User talk:Student7

Welcome

Hello, Student7, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Pope template

Hi, I appreciate very much what you did to add a template for the popes as popes and as pontifex maximus. You are correct that the popes are indeed the holders of this ancient and continuing (although transformed) Roman office which originated from the Roman Kingdom (8th century BC). I would like to suggest a subtle edit to the template: although I was tempted to change it myself, I deemed it more appropriate if the originator can change it, that is remove the superfluous "of Rome" from Pontifex Maximus. The office of Pontifex Maximus IS Roman and no ambiguity will exist if it is reduced to simply "Pontifex Maximus". Thank you and kind regards, Dr mindbender 04:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Hey whaddup. Anyway, I was annoyed myself when somebody struck out the Pontifex Maximus box. I know how much effort goes into that because I was putting all the loose ends from Pius VIII, I think, and trying to do it up to Benedict XVI. I don't know why some people thought that putting PM was POV. I mean wtf. If there was any other person in power or office during the history of man that opposed the Bishop of Rome from using the title of Pont. Max. then sure, they might have a point. But that's the thing, the title and office of Pont. Max. has never been contested by anyone. Sorry for the rant. But fact is different than POV. Btw, I'll change the idiot's edit of Catholic Pope to just Pope - as it should be. I mean, and this is so cliche, "is the Pope Catholic?". Puhleez. The Coptic Pope if identified has reason to be identified with the modifier; the same cannot be said of the Roman Pontiff, since by widespread convention, no ambiguity exists. Ok, enough said I guess. Thanks and I appreciate your message. Dr mindbender 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I was thinking of your template and I would like to suggest that you change the title from: "Catholic Church titles" to: "Bishop of Rome, Pontifex Maximus, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City". There is a very academic reason for this request. The titles of the pope can be grouped into three general categories: religious, historical, political:

1. The title "Bishop of Rome" is the primordial title of all his spiritual authority, all other subsequent titles related to his religious capacity are derived from this title viz. Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Servus Servorum Dei.
2. "Pontifex Maximus" is the historical title inherited from the late Roman Empire that has been attached to the office of the Bishop of Rome from the time of Gratian and Theodosius. The legitimacy of his assumption of this Imperial office has never been contested in late antiquity from the reign of Theodosius. Even the Byzantine Emperors did not dare carry or usurp the ancient Roman imperial title. This is an uncontested conspicuous title since late antiquity, although for reasons unknown are no longer "advertised", as it were, since Vatican II.
3. "Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City" is his political title as the absolute monarch over the smallest state in the world, created in 1929 as the successor state of the Papal States.

I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Dr mindbender 05:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

re art

was doing a section a day. I wanted to remove the statement which has no reference about the "criticism" that the Church destroyed Native American artifacts, most notably in Mexico. It very definitely did! But it needs a reference which I'm not going to furnish. I would think the author, who probably wasn't you, might say, "The church destroyed what it thought were pagan influences..." etc. Incidentally the church also destroyed a heck of a lot of Roman and Greek stuff, too!

What I know of in Mexico is that Cortez and other conquistadors took Mexican art because it was gold, which they wanted, and they melted it into bars and sent it back to Europe for their personal wealth. Also, South American's looted their own treasures, melted them, and sold them to Western traders. There was a German fellow who found out about this and did a good deal to preserve some of their art. I don't know of any systematic ecclesiastical attempt to destroy the art of the Mexica. As for Greek and Roman art, there was the destruction of idols, but that is different than just art in general. Having been to the Vatican museums, I cannot imagine the argument that the Church sought to destroy pagan art particularly seriously, since it is full of Greco-Roman art. Lostcaesar 09:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vermont Politics

Happy to do the work. We'll keep working on it and make it great.--Jonashart 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Monroe, New Hampshire

Hi, Student7! Thanks for your work on the Monroe, NH article - and the others I see you've done some things on!

I did some (very quick) research on Peter Paddleford, and I'm a bit confused. I see in one or two places that he was born in Enfield, NH and lived and worked in Littleton, NH. Do you have any reference that he lived in Monroe?

Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! I can see you've done your research - and I appreciate it! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: William Barstow Strong

The page I was looking at doesn't mention anything about his family other than the birth and death dates and locations. I'll see what else I can find in my reference library. You wouldn't happen to know the name of that list you mentioned, would you? I don't see anything appropriate listed in "what links here" for that article (but I did find a little more information in looking through those links). Slambo (Speak) 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Country label on certain articles

An addition "in the United States" was placed in an article about Lake Willoughby in Vermont. I can appreciate avoiding confusion, particularly since many US places deliberately copied names from England, and other countries. However, the only way one would normally get to "Lake Willoughby" is through a higher level link which does have "United States" in it. I don't have a problem with (essentially) disambiguation through correct national labeling of places, but would hate to see too many articles with national names in them. For example, do I need to be told that the "British Museum" is in the UK? Or Albert Hall, London is in the UK? (Haven't checked. They may be "correct" already!  :)Student7 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe every article that references a city or county or region shuold also reference the country. If some people need telling the article is in Vermont, then others will need telling that Vermont is in the US. This is not just the US that is in this situaiton - I am an "equal opprtunities disambiguator" (!) and do the same disambiguation work for articles mentioning institutions or events or places in any country in the world - they are normally written assuming local knowledge, which cannot be assumed. For the Record, Royal Albert Hall does state it is in England, yes, as I believe it should :-) - PocklingtonDan 18:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

US Rt 5

I love that you added that! I had to go look it up and figure out where that runs. Good stuff. Probably should add Rt 2 as well.--Jonashart 15:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Nursing

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Student7! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule �angelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

United States Navy

Hi, I've reverted your changes to United States Navy for now because they were quite drastic and didn't seem necessary. The United States Marine Corps article has a full rank chart as well, but it was able to garner Featured Article status with no serious objections to its presence. Also, it is acceptable to place other known names of the subject in bold type in the article's first sentence, as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It seems, though, that the parentheses are the eyesores so I will remove them. If you have concerns on how the article should be presented, don't hesitate to put it up for discussion on the talk page and get other editors in on it. Cheers. Arcimpulse 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for calling to attention the large size of this article. I'm working on splitting off sections or adding stuff to already-existing daughter articles without getting rid of essential information or breaking up the article's narrative flow. If you'd like to help, I'd appreciate it very much. Arcimpulse 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Schools project

"Too much haste" "and I agree with you" Sorry student7 it was for another school. I was too quick to copy and paste. I agree with you. You could do with a bit more debate. I ve amended the page Victuallers 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel attacked for no reason. It wasn't meant that way. The addition of the schools logo is done to identify schools. Obviously if we add it to schools that are currently being edited then we know that it will be seen by the pages editors. The rating enables the project to identify the state of school pages generally. If you wanted to delete it then that's OK too. Victuallers 12:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that you can come back when you are finished and ask us to rate it again. The point of rating when it hasn't been requested is mostly for us to know the general status of schools on Wiki. It would be impractical to wait for every school to contact us, as most of them are unmaintained, and editors don't generally know which projects their articles fall under. Feel free to let us know when your edit is finnished and we'll be happy to re-evaluate. Adam McCormick 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you had a US President but the importance was put at low. We can change this when your editing is complete (I see editing is in progress and looking good). Victuallers 22:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Supersede

Did you read the definition of supercede? Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error. I am just surprised how controversial a spelling can be. MortimerCat 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Very funny :) I do not claim to be an expert, although I have been researching it for a couple of hours since the first complaint arrived. It appears to have a foothold in common usage because everyone gets it wrong. MortimerCat 23:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

216.114.182.34

User:216.114.182.34 is probably a shared IP address of the computers at St. Johnsbury Academy. As such, it's not a single individual, so the warnings are often not seen by the vandals, and blocking for lengthy periods of time wouldn't accomplish the intended goal. Also, blocking is preventative rather than punitive, and they should be reported to AIV after vandalizing following a final warning. My recommendation is to keep an eye on the IP, give warnings, and report after they ignore the last warning. Even then, though, the block will be temporary. Leebo ^T/C 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your work on Vermont-related articles. Thanks.--Jonashart 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Francis Nye

No problem. And thank you for starting an article on him. If you haven't already, I invite you to join WikiProject Military history, one of the largest (if not the largest) project on wikipedia. We are always looking for new members who share an interest in editing military related articles.-- Nobunaga24 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

USNA SSP

Thank you for taking note of the issue i brought up on the usna talk page and making the proper changes (made it a lot easier on me).--Joebengo 03:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would let you know that I nominated the Herndon Monument climb picture for featured status, it can be found here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, I just thought it may be of intrest to you, vote if you wish--Joebengo 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just stopping by to let you know that I have a RfA and it would be great if you could put in your two cents about me.--Joebengo 02:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Vermont films category.

No problem. Glad to help. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Brevard County

Just wanted to elaborate on the Merritt Island/Cape Canaveral issue from the Brevard County article. Rockets are also launched on Merritt Island, and generally rarely at Cape Canaveral. I think it is unfair to mention Cape Canaveral, and not mention Merritt Island. Cape Canaveral is a place too. Correcting the link does not work as no one refers to it as Cape Canaveral because that is also a city here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethan lowter (talk • contribs) 02:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

(sorry for not signing my last comment - Ethan) Yes, everyone here calls it the "cape" as well. Nevertheless, majority of the cape is located on Merritt Island, not Cape Canaveral. The space centre is located on Merritt Island and the rocket launching facility is in cape canaveral, although rockets are launched at both facilities. I think it is only fair to mention that the space shuttle launches on Merritt Island if Cape Canveral is mentioned for rocket launches. Or leave out both locations. Note that the articles do not contradict each other as JFK complex is on the island, while the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is Cape Canaveral.

Oh, and 10 year is nothing. I have lived here my whole life. Ethan 02:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy

Hello. You have recently added material to 'Gypsy'. Gypsy is a disambiguation article, meaning that it should NOT contain links to articles or subjects that do not (yet) exist on Wikipedia. It should therefore also not have stuff like footnotes references or long explanations. This can get a bit lost here, as the list of disambiguated terms is so long, some people believe it is an article...

I have therefore chosen to revert most of what you added. Please do not take offense - instead produce articles for the subjects you added, and then come back to produce standard links from here to there.

You can access what you added from the history tab, simply check the earlier versions, for work on separate articles.

Cheers and happy editing. MadMaxDog 04:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would clarify that it is okay to have redlinks on disambiguation pages. The caveat is that "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." I haven't looked at your particular edit, but if you believe that the links you added are valid encyclopedia topics, you should feel free to add them. Dekimasuよ! 04:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

oak ridge

Actually I just saw a cat that was unfinished and started to work on it. So I don't really no much more than it is a association of college. - thank you Astuishin 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Florida Tech Housing

I've reviewed articles on several other universities. As you've mentioned before, this article serves the purpose of bringing people (in particular, students) to Florida Tech. I understand your point of view, however, I believe housing is a crucial part of the article. The listing of buildings should have the residence halls in the main article. The issue of notibility was not resolved nor explained. I believe that a new way to rewrite the housing section is in order, but it should not be split into another article in its entirety. If you are interested in working on revising the housing section so it can be placed back into the main Florida Tech article, please let me know. Jameson L. Tai 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the purpose of the article is not "bringing people (in particular, students) to Florida Tech" but rather giving impartial information to people about Florida Tech. --Orange Mike 23:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're talking about and I believe that an article of institution does in fact need to stress about its education and academics before noting the extracurriculars and facilities. However, as the purpose of Wikipedia is to have user provide data and information they know from confirmed sources to this vast information network. All I am doing is providing my expertise to the article. I am less familiar to the academic coverage of the different colleges and I admit that. However, I am providing everything I possibly can to contribute to this article. You may call me biased, but I call it experience thank you very much. I do not work for Office of Admissions, so I could also care less about attracting students (grad/ugrad/bisk/etc) to the university. However, it definitely should be noted in the main article. Or else there should separate articles on Student Organizations, Student Life, History, and a separate article for each individual college and/or department... oh wait! Wikipedia has that feature already... it's called headers. If you're not interested in a particular section, readers can always click and skip to the section of interest from the outline. Give it some thought. There is no problem with the housing and residence information. The information is not irrelevent and it is certainly should not be randomly split into another article. Whether you like it or not, it is information that should be in the main article. If you continue to claim that the information is irrelevant, perhaps you're the one biased. Jameson L. Tai 08:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But to avoid individual articles reaching unwieldy lengths, it is customary to split off particularly large chunks of information into separate articles. This is not "random" but good editing practice. You should concentrate on making the housing article as comprehensive and accurate as possible. --Orange Mike 14:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Right-to-work laws spammer

I don't know if this makes you feel better or worse, but this person is repeatedly inserting this link in a lot of other labor-related articles as well. I think they're in violation of the 3RR rule by now. --Orange Mike 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kennet Comprehensive School

You edited thwe page three times, twice reverting what I'd done to put it right and messing it up! It's not PR for the school as its a fact, the building is being built and it will be complete by September. There is no debate about it, it's a fact, it has planning permission, it is there - I'm a student and I can tell you: it's happening now so it's not a random prediction. We've been told it will be open in September and so the page should reflect it. If predictions weren't allowed why would that template exist? You didn't discuss it on the talk page as I asked and it's mentioned elsewhere on the page. It's a relevant piece of data and should be included. If you wish to debate it use the talk page not your mouse. All you've done is move it from the table to text using American English terms! (Which is against the Manual of Style.) CR7 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the e-mail. I realise now that there is a lot of work that needs doing on the article and apologise for my brashness. I will link VI form to the wikipedia page to make it more obvious. Thanks, CR7 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

xtianity and references

I'm looking for notation along the lines of the Jesus Christ article. I'm mostly just organizing the xtianity articles since they were all over the place.--D-Boy 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's good enough for me.--D-Boy 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

CCAFS

Thanks for your good work helping to get this article more factually accurate! (Sdsds - Talk) 21:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay Peak

Hi. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but moving articles by Cut & Paste isn't the way to go, because it loses the edit history of the article prior to the move. If there's no page with the desired name, you can move an article by clicking the "Move this page" button. If there's already a page there, then that page has to be deleted (or moved and the resulting redirect deleted) by someone with admin privileges.

I'm going to put the mountain article back at Jay Peak (Vermont) and the ski resort article back at Jay Peak, and then move it to Jay Peak Resort. Then we can make Jay Peak the disambiguation page.
—wwoods 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cold Hollow Mountains

By the way, do you happen to know if the highest peak of Vermont's Cold Hollow Mountains has a name? Peakbagger.com doesn't know, and there's nothing on the topo map. Maybe it's considered a mountain rather than a range — despite being called "Mountains"? (And what's with the "Indefinite Boundary"s of Vermont's northern counties, both here and around Jay Peak?)
—wwoods 20:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Our Club article

A tag has been placed on Our Club, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Justen 12:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Our_Club. Justen 02:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I just thought I would make a note about Waterbury Vermont's article. I just threw in the new buisness as an after thought (the former order was my real reason for the edit), but since you have a problem with it, that's fine, except you seem to hold a double standard for the cidar place since it doesn't have a listing on here either. Why is that? Also I understand your feeling on the text you put in because of what unlisted people had put in before also, but you should avoid such aggressive language in the future, it can be taken the wrong way and easily escalate given some editor's short fuses. Have a great day. Gloern 23:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you like my barely reworded warning. Like I said I understand why you do it, and I really didn't take offense, I just thought that a mild warning that some of the other thin-skinned people might. Short incomplete sentances tend to rub people the wrong way I've found.Gloern 03:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Florida Tech Buildings

• It's been so long since doing this, I'm not sure if this is "mail". I did notice things had been removed, but didn't care much about it, as it's in the history. Also, I had at one time taken pictures of all of the plaques on the buildings, and transcribed them. I have been away from Florida Tech for nearly 10 years. I only add things I can find online, but most of the "facts" on the buildings in terms of naming are right there on the plaques on the building. Considering the new master plan, it's probably worthwhile to preserve this information, as the buildings will be razed at some point in the future. Notice how no history remains of Percy Hedgecock gymnasium. Former mayor of Satellite Beach, and probably did something for the fledgling college. Florida Tech has it's 50th Anniversary next year. Students on campus, along with Dr. Patterson if he's still there, should do as much as they can to find "lost" history. Mcmillen76 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning users

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to University of Memphis, you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --AW 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ricci

My revert was inadvertent and automatic - I always separately categorize non-graduates. I didn't see that you had included her until after I made the change yesterday.

I don't understand why it is important to lump Ricci, who may have never even attended Morristown-Beard, in with true diploma holding alumni. Having her recognized is nice, I suppose, but alumnae? The same with anyone else who might have briefly attended. Hard to see where she could have fit school in if you check her bio. Student7 14:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• When I was in college, I attended a college program overseas during the summer and took six credits of classes while there. When I returned, I received a letter addressed as "Dear Alumnus". How did six credits make me an alum? I never graduated. As I learned, the word "Alumni" means attendees, not just graduates. I agree that many child actors, like Ricci, have had rather fragmented school careers, which could explain the moves but does require that we pin down the facts. The Christina Ricci article lists M-B, but the IMDb source used is far from definitive in settling this matter. Given that we have a source that she attended, I would keep her here and lump her with all other alumni, but I would leave in the "attended briefly" note and add a fact tag to ensure that we get a more reliable source. I have searched in the past to find a better source, but I have never found one. I will research further Alansohn 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alumnus standing applies for all who attended a given institution. It has nothing to do with whether a former student ever earned a degree. Thus, Bill Gates is a Harvard alumnus, even though he never bothered to graduate. This is standard usage, not just in Wikipedia, but in English in general. The word means pupil (derived from a Latin term for 'fosterling'), not graduate. --Orange Mike 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Informal WikiProject?

Do you want to start a kind of informal WikiProject, something along the lines of Catholicism in Vermont? I started the Saint Monica's Church, Barre page, as it is my home parish. I think that Roman Catholic churches in Vermont, and the recent sexual abuse cases, bios on bishops, a history and anything else you can think of would be in the scope of the project. It seems like you have a good start, judging by your sandboxes, and I think it would be great to see if anyone else would want to jump on board. Thanks, Ben 22:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Wikipedia really is not censored! Please do not edit with the intent to censor the wikipedia. — Shinhan < talk > 11:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence of consensus against censoring at Talk:Patrick Leahy.

Maybe you should also read Wikipedia:Profanity. In a gist, you can vote against the inclusion of profanity but you can not bowdlerise it. — Shinhan < talk > 17:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Patrick Leahy. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you. Andrew_pmk | Talk 15:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Taskforce

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem witch trials. Join us!

Psdubow 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne, FL

I put the section back in, mainly because although a bit gaudy it was all true, and all seemed to be valid articles.

Perhaps get rid of the arrows, move to the back?

RC Dicocese of Chicago

The RC Dicocese of Chicago is still in the Chicago Category, as it has its own category (Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago) which is a sub-category of Religion in Chicago, which is a sub-category of Chicago culture, which is a subcategory of Chicago, Illinois. I am removing most of the redundant categories, especially the over-populated Chicago, Illinois category. The word Chicago appears in the title of the article, and in its own category, right? I will put Religion in Chicago on the RC Dicocese. I think I'll make Religion in Chicago a direct sub-category of Chicago, Illinois, too. Speciate 00:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Caledonian Record

Here's a news story [1] that features a C-R reporter commenting on the Dixville Notch primary. I don't know how influential the Record is on the Dixville Notch, or other NH primaries, but it might be worth putting in if you can find more info. I also don't know whether it's a good idea or not, but the paper is known for a conservatice stance - it's the only paper in VT to still carry Anne Coulter's column, apparently. Sorry for not doing this mysef, but it looks like voting and then editing is perhaps frowned upon by this bunch? Is that an official policy? Thanks for bringing this article to the attention of the project and for doing so much work - it looks good to me! H0n0r 01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, h0n0r, there is NO policy that states that editing and voting yes are against anything. Well, not that I know of. You did bring up some good points and added the potential for some new information, and I'm sure Student7 or I will get on adding it soon. And Student7, I really think that article should be kept, it has quite a bit of notability. I'll try to get my adopter, and admin, in on this. Maybe he can help our cause and make sure that it does get kept, which it deserves. Ben 01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. Sumnjim said he's going to nominate all the other newspapers (maybe he'll the the BFP alone) in VT for deletion as Non-notable. We may win this one, but we're going to lose quite a few others if he follows through. And btw, about the comment I made on your comment, I did it in the hopes that he wouldn't lash out at you. Sorry if you are offended. Ben 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hanover, NH

Hi, Student7! Just wanted to let you know I'd moved the "Notable inhabitants" section back up on the article Hanover, New Hampshire. There's a standard format that's been used for all 220 cities and towns in NH (which comes from WP:Cities). Thanks and happy editing! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please note that I have responded to the issued you raised at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. I'm sure I haven't totally satisfied your concerns, but I hope the information is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Favalora, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Favalora. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

I'd like to begin, so have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora. Andre (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Child project standards

Hey, it's no problem adopting I-91. I used to live near Hartford, so I have traveled on it before.  :-)

As for child project standards, it refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads and the different state WikiProject. If you go to WP:USRD, you can find more information there! --Son 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Georgia Page

Actually, now that I think about it, I went to the Georgia page and went through the links of the major cities. When I went to each cities page I checked out there metro status and Macon came in third behind Atlanta and Augusta.

Powerful business interests v. business interests

What's up Student7? I don't have a problem with your edit, but for the record, my references backed up the adjective. Substantiated POV is usually considered okay in designated subsections, as long as there is no undue weight. Regards, MoodyGroove 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

It actually does read better your way, and the paragraph speaks for itself. It doesn't need a hard sell! :) MoodyGroove 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:11 7 August 2007 (GMT).

Priests and Harems

Thanks for your comment, Student. I think there is a rich pornographic literature out there concerned with wicked priests and naughty nuns etc, which informs the misjudgements of the many people in this world who can't distinguish fact from fiction. On this topic I will try and get hold of the salacious revelations of Henry VIII's commisioners into the monks and nuns of the dissolved monasteries. This black propaganda is usually passed over in silence by apologists for the English Reformation who would rather turn it into an arcane theological exercise than confront the extremely dishonorable conduct of the nascent Anglican establishment who seemingly used porno fantasies as one of their weapons of debate. Colin4C 10:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Brevard County Environment

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Brevard County Environment, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.brevardareahomes.com/about_brevard.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 00:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from articles you have created yourself, as you did with Brevard County Environment. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. — Coren ^(talk) 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I checked, and the commercial site did copy the original article and not the other way around. Sorry about that; no bot could hope to be smart enough to figure that out.  :-) You can actually ask the deleting admin to undelete your article, pointing at this discussion and you won't have to rewrite the whole thing. — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to that sooner, feel free to edit away.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiTravel

Hi Student7 - I see you have "too much text" on the Brevard County page here (LOL). Come visit the sister project over at WikiTravel if you like: http://wikitravel.org/en/Brevard_County Brevard County needs some help over there. Gamweb 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re: "Spanish version"

re: I have a dumb question. You just added a "Spanish version" to the article Antalya. Could you explain to me hou this helps people who only speak Spanish? The Spanish translation of that article seems quite short in comparison. Wouldn't a more up-to-date translation help them more? As you can see, a very naive question! Thanks. Student7 11:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What you say is true. I just added it because I found the Spanish version :)

I am hopeful that since the Spanish version is linked to a larger version (English) a translation can occur.

Kevs 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

General officers

Since when have naval officers been general officers? Maybe this is peculiar to the United States, but it is not to my knowledge a definition used anywhere else. By definition general officers are officers with the word "general" in their title. That doesn't include admirals or commodores (or, indeed, brigadiers). -- Necrothesp 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Needing your input

I am seeking your input for new discussion items on the page Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, link here:[[2]] Please come give us your insight! Thanks,NancyHeise 15:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Student7, could you please also come and give comment in response to DominvsVobiscm? StacyyW 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the heads up on the DominvsVobiscvm situation. Looks like you have had quite a time with him for a while. I am sure Admin will do something to correct this situation. I can't imagine they would allow this person to endlessly dominate these pages when there is such a consensus of editors against his material. We'll see. StacyyW 13:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, I was wondering if you could tell me how to decorate my personal page with all those neat little tags you have on yours. I can't find where to get those tags or how to place them on my user page. Can you give me a link to those directions? Thanks!StacyyW 13:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

good example for us to follow

Student7, I joined the Wikipedia project for Catholicism which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism, on that page there are examples of articles that have a good rating. One of the articles is Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. We can use that as an example to see what kind of info we need to add to the Miami page to make it better. It looks like we need a lot more content especially in the history section. I don't know how to insert pictures but maybe you or one of the other editors of this page can help with that.NancyHeise 03:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Student7, go to this page to see an example of an Archdiocese page that is considered good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Chicago.StacyyW 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases

Hi! How about "longest running"? Unless there's something else about that case to make it particularly noteworthy ... Philip Trueman 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Biblical criticism and Acts of the Apostles

Please read the article on Biblical criticism and then render an opinion as to whether Acts of the Apostles belongs in Category:Biblical criticism. I don't believe it belongs in that category but I wish you to understand that, if an article is in Category:Biblical criticism, it just means that the article is related to Biblical criticism. It does NOT mean that the article topic is critical of the Bible. Read my comment on Talk:Acts of the Apostles for further details. --Richard 04:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure what you say is true, but I liked your response in the Acts of the Apostles discussion. For example, is "Kings" criticism of "Chronicles" and vice-versa? Genesis is worse since it contradicts itself! As you say, the bible may be overcategorized anyway. If I want commentary I would turn to a modern source, generally. I have a study bible, for example. Student7 11:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Perhaps there is something I don't understand about Acts, Kings and Chronicles. The article on Biblical criticism says ...

Biblical criticism seeks to analyze the Bible through asking certain questions of the text, such as; Who wrote it, when was it written, to whom was it written, why was it written, what was the historical, geographical and cultural setting of the text, how well preserved is the original text, how unified is the text, what sources were used by the author, how was the text transmitted over time, what is the text's genre and from what sociological setting is it derived, when and how did it come to become part of the Bible?

Biblical criticism has been traditionally divided into textual criticism, also called lower criticism, that seeks to establish the original text out of the variant readings of ancient manuscripts, and higher criticism that focuses on identifying the author, date, and place of writing for each book of the Bible.

Do any of the books of the Bible qualify as Biblical criticism according to the above definition? I would think not but perhaps you are more knowledgeable than I am.

--Richard 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you! Student7 16:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

For destroying an hour of my hard work trying to find sources for the Ephesus article. I know that wikipeople complain a lot and are very paranoid about vandalism and all that, but that was my first real article contribution, not a wannabe edit war about B/E and A/E spelling differences. Please can you restore the version or something? I worked very hard on the sources and info about the various sights at Ephesus. Thanks. Harris Morgan 16:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC).

Sorry about being so tetchy and slow to reply... thanks for all the encouragement and I'll try to stick to the American spelling (as much as I despise it) ;) --Harris Morgan 23:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Saloniki

Hi, did I sense any sort of misunderstanding or something? Why did you "change your mind"? The "war" there was over if Macedonia (Greece) would have some sort of a qualifier at all, not whether that qualifier would be the "region" or the "periphery". Anyway, thanks for your time in trying to sort things out, I think the matter is clear now, and my original concerns have been addressed. Cheers! NikoSilver 17:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Downtown Macon Page

Check out the page I started for Downtown Macon. It needs a lot of work though. You up for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macondude (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts)

Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 1of3 22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

I am wondering why you made separate pages for all the public school sex abuse cases. Why not put them all on one page like on Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country? I think it would be more useful to readers to have them all on one page.NancyHeise 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa)

I added a comment in support of keeping the article Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa), so I hope that helps a bit to beat back the "deniers." I would try to assist you further by adding to the article, or by expanding it, but it's not my area of expertise. Surely, the issue seems self-explanatory. With all the abuse happening (especially by female teachers on male students!) there is more than enough information/documentation to justify an encyclopedia article on the topic. You are right in wanting to keep consistency and balance with respect to the public and Catholic abuse cases. Good luck with everything, and let me know if I can be of further assistance. DBQer 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sex abuse cases

Hi Student7. I was a police officer for a while (quite some time ago now), so I have seen similar cases - they are tragic and harrowing for the victim and the criminal case can be almost as traumatic as the actual crime. Hoping the witness will not go through with testifying is a typical defense tactic in most sexual crimes. Several jurisdictions have brought in laws to protect witnesses in criminal cases related to some sex crimes because of tactics used by the defense to try and intimidate. It's not something peculiar to sex abuse by teachers.

I don't think what you are trying to do with these articles is appropriate for Wikipedia. Documenting cases in this fashion is appropriate for a public advocacy org, it could be the start of good research into the phenomena, it might be the start f a great investigative journalism piece, but it isn't encyclopedic. Wikipedia should be covering the big picture - laws that have been passed to protect students for instance (which my have been based on a spate of cases or a particular prominent case), or concepts or analysis from experts, or well covered campaigns by advocacy groups. But I just don't think listing of individual cases that haven't garnered bigger press coverage is very encyclopedic. (I'm not that sure about even well covered news pieces myself, unless there's a larger point to them, but big news stories are a well established part of Wikipedia and I'm not fighting that one).

To me, a more encyclopedic approach would be to document the advocacy and public policy activity around sexual abuse by teachers in different jurisdictions or cultures and why they came about.

I am glad you anonymized the articles - even if they get deleted in the AfDs I was very uncomfortable with those names being listed. You might consider also taking the name of the middle school out of the Texas article - if that comes up when some kid from there searches for their school you can bet it'll be the victim that gets the brunt of any fall out - anonymity in a school is hard to keep for long. It's probably been out in the community for a while but Wikipedia's high search ranking and its persistence-y can make things we cover fresher than they would otherwise be.

I'm off to offer my opinion on the AfDs now - so you'll be seeing more of the same from me shortly. I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing you were wanting me to comment on. Your message was a bit vague. If there's something more specific let me know. -- SiobhanHansa 00:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country is up for deletion. Thought you would like to know. NancyHeise 04:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quack

The Wiki motto is be bold. Why could you not have moved Dr. James A. Drake to James A. Drake and converted Dr. James Drake into a redirect? -- RHaworth 09:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne, Florida

Before I go to arbitartion on your reversing my edits, I have one question for you...how familar are you with Melbourne & what is considered important to this area? FieldMarine 02:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Please direct me to the Wikipedia policy that puts the article in violation as mention in the "Recreation" section of the discussion on Melbourne, FL. Thanks FieldMarine 04:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Bob Allen. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. i don't like the content either; that's not a valid reason to remove accurately referenced material. WP does not censor. Anastrophe 00:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Island Pond

I applied similar logic to this as you applied to the McDonalds case in Montpelier, but you put this one back? I'm confused. I still think it reeks of POV and Trivia even if it is referenced. Mickmaguire 13:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

- surely now the traffic cop issue is history, its status is in reality relegated to trivia? Your call - I know it wasn';t you who reverted my deletion, but I'm tired of battling the reverter Mickmaguire (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Shire towns

Just curious: could you find a reference or references to the effect that a shire town is effectively a county seat? The Vermont Statutes don't have any definition of a shire town, and I can't find any other sources at the moment. Nyttend 14:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget about it, I found a reference. Nyttend 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Popes

Don't worry that I was stalking you; I was reading the article, saw the discussion, and was completely surprised to see that you were the last one to comment on it. Nyttend 01:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not at all anti-religious; it's simply that I believe that the popes article is worthy of inclusion. Nyttend 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages

Hi Student7. You seem to have a tremendous amount of user subpages. While userpages and user subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, user subpage space is not intended to indefinitely archive preferred versions of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Would you please go through your user pages and tag with {{db-author}} those pages you want deleted or that do not meet Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Subpages. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

Hello again Student7! I haven't talked to you in quite a while. The Miami Archdiocese page is being considered for Featured Article status and I am wondering if you would like to come see that page again and offer any kind of comments that may help improve it. I would like to know your thoughts. NancyHeise 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Vermont villages

Could you please rewrite what you said on my talk page? I'm sorry, but I don't at all understand what you said. Nyttend 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; I thought perhaps you meant that there's a political trend for Vermont's villages to unincorporate themselves! I need to get off the computer, but I'll get back to you later. Nyttend 14:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 12#Category:Unincorporated communities in Vermont. --Polaron | Talk 15:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Polaron has already explained it to you; but the reason that I'm removing the villages category from unincorporated communities is because they're not legally villages, since a village is a type of municipality under the Vermont Statutes. Nyttend 17:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision to article "Twentynine Palms, California"

Hey dude: you DO NOT want to get into an editing war--or any other kind--with me. Didn't your mom and dad teach you some manners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.160.131 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just another thought--

Do consider having a modicum of respect for others who came to Wikipedia before you did--and, for that matter, arrived on this earth before you. The infallibility of youth, the invinicibility, will eventuallly wane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.160.131 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks, as you did to me on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont. Nyttend 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology and the removal of my screenname :-) Nyttend 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also...

Do you know what "modicum" means? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.160.131 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Nick (aka 67.180.160.135)

Hello and thanks very much for your message. In the clearer light of retrospect and rumination my own comments seem much the harsher. Please excuse them. I do write for a living, and I welcome and know the value of being edited. Perhaps I was just having an off night...or something. All the best and maybe we'll collaborate on some other subject. As far as my line in the "Deuce 9" article is concerned, by all means recast it your way--it's probably better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.160.131 (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good point! (Nick/ 67.180.160.131)

Hi, Student7. I think you're right. I tend to craft, sculpt, and sometimes flourish; Wikipedia writing does not really support this approach, and rightly so. I will learn well, because I do enjoy it--Wikipedia's addictive properties still startle me! Once again please forgive my harsh words of three days ago. Thanks.--67.180.160.131 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Burlington blog site

Thanks for catching the Burlington blog site; I undid my removal because I didn't have time to check it out. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Related content section

Student7, When editors place the "subject matter" nav box(es) at the bottom of the article, it typically falls under the "External links" section, which give a false impression of its function and capapbilities.

To make a rambling story short, I was directed by other Av editors and used the Relation Content title, or the Internal links/See also to help make the distinction for placing the title or the nav box below it, mostly in aircraft articles but extended to other aviation articles.

There may be other solution(s) to this delemia, but having the nav box(es) "under" the External link section is not correct and is misconstrude. I'm open to any change to the current usage. .......thanks for listening, LanceBarber (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Category:Vermont informational template

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Vermont informational template, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Vermont informational template is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Vermont informational template, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sex abuse US schools

A template you created, Template:Sex abuse US schools, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen 09:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Burke, Vermont income

There's no question that your interpretation is correct. Thanks for pointing that out :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, as long as you're splitting these sections (as you did with Chittenden County), please remember to apply the {{GR|2}} tags to the split-off section: this templated reference is sufficient for the entire demographics section (it appears in the first sentence of the first paragraph), but if you split it off into another section, the income appears unreferenced. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

PB

I still feel the article should be linked from the Palm Beach Diocese article in some way, whether listed as a school or a church - there's a good chance people are looking at the diocese page trying to find local institutions, after all. By the way, assuming you are a member, think you could get a photograph of the church for the article's infobox? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't find enough information about the school to justify forking it yet, though ideally I agree that would be the best route. Feel free to search around, maybe using terms that didn't occur to me, and add what you find. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to Criticism of the Catholic Church

Hello! I noticed your edit to the page. Next time, if you wish to discuss changes to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks, and happy editing, -- Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert, I know you meant the note in good faith, though. I'm not really familiar with the topic in itself, but I thought I'd just tell you what I meant by the revert. I undid my edit to the article. Thanks for your patience, Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's alright (regarding your comment), next time I'll try and figure out intentions first before commenting, :D. Anyways, cheers and happy editing, Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Greek Barnstar

		The Greek Barnstar
		You've been awarded the Greek Barnstar for your contributions to Chios. Thanks! Brando130 (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Wilkinson Johnson

I deleted the comment requesting references, since I found the source of the information and included it in the article. Since this article is now referenced, a request for references is no longer appropriate. Jinian (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter's tomb

I don't know where to put the info on the animal bones or Antonio Ferrua. Can you help? Bobisbob (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:Student7/Sandbox 14. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WP Meetup in Miami next next Saturday

	In the area? You're invited to
	Miami Meetup 2
	Date: Saturday, January 12, 2008
	Place: Bayside Marketplace, 3:00PM EST
	Miami Meetup 2

Hope you can come! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

An article you helped edit is now on WP:UNI/COTF

The current University Collaborations of the Month are Ohio State University & Princess Nora bint Abdul Rahman University
Every month two B-, C- or Start-Class higher education-related articles are chosen for you to improve. Be bold! This COTM is organized by WikiProject Higher Education. (vote for future collaborations or see past collaborations) This collaboration is effective: May 20, 2011 — June 20, 2011 until someone updates it. Pick the next WikiProject Higher Education COTM!

A new round of WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Fortnight will begin on 04 Jan 2008. Please take a look at our WikiProject article guidelines and help improve the articles. If you have any questions regarding the COTF or have questions/problems on how to improve the article, please place them here. Thanks and Happy Editing! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Knights and references

You cannot place an unref tag on an article that has references. There is no basis for '25 to 30' references (as you state) or some form of 'measurement' for referencing. If anything, you can help improve and assist in the formulation of the external references into in-text references - rather than slap tags around and remove from the forward progress of the article. Rarelibra (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

List of sexually active popes

My fragment about Pope Clement VI doesn't violate copyright, this text is entirely of my own autorship. I'm sure that no blog had it before my edition on November 23, 2007. I didn't get any reference to this because this is according to Nigel Cawthorne Sex Lives of the Popes, a position included in the bibliography to this article. Cawthorne is also the source to the removed fragment about Leo X, as well as Gerard Noel "Grzeszni papieże renesansu" ("The Renaissance Popes"), part III, ch. 3, p. 217, Wyd. Amber, Warszawa 2007. I do not consider Cawthorne to be very reliable author, and it's true that accusations of immorality against several popes (f.e. against Sixtus IV) are of very doubtful credibility. But in the case of Pope Leo X Cawthorne and Noel cite contemporary authors, who were not the enemies of this pope. Bishop Paolo Giovina was a friend and biographer of Leo X, and Guicciardini served in the papal administration for several years. I don't know a detailed biography of Petrarch and his position towards Clement VI, but I've read that Pope Clement VI was his patron, and that he lived in the the papal court for a some time. My text does not claim categorically, that Clement VI was sexually active, but only that Petrarch, who seemed to me rather reliable author (maybe I'm wrong), accused him about it. Possibly there should be created another section in this article about popes who were accused of sexual activity, but these accusations are unconfirmed, although not improbable. It may include Clement VI, Leo X and Julius III. At the end, I'd like to say that I'm a Polish Catholic and it's not my aim to produce or propagate false accusations against Popes.CarlosPn (talk), January 5, 2008, 0:16 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 23:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rossetter House

I think I now have the address right on this. It is confusing because the Museum conatins both the Roesch House & the Rossetter House. Good pick-up though...I must have looked at that stub a million times & never picked up the mistake. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments & great contributes to the Brevard projects. The FIT article is shaping up nicely -- Bravo Zulu! FieldMarine (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Florida Tech Userbox

{{User Florida Tech Student}} will give you

Florida TechThis user attends/attended
Florida Institute of Technology.

. Feel free to improve upon it. Enjoy! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! Do you know anyone else on WP who's from Florida Tech? Feel free to send this to them! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Miitary Airbases in New England

These civilian airports have at one time or another been air force bases, army air fields, or naval stations. I probably should add that to the beginning of the section. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Barton River dab

Thanks for that. The usual process is to point the link at sensible disambiguation title, rather than unlinking it, like this. Hesperian 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

I actually intended to remove the phrase that was tagged with a tag, but I removed it all. I guess I missed that extra cite. The article needs some major clean up, though, and definitely more cites added to verify its many claims. I see that you are working on it, though, and good for you! Sorry about this. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful now

I think your reversion of Halgin's edit to Jimmy Carter here was a bit reckless. You could have easily verified that Halgin's edit was legitimate edit before you labeled it vandalism by following the link that was there. You have an obligation to verify that something is vandalism before you label it as such. Not using an edit summary does not make something vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chios. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Town twinning

Just thought this might interest you: [3] :)

Brando130 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that the link needs to go on the article (I agree its short on content), I was more just pointing out that in addition to Genova, it lists the following towns as being 'twinned' with Chios:

• Municipality of Brezno (Slovakia)
• Municipality of Kerynia (Cyprus)
• Municipality of Dinant (Belgium)

I don't know much about town twinning, but I thought that might be useful to you since you had recently added the information about town twinning to the article. :)

Brando130 (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't? hah, Im up in the night. Nevermind? :> I'm sure I can add it I just mistakenly thought you had some insight into the formatting (those little flags), I'll try and figure it out Brando130 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

UVM?

No, I'm not watching UVM, although I am watching somewhat more than 8,000 other articles. What is UVM, anyway? Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

rv .com site in accordance w. WP:EL

Greetings. I noticed your removal of a link I added to the Origen article. Could you slightly expand on your motive for doing so? I can't see any rule broken... Would appreciate your explanation.Dampinograaf (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

An article may have the best intent in the world and be valuable BUT if it is sited on a .com web page it is presumed to be spam. As I was waiting for the Origen article to come up, the site displayed an ad for orange juice and Best Buy. This is not acceptable to Wikipedia. We are not a .com/spam site, nor do we wish to direct our readers to one. This should be covered in WP:EL. What you could do is identify unique content in the .com article and try to locate references for it and put it into the article, maybe. Student7 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was not aware of the ads [using Adblock plus, a godsend to the lonely web surfer, for longer than I can remember]. But the rules are there to be observed. Keep up the good work.Dampinograaf (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the EL guide on what not to link to, because of the discussion of Averill, Vermont. There is NO restriction on .com sites. There are some sites, often of .com suffix, that are restricted, but they are special types, e.g., selling sites. Zaslav (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your general remarks on .com sites. I was wrong. They are not diallowed under WP:EL. However, .com sites are, nevertheless, all supported commercially. That is what they do! So most of them, IMO, should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Nearly all of the sites I've seen added (with the exception of video or proprietary pictures) had info that was already in the article or (contrary to WP:EL) had info that would be in there someday, given the scope of the article. So IMO, I think we should mostly give them a pass. And the adding editor really ought to come up with a better reason (than most) why that site has to be there. The unfortunate fallout for me, is that I now have to look at the particularly of every added site to see whether it qualifies. And there are hundreds, sometimes thousands of candidate .com sites. The number of non-.com sites is pretty small. Student7 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC) [Moved here by Zaslav (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)]

(I moved your reply here just to keep the discussion in one place. Hope it's okay.)

When I thought about .com sites, I was thinking of examples like my local public radio station which has a .com e-mail address, although it's true their Web site is .org. I just meant that a .com site is not automatically commercial. (Also, for an organization with a Wikipedia article that happens to be a company, a .com link is obviously appropriate.) I'm sorry, it does mean extra work, but as one does have to check any site before linking to it, it shouldn't be much extra work, I hope! Zaslav (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne International Airport

Hey, I know you & Jamonsontai have put much good work into the Melbourne International Airport article. I added some pictures into a Gallery & at the infobox. Please have a look when you get a chance & arrange the pictures however you think they work best in the article. I know both you guys have a good eye for arranging articles. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Got your reply...thanks. I noticed that the infobox was missing some parameters as compared to the template as listed on the Infobox page, so I re-added them. I'm not sure if that was by design or not, but I readded them. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Student7, I have been answering a GA reviewers list of to do's on the page Roman Catholic Church - his to do list is on my talk page. I have just finished and was about to re-nominate it and then someone placed an entirely new section at the end of the article after Membership called the Role of Church in Civilization. That section could be a whole new page and is full of things that are going to become sore talking points and prevent the entire page from getting GA and then FA (which I am trying for). Can you please come help - maybe do something or say something - I respect your opinion. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Exegesis, Jewish

I didn't alter or comment on the summary itself. My issue was with designating Pesher as the "main article" when the otherwise uninformed reader would find this of slight relevance as compared to Midrash. —Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thessaloniki lead

I've reopened discussion of the lead, at talk:Thessaloniki#Reopen disambiguation discussion. We reached a compromise that seemed to satisfy all, and I am proposing we return to it. Jd2718 (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thessaloniki

That is precisely what I'm not getting from other Greek editors. I personally find the notion of monopolisation of a name laughable, which is why I have no problem with the region of Greece being called "Macedonia" as long as the country can call itself "Macedonia" as well. BalkanFever 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I was the least knowledgeable of the editors on that topic. We have to accept whatever the United Nations calls the country. There also can't be two articles named the same. But we shouldn't be trying to fight battles in Wikipedia over something that has been decided by some recognized authority (Greek or UN). Student7 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't know much about the topic, I won't give you a long explanation, and address your other point. Obviously, we can't have two articles with the same name, which is why we have Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece) as the names of the articles. Almost every Greek editor argues that "Republic of Macedonia" is an attempt at monopolising the name, and that it should be disambiguated further, even though there has only ever been one republic to call itself "Macedonia" - the aforementioned. BalkanFever 03:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the UN call it FYROM? See pointer to presidents visit. Anyway, we shouldn't be fighting it out here. It's decided for the time being between one or the other by somebody (else). This should not be a political forum. Student7 (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

False information presented at the mediation request

I'll go along with this, investigated it myself but the description page says they won't take on content disputes. We'll see what happens.

However, it is completely false that third party opinion has been requested--it hasn't, that was for another issue in July. ALso, the discussion for this issue has only been over the last few days. I haven't even been at the article for months.

If you are going to go throught this process, do it without lying, please. Koala06 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed that you invited only me and males who will share your POV. There are other women who have edited the page, and you haven't invited any of them. Koala06 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.S. I have noted on the talk page for the mediation request that you lied about other options invoked, and also that you have only invited the males who will back you up. Testbed doesnt even have anything to do with this issue, and hasn't edited there in months!

Your behavior really says everything.

I've also added some new issues to be discussed:

• Whether censoring content should be used to protect the image of an institution
• When is it constructive deletion, when is it censorship of unpopular speech
• who gets to decide what is and isn't "relevant" in Wiki articles
• Using "mediation invites" to people not involved in disputes to create a gang-up mentality at article discussions

Koala06 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no one else I would invite as the dispute is between only you, me and Erzatz-whatevery-his-name is. You are going out of your way to inflate the conflict.

You have also lied by saying the issue is about the entire article, while it is only about one section. Koala06 (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

btw, I have added these additional points to the section I added to the bottom of the talk page of the article. Again, I assert you are deliberately trying to inflate the conflict. Koala06 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The sections at the mediation have been fixed because I FIXED IT!! How can I possibly presume good faith in someone who lies repeatedly about what is going on. Like I said, your behavior speaks volumes. Koala06 (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I see that you are continuing the discussion under the NPOV section, which was the discussion of the earlier issue. I am going to "presume" good faith, and not jump to the conclusion that you are deliberately trying to make your attempts to involve testbed look like they are legitmate.

the conflict is about a recent issue, and not the one about testbed's pretty off-topic inclusion

I've moved the comments down to the appropriate section, the one about Koala's edits--though one I deleted because it was redundant. Koala06 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1) I had no idea that editor Testbed was no longer involved. I was simply inviting everyone that had been involved in the discussions. I was not aware of having overlooked anyone. The system allows participants to invite others as desired. 2) I suggested getting a third party opinion earlier. No one took me up on that. I looked around on the discussion page which is in total disarray, saw a third opinion and thought that it was applicable. 3) I had no idea you were a woman until you disclosed it shortly before I asked for mediation. Actually my best Wikipedia "buddy" is a woman. 4) I tended to favor your side. You are certainly free to decline allies. 5) I am a graduate of a school which subscribes to a strict honor system. I still support that goal. I do not deliberately lie. Student7 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi Student7! I have done extensive work to this article and brought it up to GA. It is being considered for FA. Could you please come and see this article and vote (a support vote would be appreciated) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roman_Catholic_Church&redirect=no Thanks for your appreciated attention to this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Vt Legislative District 5

A tag has been placed on Template:Vt Legislative District 5 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Knights Hospitaller

I saw your edit here just wanted to let you know that secondary sources are preferred, but an encyclopedia is a tertiary source. 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Averill, Vermont

You recently added a .com site which I am about to delete for two reasons. Really against WP:EL policy, but I would stretch a point for a small town (.com site = spam). The other is that I don't see what it contributes that isn't there already or soon will be. Student7 (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but somehow I fail to get your point. The link does have information on the town that is not readily available. Is it spam? It may have advertising, but that is really unobtrusive. I have found it linked on quite a few other Vermont articles. Anyway, I think the pluses outweigh the negatives. Where else are you going to find real information on a town with only 8 people? clariosophic (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

I added some discussion content to your "indian words in English" talk page, feel free to look at it!

Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sexual harassment in education. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

template warnings

Just a heads up, please remember to always substitute messages by adding "subst:" before the name of the template, so that the message does not change from what the user originally saw and perhaps responded to. IrishGuy ^talk 03:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rainfall patterns across the United States

The article has been revamped, but still needs some references. See what you think about the changes, since you made an amusing talk page entry concerning the article. Also, I'd be wary of UF. heheheh Thegreatdr (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article just made GA. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA article evolution

I'm not sure how much of the history, especially from late last year, you have, but things got rather bloody at times. There are other articles that are so POV I won't go near them, but a consensus seems to be working here, at least at a high level. Not all the detailed editing worked as smoothly as I would have liked even from myself, and there are editors that have basically different styles of writing and research (in the sense of sourcing). I tend to want to have things cross-checked before I put them into articles, where others prefer to put things in that are no more than rumors, which I believe is called "inclusionist", and let them stand or fall based on whether others can successfully critique them.

Please feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss what might be some of the more delicate aspects of all this. If it's any consolation, a separate hierarchy that, using the term very broadly, deals with tradecraft, has been much less controversial -- it's technical enough that pure POV warriors tend not to go there. See intelligence cycle management. My userpage, User:Hcberkowitz, also might be informative. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For things such as India

Especially since the item in the main article, for historical reasons, is not general intelligence coverage, but criticism, see the regional section. The counterproliferation article is not in grea shape, but you might find national means of technical verification interesting, as well as some of the technical collection articles, mostly in the MASINT sub-hierarchy.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vermont

I undid Scanlan, not you. If you're Scanlan, that's not at all obvious. YOU I wouldn't have undone. - Denimadept (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Talk:Florida: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Expanded infobox template: {{Infobox church/sandbox}}

Hi, you took part in the discussion at "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 21#Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals" where it was proposed that the templates {{Infobox church}}, {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} and {{Parish church}} be merged. I've created a prototype merged template for discussion at {{Infobox church/sandbox}}. The documentation for the template is at Template:Infobox church/doc. Your comments and help with improving the template are welcome – please discuss the matter at the Infobox church talk page.

If everyone is happy with {{Infobox church/sandbox}}, then {{Infobox church}} can be replaced with that template and the templates {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} and {{Parish church}} nominated for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In re Euhemerus, it seems to me that Velikovsky is _the_ modern definition of euhemerism. The "nonsense" wasn't mine, it was Velikovsky's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sorry I wasn't more clear the first time 'round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades

Why haven't you joined us yet? Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Crusades task force -- Secisek (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sexual harassment in education#Parties' agreement to MBisanz

Hi - I appologise for the length of time it's taken to find a mediator for the above case, but an administrator has offered to mediate the dispute for you. He is not a member of the mediation committee (yet anyway), but has good experience of mediation in other areas. Could you please go to the above link and state whether you accept his offer to mediate your dispute? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why I add only in Turkey article

The reason that I add the only right beside the CIA, when it comes to classify Turkey as developed is because ONLY the CIA classifies Turkey as developed. By the way the same agency doesnt classify Turkey as an advanced economy. Who knows what the real meaning is. Of course NO other major organization i.e. World Bank, IMF, UN, OECD classifies Turkey as a developed country. Turkey has a GDP per capita of around $9,000 and an medium HDI, around 82nd in the world, behind countries like Albania, Colombia or Uruguay. Also it has a relatively high infant mortality and low life expectancy. In essense I dont think that with those stats a country could be classified as a developed other than what the CIA says. So that is why I stress it. That ONLY the CIA classifies it so.Hope that helps.Aee1980 (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't help but notice the edit war going on. I'd just like to point out that the CIA lists Turkey as "developing"[4] (in the big list right below), and further, says about the "developed" countries: "note - similar to the new International Monetary Fund (IMF) term "advanced economies" that adds Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan but drops Malta, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey'"

So instead of adding "only", or changing it to say they're listed as a "developing" country, I just removed it altogether. Krawndawg (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The CIA lists Turkey and South Africa both as "developed" and "developing" 151.57.199.32 (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Point is that if we're going to go out of our way to point out that the CIA lists it as developed, we would have to go out of our way to point out that it's also listed as developing, which seems kind of silly. Better to just not mention it at all. Krawndawg (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys see "Common Carrier" at the top of the page? I'm charging a fee for carrying on further conversation between you two guys from now on. Five "Keep" votes each for my next Afd nomination per comment to each other (It's best to sign up for sockpuppets early  :)Student7 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA Developed Country list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country#CIA_developed_country_list 151.57.195.155 (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomb of Peter in Jerusalem

I have added a "Tomb of St Peter in Jerusalem" subheading and section to the St Peter's tomb article, also adding citations supporting the fact that the ossuaries were discovered by Franciscan Monks, that genuine archaeological excavating and examinations were carried out by Bagatti and Milik, who were experts in the field. It is a matter of personal conjecture where St Peter was really buried, and people should be allowed to make up their own minds without the interference of censorship. I personally do not hold an opinion on the matter. There was no justification to delete the paragraph relating to the tomb of Peter in Jerusalem. The issue has nothing to do with "atheism" or "ignorance" as suggested. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gentle reminder ...

Great work on the vandalism warnings but you seem to have forgotten to sign them :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do sign in future. It makes it much easier for admins trying to piece together what has happened. You are identifiable anyway from the edit history. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Monroe, NH

Hi Student7 -- I'm going through the New Hampshire towns, cleaning up a minor mess left by the Smackbot: it updated the geographic references in just about every town but didn't check to see whether a References or Footnotes section existed. So in checking up on each town, I standardized the reference format. If that bothers you for Monroe, I don't have a problem with you changing it back to what works better for you. The article is certainly much better documented than 95% of the other towns' articles in the state. Best wishes, --Ken Gallager (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed question

[5] I was just typing a reply when you removed the question?

Why was that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What valdalism is not

Hi, regarding this edit. Please read WP:Vandalism, which is very specific about what is and isn't vandalism. That edit couldn't possibly be considered vandalism. Note that those figures that you reverted back to were not supported by any source. They were made up, ie. original research, which is not allowed on wikipedia. The new figures (that you called vandalism) are official, sourced figures by the IMF. Krawndawg (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I see, makes sense. Everyone makes mistakes! I should have made note of your huge talk page before giving you the ol' random new guy speech. :) Krawndawg (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Your opinion, please? Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Churches

You offered some comments last week about a proposed deletion of Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California). You correctly noted that the article was rough, as it had just been started. I have been preparing articles on some of the significant parishes in Los Angeles and wondered if you'd have a few minutes to take a look and make suggestions on format, content, info boxes, etc. One of your notes indicated that the number of members was key data, and I agree, but do you know of any verifiable source to determine membership for Catholic parishes? Examples of the parishes I have so far created articles for are: St. Andrew's Catholic Church, Pasadena, St. Robert Bellarmine Catholic Church, St. Charles Borromeo Church (North Hollywood), and St. Finbar Catholic Church and School (Burbank, California).

William Henry Gleason

Thanks for the clean up. Dlohcierekim 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for adding information

hello Student7, thanks for adding more info to catholicos of the eastArunvroy (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Belen Jesuit

Thanks for your imput. I do find it hard to stay out of the fight, when I know the edits are not constructive. But I do appreciate your advise. Callelinea (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to intervene again in the Belen Jesuit article. It is important to maintain the integrity of the article via efficiency and standards. Please lock the article to eliminate exaggerated edits. Quixote09 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Group

Thanks for doing most of today's cleanup on the OG article -- you just did what I was just now about to do, putting the focus back on the Group itself rather than criticism (without dumping the criticism), re-ordering & cleaning up the MRA & Buchman content. Still a lot more to go to clean up the abysmal grammar & usage, but nice job & exactly what I would have done so far. --Hipgnostic (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD for Joseph Weber

I'm the original creator of the article, so obviously I disagree. But there's little point in adding an AFD tag if you don't create the entry on the Articles for Deletion page... If you don't do so in the next 24 hours, I'm going to remove the AFD tag. Just fair warning... --Etacar11 06:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Third party

I'm not an administrator, so I could do anything like that myself. Policy doesn't actually forbid moving without discussion (in fact, it falls under WP:BOLD), and I don't know what policies or guidelines say about titles. If a consensus has already been reached, moving can be considered page-move vandalism, but this appears to be a new instance. I'd go with what you've done already- post at WP:RM and notify the other user that you've done so. You can then apply what is decided there to other articles with honorifics. If there is more moving after consensus, it can simply be moved back- when a page is moved, it leaves a redirect under the old name. If this redirect isn't edited at all, the page can be moved back (this is called a move-over-redirect). If it keeps getting moved back and forth, request for it to be move protected at WP:RPP. Just be sure that the requested move finishes first, so somebody doesn't think you're a vandal. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes WP:RPP is the place to make the request for move protection. Jeremy has covered it here better than I could. --Finngall ^talk 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Communism

Apologies! It was meant to say "today in the present" but I guess I am silly becuase I could have wrote "present-day". I have a habit of misspelling. I wanted it to show readers it was the present day state incase readers found it confusing about which time period the image was showing. I am very happy however that you took time out to point this out to me. That was very nice of you to do! Thank you! JTBX (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving articles

Hello Student7, I am sorry for moving some articles created by me.You may please note that I only moved articles created by me .I moved those articles just because some people tried to redirect those articles to some other articles which did not provide all information.For eg.One person told me that he would merge the articles 'Malankara( Indian) Orthodox Syrian Church' and 'Jacobite Syrian church' just because of the reason that it was mentioned somewhere in the Jacobite article that the church was also known as Syrian Orthodox church.Everyone knows that both the Jacobite Syrian Church and the Indian Orthodox Church are two autocephalous Oriental Orthodox Churches.Thus I was forced to rename it to Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church. Arun V Roy (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)