordarroch/Temp, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Clan Shaw of Tordarroch/Temp and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Clan Shaw of Tordarroch/Temp during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)