User talk:Wassupwestcoast

Tip of the moment... Displaying one page within another = Transclusion Including the contents of a template page on a different page (by surrounding the page name with double braces, i.e. "{{}}" and leaving out the "Template:" prefix) is called transclusion. This allows the other page to be automatically updated whenever the template page is updated. Besides templates, pages in the following namespaces can be transcluded: Category: Help: Portal: User: Wikipedia: The only difference between transcluding these and templates is that you must include the prefix (followed by a colon) with the page's name inside the double braces. Images also can be transcluded, but this is done using double square brackets instead of braces. Here are some examples of transclusion: {{Pic of the day}} · {{Help:Contents}} · [[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png]] Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more: Wikipedia:Transclusion   Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}

Closed for February 2008

I am taking a wiki-break for the month of February. Since, I started editing on Wikipedia, I made the second most number of edits in January. There was also some nastiness at the end of the month that made my time here quite miserable. Before I leave, I tried to catch up on a bit of maintenance at a few projects. I enjoyed working with everyone and hope to edit with you in March. I will not be monitoring my user pages until then. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Hols, and thanks for helping me do edits on the Authorized Version article. You suggested putting it forwards as a featured article - but my impression is that it already has been. Various editors have added a bit since then, butbasically it must be the same article. TomHennell (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008

The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --12:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Open for March 2008

I'm back again. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. You were missed. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, welcome. See my user page. -- SECisek (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --18:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Grouping

Looking over those wikiprojects, I can see that there are an incredibly diverse amount of ideas floating through the ether, we shouldn't however, group them together under the one banner, but maybe have a leader for all of them, whilst they stil retain their indipendance, I will personally go to each of those project pages and post a banner asking for input on the subject.DangerTM (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some projects are so inert, it does seem to make sense to me to kick start some of the projects by merging them. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi W. Please do not insert material into a referenced sentence unless you add a reference to support the material. Our sentences have been source audited to make sure they say what the reference says. I have to revert a couple of your edits that did this. Im sorry. NancyHeise (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to cause you stress. I was actually trying to relieve your stress by inserting a bit about the criminally convicted and jailed priests, esp. in Boston. It is so widely known because of intense press coverage that it is practically common knowledge. Leaving it out will invite finger-pointing by the Neutral POV brigade. All the same, you've done a really good job. I hope it becomes FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'll go get a newspaper article and re - add the material - stupid me, I should have thought of such a simple thing! Thanks for your help. NancyHeise (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church first sentence

Hi. I know you may not have seen this, but the most recent discussion of the subject generated a number of perfectly acceptable versions of the first sentence which are both factually correct and NPOV. Here's a link to the discussion on the talk page. (Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#First_sentence) Thanks! Dgf32 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I knew I shouldn't have touched that sentence. I'm completely aware of the huge and nasty RCC vs CC debates that go back years! Please, correct my meddling. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for being so charitable, not to mention friendly! Dgf32 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon

Thanks for the tip. I am sure I will put something back up sooner or later. Again, it will be a busy year for me. -- SECisek (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Creed

Dear Wassup - I am a Catholic and even I don't understand clearly what is being said in the new creed paragraph. I think it is confusing. NancyHeise (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this creed business. I'm trying to simplify the Roman Catholic Church article by removing universal Christian doctrines and beliefs. The sentence might be too obscure. But the gist is that Catholics recognize three creedal (belief) statements 'cause they formulated them. The Nicene creed is the basic statement of Christian belief. The Apostle's is the baptismal statement. The obscure Athanasian creed is a bit odd and reinforces the Holy Trinity. You know this. I know this (as a practicing Anglican). Most Christians know this. It isn't unique to the Roman Catholic Church. The article ought to be trimmed of this sort of redundancy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What if we just mention the Nicene creed as the basic statement of Roman Catholic belief, its universality among the other Christian churches and eliminate the references to the two other creeds. WE dont need to have all that obscure doctrinal history in there - it really is confusing an nobody is going to care. Do you mind if I tinker with the paragraph a bit and you can tell me what you think? NancyHeise (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tinker! And, tinker also at User:Wassupwestcoast/sandbox/RCC rough draft belief. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is your rough draft sandbox page for a new article on Roman Catholic Theology or are you thinking of putting it on RCC? I hope you aren't putting it on RCC. NancyHeise (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is to build a very brief synopsis of Roman Catholic belief. Rather than edit warring (well, not quite), we can build up a consensus version. Every one, please visit it and hack away. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC; "worst exp. ever"

Just now looked at your user page. Sorry about the fact that "I've just gone through the worst editing experience ever on Wikipedia". Hope the RCC FAC isn't getting under your skin. In my opinion, this whole thing... was inevitable. As I mentioned in the FAC and its talk, the topic is huge and controversial. But I got my head taken off for saying that. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the RCC page is nothing like the worst experience ever! But I sense an edit war is starting. I'm not comfortable with the article as it is, and have decided to 'oppose' it for now. I hate doing that...but I think it is just going to get nasty. I'm off to better editing pastures. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say, sorry about that worst exp., whatever it was. But an edit war may be in the offing at RCC. I was hoping to avoid it. I do think you shouldn't have removed the Creed over the strenuous objections of the article's dedicated editors.. but... I see why you did. I also agree it should be removed. But whatever! Hope you enjoy whatever topic you're off to! :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the massive edit. This is probably going to trigger an edit war. Sorry. I'm off to project novels! It's quieter over there. The worst experience ever was to push, pull and drag Introduction to Evolution to FA. We succeeded but it was nasty. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The Church of Google article

Excuse me, but that article went through a AfD, where we discussed whether or not to delete it. The result was "keep." For you to now just go ahead and delete and salt it was wrong. You think it promotes a personal website? Do personal websites have hundreds of active members? And in that case, go along and delete the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster article. That article was supposed to be informative. It you don't think it was informative, post so on its talk page. But don't go deleting articles after they have been democratically voted on to stay. "The universe is a figment of its own imagination" - Douglas Adams (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

re: additional reading on liberalism

This is not the first time this article is nominated for deletion. The issue has been discussed before and resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

Your reasons for nominating the article for deletion is as follows: "Indeterminate and indiscriminate reading list. Not encyclopedic."

The fact that the list does not provide criteria for inclusion and/or exclusion does not ipso facto mean that it is "indeterminate and indiscriminate." My suggestion to you is that you refrain from assuming that something is indiscriminate simply because you yourself are unaware of what the implicit organizing principles might be.

I'd be happy to provide you with the criteria for inclusion if you so wish.

--Rubbersoul20 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Eric