User talk:Carolynparrishfan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 Archive 2

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Carolynparrishfan. You have new messages at UtherSRG's talk page.
Message added 04:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

UtherSRG (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Dorian Baxter for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dorian Baxter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian Baxter (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. West Eddy (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Anglican navbox colour discussion[edit]

Hullo, fellow WikiProject-er. We're having a discussion about the colours of Anglicanism navboxes. Please do come along and weigh in. DBD 17:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of First Christian Reformed Church of Toronto for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First Christian Reformed Church of Toronto is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Christian Reformed Church of Toronto until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JFH (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to World Council of Churches may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Africa: The Revd Dr [[Mary-Anne Plaatjies van Huffel]] (([[Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa]])
  • Lima Text”; 1982) <ref>[http://www.oikoumene.org/index.php?id=2638 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Faith and Order Paper No. 111, the “Lima Text”]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014[edit]

Hi CPF. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bonnie Anderson (Episcopalian)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Bonnie Anderson (Episcopalian) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article contains no references.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AlanS (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation: WikiProject Autism[edit]

Greetings! You are hereby invited to WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of autism, Asperger syndrome, and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. As the project emphasizes contribution from autistic editors, it is especially interested in you, who have chosen to list yourself as a Wikipedian with Asperger syndrome. Muffinator (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

GTS lockout and Michaelmas[edit]

Hi Carolyn,

You recently added a new subsection to General Theological Seminary regarding the recent faculty lockout. I think you did a good job being circumspect and just summarizing what has been reported, so bravo for that.

In your most recent change however, you (re)added the words Michaelmas Day modifying the September 29 date of the Executive Committee email, which I had removed in a prior edit, and this is not okay. The fact that they sent the email on September 29 had to do with the timeline of events as they were happening, and nothing to do with the fact that that day happens to be Michaelmas Day. But that's not why I removed it (although that would've been sufficient grounds). The reason I removed it, is because it violates Wikipedia guidelines for usage of inline sources.

In your edit summary, you said, "Not sure what 'failed verification' means...". Failed verification means that a given reference does not support the claim made in the article, and that the statement should be removed, or a proper source found for it. You can find a more detailed description of this at Template:Failed_verification. You're right, of course, that September 29 is in fact, Michaelmas, but the sources you provide don't say that. Based on Wikipedia guidelines WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis, you can't just add it extraneous information that wasn't in the source based on your own knowledge, and you can't combine multiple different sources to come up with it.

In this particular case, the source you gave to support Michaelmas Day is General Seminary trustees release first statement on conflict. This source says, in a post dated September 30, "Yesterday...the Executive Committee... voted... to accept the resignations of eight members of the Seminary faculty." It does not say anything about Michaelmas. The fact that it doesn't say anything about it, means it "failed verification", even if you know perfectly well what day Michaelmas day falls on.

Your most recent change also added a new reference, with the calendar showing "Michaelmas" term starting date, in an attempt, I presume, to justify the "Michaelmas" term here. However, this also fails verification, as your calendar source shows the fall term starting September 2, not September 29. (Even if it said September 29, it would still be impermissible because this would consititute prohibited original research based on WP:Synth.) As this is an encyclopedia, my understanding is that you would have to find a reference which said the Executive Committee sent their email on "Michaelmas Day, September 29" or similar, and not work this out yourself by prior knowledge or by consulting multiple references.

Thus, your first change is not supported by the reference but I've left it in for now and simply tagged it with the {{Failed verification}} template. What you can do to improve the situation, is to find a source that says that the Committee sent their message on Michaelmas Day, September 29, and add the reference. The second reference, the calendar, also fails verification (it says September 2) and just seems irrelevant, as it doesn't have anything to do with the Committee's letter (other than to try to support the "Michaelmas Day" date if it were correct, which it isn't). That second ref should just be removed. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, got your reply on my Talk page.
Hi, I'm not sure why you're stuck on this.
I'm not at all "stuck" on it, it's fairly minor, but I do try to follow WP principles, one of which is no Original Research, a portion of which is Synthesis. The point is, do you disagree with my comment--are you saying that there is no WP:OR here so it doesn't need to be sourced, or are you saying something else?
...referring to an event in an Episcopal seminary on "September 29" is like saying something happened on "December 25" - correct, but clunky and strange-sounding
I don't agree. Everybody (in the West) reading the article knows what day Christmas Day is; try taking an opinion poll two blocks away from the Seminary and ask them what Michaelmas is, much less what day it falls on. I venture to say a tiny minority would ever have heard of the word. Further, If the event in question (the firing letter) had something to do with a religious event, or something that was tied to a religious calendar, including start of term, for example, then you would have some support for your argument. But this isn't the case here. The September 29 date here has nothing to do with Michaelmas--it's merely coincidental and due to the timetable of the flow of events occurring at the seminary. September 29 happens to be the day that the Executive Committee acted in response to faculty walk-out and voted to accept faculty resignations, but had the faculty members acted a couple of weeks earlier or later, then the whole timetable would've been shifted back or forward and the Committee would have voted on some other day. The fact that it occurred on September 29 has no particular significance (unless you can come up with a reference that says otherwise).
It would not be "original synthesis" to name the elephant in the room and note that the event took place on Christmas Day, even if it were not a "Christmas event".
The date of Michaelmas is not common knowledge outside certain groups, the way, say, that Christmas day could be identified by anyone irrespective of religion. I daresay most people have never heard of Michaelmas let alone know the date. (I know of it primarily through Jane Austen novels.)
(And given that we are already seeing calls to re-hire the "Michaelmas 8" it's hardly my own personal lark).
I never said it was your personal lark--I am requesting that we provide sources, that is all. Providing a reference to "re-hire the 'Michaelmas 8'" would be a good choice.
Anyway by your logic, the entire reference would have to go, but you left in the line about it being the traditional first day of the year (i.e. of Michaelmas term): if you're going to do that, you might as well go whole hog; simply removing the word 'Michaelmas' would not bring the article into compliance, assuming you're right about OR.
You're quite right, by that logic it should go, but I left it in there because it's fairly minor, and I didn't want to start an edit war, and because the point is to improve the article, not to remove stuff right away without giving someone a chance to fix it. So instead, I merely marked the two places inline where I thought sources were needed using the {{failed verification}} template, and linked it to the comment on your Talk page. The best solution would be to just add the sources. Alternatively, if you think I'm mistaken and you don't think sources are required, please explain why. Perhaps I am wrong.
Yes, North American institutions normally start the academic year after Labour Day, even those (like my own and GTS) which hew to the traditional terminology: I don't seem to see the significance in that that you do but still, that's why I tweaked that so as to avoid OR.
I don't see any significance in the academic year start date, either. The text in question has nothing to do with the term start date--it has to do with the date that the Executive Committee of GTS fired or accepted the resignation of striking faculty.
You seem to be prepared to grant all of that...
Yes.
...and yet adamant about removing the one word that could be confirmed by looking at a calendar.
Setting aside the judgment inherent in adamant, you're only half right about what I am saying: the "one word that could be confirmed by looking at a calendar" should either be removed (since it was nowhere in the source you gave and thus "failed verification") or it should be sourced. If "you are adamant" about keeping that word in, and also not finding a source for it, it seems to me you are in violation of WP:SYN.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I'm just trying to improve the article while adhering to WP Policy and Guidelines concerning sources. It seems to me that the date the firing letter was sent landed by chance on September 29 due to the timeline of events unfolding at GTS and had nothing to do with the fact that Michaelmas is September 29. Perhaps I'm mistaken about that--in that case, the word should be left in, and sourced. Failing that, it should be removed. A great outcome would be if you could simply find a Reliable source that says the Committee sent out the letter on Michaelmas, and put it in the article.
This really does not need to be contentious and I'm frankly a little baffled.
I think you are misconstruing disagreement as contentiousness. Yes, it seems that we disagree on a point of terminology in the article. That doesn't mean the world is coming to an end--editors are bound to disagree about things, and there are Wikipedia Guidelines to resolve disagreements. Perhaps one of us is mistaken, or perhaps it's a gray area and nobody is wrong exactly. I'm not disagreeing with you based on my own personal opinions about whether "Michaelmas" is a good way to describe September 29th in the context of an Episcopalian institution--I'm disagreeing based on my reading of what Wikipedia policy and guidelines have to say about this, and it looks to me like OR or Synthesis, unless it can be sourced. Talk pages are here for editors to work such things out. It seems to me you make great contributions to articles, and there's no reason to assume that someone who disagrees with you about how best to improve an article is merely being ornery or contentious. That's another Guideline, in fact, assuming good faith on the part of other editors is one of the Five Pillars and a fundamental guiding principle of Wikipedia, so please assume that I am acting in good faith for the betterment of the article, as I assume you are.
Now, as far as improving the article: would you be okay with looking around to find some reliable source to add as a reference to support the use of Michaelmas in the article, and if one cannot be found, with removing the references? If not, do you have an alternative way to resolve this? Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride![edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Proposed deletion of Toronto Classic Movie Festival[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Toronto Classic Movie Festival has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability. Links are dead, and a check through archived copies of them indicates this festival ended in 2006 or 2007.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PKT(alk) 15:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)