User talk:OlEnglish/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions for the period October 2009 - November 2009.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Editor Review backlog

Hi OE, I have an editor review request that's in the backlog section. Should I leave it there or relist it. It's probably not the oldest request as it dates from the end of July of this year. Shinerunner (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it there, as long as it's still listed on the main WP:ER page it can still be reviewed.. unfortunately there's not enough editors around wanting to do reviews.. so relisting it probably won't help anyway.. in fact I think I'm going to leave a note emphasizing reviewing the older requests first as they've been sitting there the longest.. -- œ ^™ 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice OE. Shinerunner (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Belated congrats!

I've been away for a while, and have returned (just for the evening, I'll be out again for quite a while, methinks) to find you wielding the mop! Congratulations! I have every confidence in you. Un school 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! thank you.. it really does help give me a little more flexibility to do my usual cleanup tasks, i like it. I may be taking a short wiki-vacation myself soon... -- œ ^™ 04:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Help!

Dear OIEnglish,

I am requesting comment at the Saint Augustine talk page.

I am claiming that the section in the article page entitled: Conversion, is not adequite and have referred to sources, Catholic Encyclopedia 1930, The Butler lives of the Saints Vol II by Fr.Alban Butler, and Vatican sources on the Confessions of Saint Augustine. John Carter has responded a number if times, however, lately, his responses have not been ad rem, and has, apparently refused to see the points I'v been making! (I am assuming good faith, but am stretched in seeing this).

The only point I am making is that the conversion of Saint Augustine is not covered adequately.

I have the original Latin Confessions of Saint Augustine, now. And can assure you, that in comparing, the coverage of Saint Augustine's conversion is not covered adequately.

I have offered to make additions to the article page and gave four distinct seeable sections to his conversion:

1. His leaving "sinfuliness", "ugliness", "deformis", in Latin. (His conversion from a desolate life).

2. His rejection of the sensual, secular life. (His acceptance of being "without the sweets of those toys!").

3. His finding, through contemplation, the peace, that was prevented to him because of "his sinfulness", (his words, from the Latin).(His finding the peace of a blessed interior life.).

4. His becoming priest, contemplative, and bishop.

Unless we are aware of the secular, sinful, former life of Saint Augustine we will not appreciate the steps he took. (Nor will we identify with him). He used to say to his mother, Saint Monica when she used to chide him; his hands joined looking up to heaven, "Make me good, Lord, but not just yet"!

The Latin originals of his confessions cannot be adequately translated into English, but the footnotes, references, to his other works also is remarkable and throws further light on his conversion history.

I have offered to add to the conversion paragraph in the article page, but it would appear this has been denied!

Such as in the life of Saint Dismas, he became a Saint because when one explores the depts of sin and sinfulness, in contrast, the good becomes more attractive. He uttered the most unpredictable words in history: "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom", (...and to a dying man!), prevoking the most unusual response: "This very day though will be with me paradise".

If John Carter does not want me to touch his page then may I begin a new one on "The Conversion of Saint Augustine of Hippo" ?

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter I can always help with questions in regards to Wikipedia policies, guidelines and processes. With that said..

It's not John Carter's page, nor anyone elses, and although you appropriately discussed your intentions on the talk page first, you do still have the option of going ahead and boldy expanding the article in good faith as per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. But if it gets reverted you must take care to avoid starting an edit war, that is, if you get reverted with good reason, then it's best to just let it go. Also, you don't need to ask me for permission if you want to start a new article.. just go ahead and start it. There's some things you should read first though.. Wikipedia:Content forking basically states that "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." I understand that you are a devout Catholic, but please be careful to not cross the line of WP:Neutrality when advocating your particular point of view. I hope that didn't sound judgmental, I don't have any stance on the conversion of Saint Augustine of Hippo or Catholicism in general, I'm just trying to guide you towards the relevant policies and guidelines applicable to your current situation and to help you make the right decisions when editing Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia has a fairly steep learning curve and it sometimes takes a lot of reading of essays, guidelines, policies, etc to get a full understanding of what's involved in article writing.

Thanks,

Why I am reticent is just this. Wars of all kind are not helpful.

Yet I do feel Saint Augustine's conversion process is particularly apt even for the most hardened agnostic. I would want all I write to be very object and verafiable. But with the original version of the confessions in front of me I feel not restricted with copyright concerns.

Thanks for getting back to me.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and good luck with the article if you choose to create it... who knows? maybe one day it will become a featured article. ;) -- œ ^™ 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fulumenae

Dear OIEnglish,

I asked Jredmond on his talk page to invite Fulumenae back.

I think she would be a great asset to us all.

"Dear Jredmond,

Please, may I ask if you would invite Fulumenae back. I would think she took too much to heart the situation over the Saint Philomena article. I'v placed, in the talk page of the same article pointers that clarify. I do not know her. But I do think her expertese would be of value. After all, alot of the right was on her side over Saint Philomena's article page and talk page. An Encyclopedia has to be all embracing, and I came up against this with the Saint Athanasius' article page, but followed, with your Editors help the correct procedure. The same problem is on the Hosius of Corduba article page.

Revert wars are of course bad, but then it is in the past and for sensitive souls this menia is taken to heart unlike any other."

I think I will pick the hedgehog as my motto! (I see John Carter has picked the cross pussy-cat!).

But I am serious. Fulumenae would be a good person on Wikipedia.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what I could do to help you in this situation. The user was only blocked for 24 hours so she is free to return to editing whenever she wants and doesn't need to be invited. Regarding her 'expertise', she claims on her own talkpage that "the only saint I have actually researched is Saint Philomena; I am not qualified to offer credible facts on any of the others". That and with a history of edit-warring, copyvios and POV-pushing I'm not so sure she would be good for Wikipedia. -- œ ^™ 19:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I only came in on the end. I did'nt know about all this.

I have a personal policy of not editing in taking away other's work. I would rather draw attention to it, as I did with the Hosius of Corduba page.

It is a pity these little wars can't be resolved, in a better way, turning the person back to a more encyclopedic point of view.

Could "Encyclopedic point of view" be a pointer on the Wikipedia Instruction Page?

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Which instruction page are you referring to? -- œ ^™ 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As I am new to Wikipedia, I don't have the correct terminology.

The pages that contain pointers such as "neutral point of view". This term is violated in the Hosius of Corduba article page.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that would be WP:List of policies and WP:List of guidelines? But I think "Encyclopedic point of view" is equal to "WP:Neutral point of view, so it's already there. -- œ ^™ 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is perhaps a very confusing term. For, if this were the standard throughout then an encyclopedia could not exist. I would prefer a different term which would have, hopefully, a better immediate understanding.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you should post your proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- œ ^™ 22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'v done that! MacOfJesus (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Saint Augustine issue. I am reticent, as I would have to put a lot of work into translating and studying with the risk of being accused of "forking" or of reverters editing.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks for Reverting what that IP said on my userpage.--Dcheagle (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review

Thank you for your review; the backlog is so long over there, and though I want to try to clear it, I never know where to start. Thank you for all of your helpful advice, I will certainly remember it as I make my way around Wikipedia. I'll be sure to try at more mainspace work and discussion. By the way, my userpage is not blue all the time; it is only so when it is night at Wikipedia (about between 19:00 and 07:00 UTC). The text should be white during this time, but this only seems to work with Google Chrome and Safari. I'm planning to make an alternate userpage for other browsers to solve this problem, that is, if I can find time off from contributing. Thanks for all your helpful advice! Cheers Intelligentsium^review 22:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

re: User:Ordew

Never met him or her before, as far as I'm aware. I've taken the liberty of a) editing it not to transclude my sub-page, and b) removing the admin one. I've also explained a little more on his/her talk. Thanks for pointing that out to me. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 09:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

R from disambiguation

Hi OlEnglish, I was hoping for your independent opinion on something. I assume that you are familiar with {{R to disambiguation page}} (and its various redirects, {{R to disambiguation}}, {{R to disambig}}, & {{R to dab}} ).

I discovered that back in June Bkonrad created the redirect Template: R from disambiguation → Template:R to disambiguation page because there were already several redirects labeled with that nonexistent template. Given that most "to/from" template pairs are complements and not synonyms, I feel that this redirect tends to confuse more than help. When I asked Bkonrad about it he said that he wouldn't oppose its removal, but I wanted to get another opinion before I took action. So, do you think that this redirect is at all worth keeping? I would, of course, fix the two dozen redirects that use it, and will periodically run a script that will scan for future uses. -- ToE^T 05:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, go ahead and tag it for deletion. -- œ ^™ 05:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

While removing inappropriately placed {{R to disambiguation page}} tags, I am going to run across a fair number of redirects along the lines of TAR → Tar (disambiguation) that are not currently tagged {{R from other capitalisation}}. Is that really an appropriate tag in such cases? The target dab page does have separate sections for "Tar" and "TAR", and I wonder if having the redirect made unprintable is truly desired. I'm confused. -- ToE^T 08:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya that's why I never really agreed that including the Unprintworthy category along with some of these redirect templates was such a good idea because some may be printworthy. In the TAR case, R from other capitalisation would be accurate however since it was a merge, {{R from merge}} would be a much better, and more important tag (although you can still have both tags if you want). Just keep in mind that not every redirect needs to be categorized, if there's something that's confusing you or that you don't agree with then just don't categorize it at all. -- œ ^™ 17:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It does seem that it might be worthwhile in some cases to have a parameter to override the default Unprintworthy status -- unless that would complicate the template excessively. Anyhow, my emphasis lately has not been as much on categorizing redirects as on fixing miscategorizations, but sometimes I feel a bit negligent simply removing a misapplied template when there is a correct one that belongs in its place. My efforts do seem to have stirred up a bit of confusion, as discussed at User talk:Thinking of England#R to disambiguation page. -- ToE^T 01:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I read that, I wouldn't worry about it. You're doing a fine job. -- œ ^™ 01:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the nice message on my page! Le Docteur (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome! :) --œ ^™ 00:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reflist

Whatever. Uh, i mean, "Thanks; good catch." If it continues to apparently rot my mind as my edits to the article suggest, i may have to go edit something else!
--Jerzy•t 22:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

hehe ya whatever :P -- œ ^™ 03:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Serendipity an Art than can be taught?

I think it is.

Not taught in a traditional sense, but I think exercises can be developed to foster a "collective serendipity".

I can go into detail if this is of interest.

Fx303 (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your views are needed...

at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines‎ regarding possibly rewording the small paragraph that describes what a policy is. It currently is worded in a manner that makes it seem that they are in fact strictly adhered to rules that everyone should obey. I have proposed to reword it in a manner that makes clear IAR's priority and that policies are descriptive of past and current consensus, rather than prescriptive of future procedure.Camelbinky (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Mesopotamian Chronology (in English)

Hi there,

The image as it stands was done more for experimentation than intended as a final version. If you think it useful, I will prepare a version at the same resolution as the French higher-resolution image. That being said, the grey text on the sides is so tiny it may be impossible to pick out.

The bronze age / iron age labels I didn't do, as I was just playing too see how hard it was (this version only took me about an hour). Also you will probably want to check the names of the eras - I was not primarily concerned with accurate translation as I was more just trying to fiddle with the graphics. In particular I think there is Cassite should be Kassite or something like that, the Ur III dynasty (?) and we are unsure of the translation for "peuple de mer (New Deal)" (literally "people of the sea"). Any others you spot before I do kinda "Version 2", please let me know.

Glad it's of use, anyway. SimonTrew (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the all around award, especially recognizing arbcom. Arbcom decisions inherently piss off one or more sides so usually all we get is complaints. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

All the more reason why you're deserving of the barnstar and to respect your patience and tolerance of all that you have to go through to do that job. -- œ ^™ 19:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, I wish more people felt that way instead of caring only about pushing their own POV or world view, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the nom to the RfA, even if it didn't turn out like I might have hoped. I didn't see that one coming - thanks again, and I'll try to take some well-meant advice from others and stay away (or curtail) my Wikipedia activity for a few days. Ray^Talk 17:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob. You displayed integrity by sticking to your guns. IMO all that criticism was undeserved and way overblown. It would not have impacted your abilities to function as a janitor, which is basically all that adminship is. -- œ ^™ 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I need help with the crunkcore article

Several IP addresses have constantly been vandalizing the "bands" section. According to the reference given, 3OH!3 is crunkcore, but IP users are not acknowledging the fact that the reference DOES state that. Is there any chance you could watch the page for me as well? I've been trying to keep it under control, but it's getting too much vandalism for me to handle. So will you help me, please?--Krazycev 13 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. -- œ ^™ 03:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Krazycev 13 15:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear OIEnglish,

Thanks for all your help re Saint Augustine. I have consulted with fellow students (better than me!), and they confirmed what I said and told me what I was'nt aware of; that Saint Augustine was Bishop at Hippo then of Hippo for 40 years! His writings at that time are extrardinary to this day, they show a relationship to God that "takes our breath away"!

He did not continue with a sinful life! But rather his saintliness grew.

I left such comment on the talk page of Saint Augustine, but when I said I had the original Confessions I got silence! I also have some of the writings of his as Bishop.

He is hailed as Saint and Doctor of the Church in the Catholic Church. I think it is Saint Pius X who when he wasn't quoting Saint Athanasius he was quoting Augustine. To get all of these writings I would have to be in Rome!

Many other people would have given up long since, but I do think there is such a power in Saint Augustine that I'm still hoping. Saint Augustine is particulary apt for those who suffer from an addiction of any kind! For he battled and conquered his addictions and grew in saintliness.

Should I give up?

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, and no you shouldn't give up. -- œ ^™ 00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Donna Tubbs

Do you think it would be worth it to start an AfD or WP:PM? I'm sure eventually she will be notable enough for her own page, but not now. Her 2 kids also, and the neighbors. CTJF83 chat 17:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine for now, considering there's also a List of characters in Family Guy with links to the individual characters. Granted, Family Guy is a lot more popular and established, but I think Cleveland Show will get popular enough to warrant separate articles for its characters too. In the meantime though a merge into List of characters in The Cleveland Show would also be appropriate. So either choice would be best, leave it as it is for now, or merge into List of characters in The Cleveland Show, it's up to you.. I'm guessing a merge into that list would be the result of an AfD anyway. -- œ ^™ 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing my merge would be reverted soon enough anyway, I'll leave it as is for now. CTJF83 chat 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The WikiGnome thing

My bad. Didn't notice it.--Krazycev 13 ^{other crap} 19:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) -- œ ^™ 20:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

About that 3Oh3 thing.. it might be a good idea to cite a more reliable source for the claim that they're a screamo-crunk band, as it seems you are getting a lot of opposition.. and that reference reads like an opinion piece. But <shrug> I'm not expert on the genre or the group. However, try to get the IP's to discuss it on the talk page, because if the edit-warring continues I'll have to semi-protect the page. -- œ ^™ 20:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Religion Test

Here it is! Sorry I should post the link up there... In fact I will! Anyway hope the test blows your mind @.@! to think I'm so religiously confused.... Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 04:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well here are my results.. which I must say were very surprising to see! I think maybe I need to retake this test..

Hinduism (100%)
Sikhism (91%)
Liberal Quakers (83%)
Unitarian Universalism (82%)
Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (80%)
Orthodox Judaism (78%)
Jainism (76%)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (76%)
Mahayana Buddhism (74%)
Orthodox Quaker (72%)
Baha'i Faith (69%)
Jehovah's Witness (66%)
Islam (65%)
Neo-Pagan (65%)
Seventh Day Adventist (65%)
Theravada Buddhism (65%)
Reform Judaism (65%)
Eastern Orthodox (64%)
Roman Catholic (64%)
Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (62%)
New Age (54%)
Secular Humanism (45%)
Taoism (40%)
New Thought (37%)
Nontheist (36%)
Scientology (34%)
Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (27%)

-- œ ^™ 06:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey can you delete users? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcangel11 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can delete user PAGES. -- œ ^™ 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wat about if u want to delete your account? It's Still me just not logged in. 98.172.113.231 (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm unable to do that. But if you want to change your account name see Wikipedia:Changing username. If you want to leave permanently see Wikipedia:Right to vanish. -- œ ^™ 06:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

K Thanx 98.172.113.231 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Saint Agustine of Hippo

Dear OIEnglish,

I have used to good effect, in my work situation, the success of Saint Augustine in conquering his addictions. A definate pattern has emerged in his conversion process. (I left a note on the talk page of Saint Augustine, stating this). But I think I have uncovered a lot of deaf ears!

This study and work is fresh in mind now it is a pity if this opportunity goes to waste!

Any study of the conversion in the histories of Saint Augustine would reveal the truth of what I'm saying. The amount of books on his life are legion!

I would like all to see the need, and we all progress together. Surely that would be a better solution, for a better article page, than going alone.

I have access to good student/professors who specialise in this.

(How is Adm.?).

Could you help in this process? I'v hit a wall!

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what it is that you'd like to achieve or what I could do to help. -- œ ^™ 06:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, what I'm hoping for is a fuller or a new Article on the conversion history of Saint Augustine. He went from one style of life to another. His later writings are extrardinary, to this day. He went from one style of life that he was addicted to and did'nt want to leave to a spiritually happy and angelic life, that he was happy in. (Impossible ? His steps contain a key, that he stumbled upon, and that is what I tried to find and use).

The article page Confessions (St. Augustine) is a listing of paragraphs and does not go into content. This cannot be treated as a history (where it is here) but a life changing story. It would be a very brave enteprise as he wrote in Latin that does not translate adequately in English, particularly as he played on contrasting words/ideas. There has been a lot of previous attempts, but as I said often left out the sinful life and so his saintliness was dimmed. This conversion history, from addiction to freedom is useful for all who find themselves in the same boat. Even from a secular point of view there is great advantage in these life-finding-steps.

Most of these serious attempts remained in Latin with heavy references to his later writings (as bishop).

To do this properly it would demand a no. of experts working together. I would want to dwell on the pattern of his conversion and the steps as I find they are the steps an addict would take to freedom.

(I have, to good effect, used the steps of Saint Augustine's conversion in my work situation, recently, as a result of my recent study. Sorry can't elaborate, but it was extremely helpful).

We have studied Saint Augustine as students and this is re-reading and re-studying. The challange to do this we thank you.

The things I have said about his life are standard to this study. Some of us have studied in and through Latin.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestions for editor review

If you have time time, could you take a look at my suggestions for improving Editor review? I've posted by suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they're excellent suggestions and fully support their implementation. -- œ ^™ 06:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Underlines on minor edits

Hello, and many thanks for your note. I have tried putting that code (abbr.newpage, etc) on my monobook.css page but I still see the ugly underlines beneath the m. Have I followed your instructions correctly? Rothorpe (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I shan't bother you again about this, but I still can't get either of those pieces of code, div.mw-rc-label-legend {display: none;} or abbr.newpage {border:0;} abbr.bot {border:0;} abbr.minor {border:0;} to get rid of the underlines, even though I bypassed the cache by holding down ctrl and clicking refresh. Well, seems there has been a mass desertion of the minor edit feature anyway. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy OlEnglish's Day!

User:OlEnglish has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as OlEnglish's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear OlEnglish!

Peace,
Rlevse
01:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Halloween is my day!! Woohooo! -- œ ^™ 05:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I too, wish you a very good Hallowed-Eve Day, Eve of All Saints Day!

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Erik9Bot => unref BRFA

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SmackBot_XXI

Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

User:TheWeakWilled

Hello, OlEnglish. You have new messages at TheWeakWilled's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another thank you...

Thanks for the Barnstar,,, Being a WikiGnome I was not expecting it. You made my day --Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

RD electoral areas

Re Capital G, British Columbia, I'm of the opinion that WP:Undue weight applies in all cases and these don't really need or deserve articles; they are not administrative units and only related to the selection of non-municipal reps to RD boards; they are not used in any other way, certainly not as geographic "breakdowns"/regions; in the case of "Capital G" (an abbreviated form used only by STatsCan and nobody else, anybody actually referring to it would say Electoral Area G), the dominant governing body is the Gulf Islands Trust, whose powers override those of the CRD (and any other RD its jurisdiction overlaps with). As you may know, I'm strongly opposed to the use of RDs as if they were apt for geographic region-descriptions as they're only one of several ways to subdivide BC, and are in fact among the least powerful; but their EAs are even less relevant to encyclopedic content and too much weight has been placed on them; I've been trimming RD categories of superfluous/inapt materials (IRs, prov parks, landforms); all that should be in them are member municipalities, regional parks (i.e. parks administered by them) and any infraustructure run by the RD (not simply somewhere that the RD might have had a building permit to decide over, which is all an RD does....).Skookum1 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bluntly put, I think all electoral area articles should be deleted entirely.....such titles as do exist can simply refer to sections on the RD's pages listing them; they have no other relevance.Skookum1 (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea hmm.. I don't think they should be deleted entirely.. You obviously are very knowledgable on the subject and have some good points but.. what's the harm in just letting these articles exist?? These are still valid terms used by StatsCan, and we don't always have to use RD's to describe regions in any other articles.. and I mean this very respectfully.. but, you can't always have everything the way you want it Skookum. -- œ ^™ 06:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not about getting my way, it's about dealing with WP:Undue and other guideliens; also notability, in fact; I'm fine with them existing as redirects to the relevant section/list on the RD pages, that makes sense; but they are only electoral areas only in regional district elections, and yes, they are census areas; but to me, a census area is not notable unless it has notable demographic characteristics; Category:Designated places in British Columbia contains many which have no real relevance to local life/parlance, for instance; so obscure they don't show up on BCGNIS/CGNDB listings, in fact. Re EAs part of my issue with the undue weight placed on them, as if they were geographically important/relevant units, is that they display, at their centre-point, on GoogelMaps and other services; ironically the result is such that they do not even occur places where people actually live; I noted this on going up Lake Revelstoke's GeoHack results (on AcmeMapper); the only point of an EA is its population, for electoral/census purposes. they're not even listed that way, I think, on tax rolls for the RDs, I'd have to check that; they're more likely listed by their DL or other land-title name (which is the system of which Land Districts of British Columbia is at the foundation of. All the EAs contain places which already have articles, not just the place but also valley and region articles; they are far less relevant than Forest Regions and Districts and other forms of "local governance" (as the BC govt is a widely-dispersed organization); the municipal-level regional districts were latecomers on the political geographic/jurisdiction map, and t heir purpose was never to give electoral input into policies above the municipal level, which reamins centralized in the provincial government; this was their whole point when brought in by WAC; to give a bit of democracy but with extremely limited powers, i.e. at the regoional level. RDs have to negotiate and collaborate with government ministries' and agencies' regional offices, and in many cases also with DFO and INAC - they have no power over them; but back to the EAs in the same vein, EAs are not used for management purposes i.e. planning etc, which are under the Land and Resource Management Plans/Areas and Special Resource Management Plans (the latter involve FNs), and the Ministry of Industry/Trade/Development whatever it's called right now, have their own Economic Regions or Planning Regions, in the same way that Tourism and Parks maintain different regional management (despite being part of teh same ministry, at least right now). "Local governance" in BC is complicated and many-layered; but EAs are not part of it, they only figure in elections to RD boards, and for counting heads; they mauy coincide with riding-boundary changes, that's a good question in fact, I'll look into that. But using them as primary definitions of geographic subdivisions for BC is not viable; and having separate articles for them gives an illusion of their importance. Most I've found I've taken out extensive geographic/tourism/ecology/park material because none of that has to do with what they are. The thing with the Gulf Islands one, Capital G I think it is, is that the Islands Trust, which no doubt youv'e heard me mention before, has all the powers normally part of the RD; the RD provides services under its guidance, but is an onlooker when it comes to planning and zoning, which is all Islands Trust turf . Ditto with the new Management Areas; not sure if Lillooet's been mplemented, though the Muskwa-Kechika one I know is now in place (Muskwa-Kechika Management Area isn't quite the right link, I think. Sorry to go on about this, but between being a stickler for primary sourc/e/official definitions and also in re Wikipedia's guidelines, there's no real reason for EAs to exist as articles; in fact somewhere out there I think someone even made a category for one. I gotta go, obviously I could go on further and don't mean to have gone on this long. if the EA articles are to remain, then it behooves fairness to make all the different kinds of other jurisdictional regions that matter in BC as articles. Hopsitals belong in Health Region categories, schools in school district catgeries, RD-related info in RD categories, but geographic and historical articles, should go in appropriate region categories. Rds have never been the way to go; there's a lot of inertia, but it's created a new paradigm i.e. for classification of t hese places, that have never existed bevore. That's WP:Original research at a structural level, and has lnfluenced other writing because of the use of wikipedia as a resource....what I call a WP:Wiki-ism which I guess Il'l draft something up about. Wikipedia should reflect reality, not create it. I know that's a Heisenbergian problem for anything so widespread nad deep; but that's all the more reason to get it right in the first place, no?......later, I'm gonna go play some music now (finally)....Skookum1 (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A further example of "propagation" is the way RD articles are extrapolated in interwikis, and their treatment there as if they were geograhpic regions of meaning to the way BC is governed and organized which it's not. The effect is to perpetrate a false paradigm both of classification adn of governance; StatsCan is hte only governmental agency that uses RDs as a point of reference; not even the BC Govt or BC Stats maintains the same regional breakdown; yet in the other-language wikis, becauase of the emphasis false placed on RDs, they are represetned as the way government and goegraphy is organized in BC......Skookum1 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a much larger problem than I originally thought.. -- œ ^™ 06:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting rid of the dot-underlines

Hi, and sorry for my late reply. I've been to 'my preferences', and it says I'm using Vector skin. I tried Preview on that and Monobook and the dots were there in both cases. I went to User:Rothorpe/monobook.css, which already has the 'abbr. newpage...' code inserted on it and held down Ctrl and clicked the refresh button as it says. Still the lines were there. Then I added the div.mw... code that you (I think) had inserted on the Help Talk underlines page. Still the lines are there. Apologies if I'm being very dumb about this... Rothorpe (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok I think it's because you have to be using the default monobook skin for it to work. And to bypass your cache in Firefox it's Ctrl-Shift-R. I dunno.. maybe try putting the code in User:Rothorpe/vector.css instead. -- œ ^™ 05:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Eureka! Or rather, you found it. Many thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob :) -- œ ^™ 02:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Message

Hello, OlEnglish. You have new messages at Pianoplonkers's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wondering about something

Hey, OE. I was wondering, when I clicked "edit this page" on your userpage, I saw this above the edit box: "Feel free to make any helpful changes. However, any vandalism will be reverted quickly. -- œ™". I was wondering how you make hidden messages over the edit box on your page. Thank you, and please reply. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV 13 ^{other crap} 00:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Editnotice. :) -- œ ^™ 04:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dump digging

Ol English,

In all honesty I understand nothing about how wikipedia 'inter-communication' works (and for various reasons that's not likely to change anytime soon).

Thanks for the supportive comments on dump digging...as I have time I'll try to edit it better; along with historical digging, and privy digging, doing my best to accurately portray an area which I'm familiar with.

Ole Sachem

PS If you have anything you'd like to share regarding how to sort out the layers of deceptively simple yet vastly confusing cyber-jargon on wiki...feel free to contact me directly at my normal email address oorga_ny@yahoo.com or www.themanhattanwelldiggers.com Otherwise I will not know how, where, etc., to respond. Cheers Olesachem (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

strawberry harvest

IN the summer time it is the strawberry harvest and people celebrated it in 1700s. traditionally,it is time to give thanks for the ones they love andcare for kindness.They dance,feast,say prayers,and play games like football,hockey,and basketball.This celebration is a topic of modiest conection.

I'm sorry I don't know why you are telling me this. -- œ ^™ 03:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

Can you clean up the Oceana page a bit? I would do it but I'm on a Wii and editing more than just tiny things is very difficult. If you can help, thank you and if not, thanks for your time. --ŁσςhĢσσbïï (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Red Star

Red Star

Congratulations, OlEnglish! It's my pleasure to award you November 11, 2009's Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan ^{guess who :)} 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You could also receive the next higher up award, the Orange Star!

RfD nomination of T:WPBIO

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Request Comment

I'v left a note to request comment on the talk page of Addiction. I think that Saint Augustine stumbled on the steps for complete cure of addiction and dependancy as outlined in his Confessions.

Any thoughts? I do hope for a better article page and a good Encyclopedia for the future! "To infinity and beyond"! "I come in Peace"!

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you visited the Wikipedia Reference Desks yet? It's a more appropriate venue for your postings on these subjects and I think you'd get a much better response there. Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, and sorry for the late reply. Regards, œ ^™ 19:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'v done that. I could not find anything in the Archive, so left a new note, and question, on Miscellaneous and on Humanities. I hope it works.

By the way I'v attempted to place citation references in the Article page of Saint Dismas

Thanks, I did'nt know there was such a desk! Thanks for coming back to me.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'v done that. Interesting the comments. Someone likened Saint Augustine's writings to the Dark Ages beginning.(another 500 years to wait for that!) One can only grind one axe at a time!

After all it was, I believe, Hilaire Belloc, who coined the phrase; "The Dark Ages", himself a very devout Christian and Catholic, born at least 500-600 years later! The Dark Ages referring to the Middle Ages, after feudalism.

Thanks for the help.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

Im not sure if your challenge is still active on the Reward board but I went ahead and reviewed three people Malpass93, Pattav2 and Aaroncrick. Even if im too late for the reward, it still fells good to help out with the backlog. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 23:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent :) No you are not too late for the reward, in fact thanks for letting me know you did this because I haven't been watching the ER board lately. -- œ ^™ 04:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, OlEnglish! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, 19, November 2009! Keep up the great work!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Father Victor White

Dear OIEnglish,

Can you help. It has been proposed to delete this Article page, Father Victor White,as it is very scanty. This would be a retrograde step for his corespondance with Carl Gustav Jung went on for some time and is very significant in understanding Jung. They have been lent to some students/professors of Jung in some Universities but not published, much to the grief of followers of Jung. The family only, last month, published the Red Book (Jung), at a very inflated price!

Hence, it would be a disaster to delete the page. The information will come for so many of us are looking for it! and seeking it!

Thank you for your help.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It would maybe have helped if whoever had started the page had noticed that we already have an article for White. I've merged the two. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems they were two separate people after all.. -- œ ^™ 04:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Father Victor White was quite an accomplished / colourful character, after all, and a Dominican. What an Ace!

I did think they were one and the same, to good to be true!MacOfJesus (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Redirects, Categories and Templates

Hello, just happened across your question at Categories for discussion and saw that you're on the Redirect project. Got a quick introduction to disambiguation, templates and redirects trying to cleanup an existing Red_gold redirect to a section.

Am I wrong to be concerned that Category:Uncategorized redirects and Template:This is a redirect are up for "discussion"? They both appear to be useful tools for disambiguation, maybe prevent (or monitor) potential edit wars and who knows what else. Not sure if User:Lenoxus is very active here, but it looked like some nice inter-project collaboration. So (right or wrong) I added my two cents to the discussions and cross-posted the CfD aand TfD notices on the WikiProject_Disambiguation and WikiProject_Redirect talk pages (put the Wikipedia Project adminsistrative hatnote on the Category page while there, too).

Anyway, was wondering if I should attempt to put some clarity on the Template:This is a redirect documentation page to clarify both purpose and usage, should it (they) survive discussion. The main WP:DAB page gives good criteria for when to include or not include certain categories, but don't recall seeing much mention of Uncategorized_redirects. Your thoughts? -MornMore (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC) 01:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about that template's usefulness but if you find it useful then I think it's great that you voiced your concerns, and by all means please do continue to comment on the discussion and to clarify it's usefulness further, including how it relates to WP:DAB. -- œ ^™ 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your ignoring BLP violations in Roy Gillaspie

Why did you ignore the BLP violations in this article rather than deleting them? It would have taken you the same amount of time as the nomination for deletion, and that could have waited a few minutes while you participated in supporting one of wikipedia's most important policies. If he's a white supremacist supported by brain dead anachronistic klansman this can only be included in a BLP if it is accurately and properly sourced to reliable sources. This article was full of primary sources, dead links, and misleading information. The BLP policy is meant to be enforced, not ignored. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't clear that it was a BLP. -- œ ^™ 06:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I did not ignore any possible BLP violations, in fact it was what led me to put it up for deletion, as i recognized the ridiculousness of some of the content. Of course I could have just deleted it outright as a BLP vio but thought some might want to discuss the subject so I decided to give it a chance and bring this article, in it's full and current form, to the attention of the community. Stubbifying it is one option, and I'm glad you decided to take that action, however coming to my talk page and accusing me of ignoring policies isn't very productive. I'm well aware of ALL of Wikipedia's policies. -- œ ^™ 07:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. If it even was a biography of a living person or not, I did not care enough to take the time to research it, as obviously neither did you. -- œ ^™ 07:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

EC

When you call someone a klansman by linking to the blog of a klansman and with a bogus link to nothing, it's a clear cut BLP violation. Most all of the others links were to primary resources, and, the creator did nothing but create two similar articles on wikipedia while he was here. When an articles is directly linking someone to a white supremacist movement, wikilinks to known klansmen and has almost no credible sources, a careful editor should look it over for BLP violations. While wikiepedia is a volunteer effort, the community has made it clear how they feel about BLP violations, and the consensus is that administrators should not turn a blind eye to them. BLP policy is to protect wikipedia and the subject of the article, allowing blatant violations to stay in an article serves nothing. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, didn't bother, you said it appeared it violated BLP, and I checked for violations of BLP, always a first priority. And I still haven't checked. For the level of sourcing on this article, that it's not a BLP matters, but the sourcing is an atrocity.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, when I said "it wasn't clear that it was a BLP" I meant it wasn't clear that the subject was alive or not. If the subject is not alive, it's technically not a BLP, although I'm aware that the policy would still apply. Anyways, it's stubbified now, which only emphasizes the lack of notability, maybe I should have just gone ahead and deleted it in the first place.. oh well. -- œ ^™ 07:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that's what you meant. The subject is probably notable, but I'm not going to write the article. Deleting it as a BLP violation, imo, would have been proper. What about the edit history with all the crap in it now? To me, it just makes sense to delete first, ask questions later when it comes to BLPs. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, OlEnglish! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, November 28th, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

December21st2012Freak (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In which I spam everyone with kittens to wish them a happy thanksgiving

I dream of horses @ has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Mkdw ^talk 11:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Count me in. -- œ ^™ 19:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add you to the list. Mkdw ^talk 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey OE, it seems we're having a problem with User:JimWae over the format of the dates. He seems uninterested in working on the article and improving it and seems to spend his time at Talk:Vancouver arguing why we should go use the American date format. He's also gone to other Canadian articles like Canada to change their dates and then use them as articles using the American date format. I don't believe he's aware of Operation Schadenfreude despite the fact that its posted all over the talk page and he's under the impression its me versus him on this decision. I'm running a little low on patience as I've been making large changes to the article and could use another, perhaps more calm, voice to enter the discussion. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrm. Seems the Wikipedia dramuhz are inescapable no matter where you go eh? Sigh, I'll check out what's going on and see if there's anything I can do, but I'm not involving myself in any pointless time-wasting arguments with this guy. -- œ ^™ 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reward board: Give good reviews to at least 3 editors at WP:ER

Hello! Is the challenge that you gave over at WP:RB still active? I've reviewed Doc Quintana, Micwa, and Eagles247.

If nothing else, I have a newfound appreciation of the regulars at WP:ER. Giving a good review is harder than it looks. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 06:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's still active. Thanks for informing me. -- œ ^™ 06:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've never seen the guidance barnstar before. Cheers! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 07:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→