User talk:Gerald Farinas/archive2

Academia

Thanks for your great edits on academia, finally article of the week worked! :) Tom- 21:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello, Mr. Farinas, I've nominated you for adminship. If you accept, please acknowledge the voting on the aforelinked-to page. Good luck, and good day. --Merovingian✍Talk 18:25, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to see you withdraw your acceptance of the nomination for adminship, better luck next time. Arminius 21:08, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you probably chose wisely to withdraw your acceptance. That kind of good judgment suggests you do ultimately have the kind of qualities we would want in an admin - you just need a little more experience, or not even so much that, but we need a little more time to get to know you. Keep up the good work and you'll certainly be an admin soon enough. --Michael Snow 16:11, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just want to let you know

I really like the St. Ignatius quote on your userpage. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks! It's become a personal motto for me for the past few years. --Gerald Farinas 04:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Would you accept a nomination for adminship? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess trying for it won't hurt. Sure. Why not. --Gerald Farinas 22:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 03:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo Visit

I will be at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 23 October, 2004, speaking at the ACM Reflections | Projections Conference 2004 -

This conference runs from 22. - 24. October 2004; it would be fantastic to have a Wikipedia booth, if I can get volunteers for it.

Do you think you could come? Jimbo Wales 16:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hawaii

Thank you for your kind comment on the photos and for redirecting and incorporating my article on Robert Kalanihiapo Wilcox to your original on Robert William Wilcox -- I really should have taken my Ritalin that day and checked before writing about Wilcox. Mahalo nui loa for your prolific contributions; I really enjoy reading them. Aloysius Patacsil 18:35, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Principality: I need your expert assistance please

Hello, I came here following your link on the Principality Talk page and I am assuming that you are the main editor of that article following its original creation as a stub? Assuming (a dangerous thing to do!), that this is so, I wanted to bring a little problem to your attention since I do not want to interject myself into your article.

My problem is this. I have a background in social history with an emphasis on certain interests (listed on my User page.) However, I have run into a sort of "fan mentality" with regards to a rather hot topic on Wikipedia concerning Sealand which was given the name "Principality of Sealand" by its creator. A part of my background is also in law and from this I have a lot of first-hand legal evidence concerning "Sealand". Without getting into other areas for the sake of some brevity, the reason why I am requesting your help concerns your article titled Principality.

Your Principality article begins by stating what a principality is, which under ordinary circumstances is fine. However, I cannot find a clear cut definition of how principalities come to be principalities and on this fine point hangs a lot of the nonsense about the so-called "Principality of Sealand".

The UK claims that everything within their now existing 12 miles territorial waters is a part of the United Kingdom and that everything outside of their actual land coastline to the limit of their territorial waters belongs to the Crown Estate. (The Crown Estate is represented symbolically by the Queen while her own office as monarch is a limited office within the office of the Crown itself.)

Back when the "Principality of Sealand" idea was first floated to the press, it came about because one Roy Bates was sitting in a pub with his wife Joan and he had just been told by a local inland court (that no longer exists) that when Essex Police arrested both him and his son for a violation of the UK Firearm's Act, that they had committed their offence on a former Royal Navy installation which at that time was outside of the UK territorial waters limit (then 3 miles) and also outside of the local jurisdiction of the Essex court to which he had been brought. (The case should have been heard in a County Court having Admiralty jurisdiction.)

At that time the Queen was about to name her son Charles in an elaborate ceremony as the "Prince of (the principality of) Wales". So later in the pub, Bates turned to his wife Joan and asked her if she would like to become a princess. She said "Yes" and hey-presto the "Principality of Sealand" was born in the press.

Now what has this to do with you?

Well first of all the UK (and a federal USA court case in 1990-1991 agreed and the UN agrees), that the territorial waters of the UK are now 12 miles which means that the former Royal Navy barge fortress is sitting on the sea bed claimed under the administration of the Crown Estates.

Your article does not say how a principality becomes a principality. It is my understanding that in the case of Monarco that if certain conditions are not maintained by the ruling family in Monarco, that the Principality of Monarco will revert back to the ownership of France. It is also my understanding that Monarco was created as a principality by France with a secondary link from Spain to the Pope.

But here are a lot of "Sealand" "fans" going on about a principality as though a principality can be self-declared, but if that was true then one would claim to be full sovereign and call themself "king" and not "prince". Or the person could just declare a republic and call themself "president" and be done with it.

All of this brings me to the core issue of which I am assuming (hopefully I am correct!) that you are somewhat of an expert on this subject: For a principality to exist there surely must be a principal who created the secondary power and surely a lessor power cannot claim power from the principal which the principal has not granted?

In other words, no matter how ancient all principalities are, surely there is some link somewhere to show how the power of authority originally flowed from the superior power to the lessor power by virtue of the granting of power from one to the other and not the mere taking of power? Because if the power was merely taken without approval, then the taker could not claim that the authority from which the power was taken was the superior power? (An oxymoron, surely?)

By the way, in the case of the UK, the official position is that Bates gained squatter's rights to the barge which the UK do not have a need for. However the Ministry of Defence has always kept is marker buoys of identification in place because Bates has never challenged his legal right to be there under squatter's rights in a British court of law. So until a court agrees that Bates is legal owner, he just sits there with no legal authority at all. Meantime the Crown Estate claim the land under the barge and around the barge and the UK dredge Rough Sands and manage the fishing rights on Rough Sands upon which the barge sits because the UK cannot be bothered with the barge and Bates does not want to go cap in hand into a British court to ask the UK for permission to reside there.

With all of that said and done, I respectfully and hopefully await your comments! MPLX/MH 16:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles (if any) under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary, but equally important, goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 00:04, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Interested?

Lists of U.S. county name etymologies

• List of Hawaii county name etymologies

(We'd love your help, if you have the time or the interest.)

jengod 18:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

please see talk on Hawaii Republican Party

I check both websites of the state Dem and Rep parties in Hawaii and they both list their names as Hawaii Dem/Rep Party and not as Dem/Rep party of Hawaii. I think the pages should be moved to reflect the correct names of each party great job on all your work on the articles.

Saimin Article

Great article - it's all the rage at egullet.com. Have you contributed to any other food-related Wikis?

Welcome back!

Welcome back! We missed you. :) Neutrality^talk 05:06, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad to be back! --Gerald Farinas 18:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Funeral of the Pope

Wonderful job on the Funeral of Pope John Paul II article!! Thank you for expanding the article. Out of curiousity, where did you find the details about the burial (coffins, coins, etc)? Very fascinating information.

Also, I read on CNN.com that the Vatican said his body had been "preserved, but not embalmed" (as the article states). Do you have any information on exactly what presevervation was done? It seems without embalming, that the body is going to begin rapid decomposition/smelling before Friday.

I've been getting all my information from every new article that comes out as "raw news" directly from the Associated Press news wire [1]. It's a great resource! --Gerald Farinas 20:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Associated Press raw news article I read said that the pope was only touched up with cosmetics and that was it. Apparently, the family that embalmed the previous popes called the Vatican asking why there weren't commissioned to do this papal funeral. The Vatican explained to them that they weren't needed. --Gerald Farinas 20:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AP/Reuters

Hi Gerald! Curious— when on Wikipedia were AP and Reuters article deemed okay? I know for a while now they've been completely off-limits. I favour such a move, just question when and where the community agreed on this. -- user:zanimum

I suspect that no one 'agreed' to such a move since the photos were uploaded without being tagged. They should be tagged quickly, and if they are not, then they should be deleted. David Newton 02:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of dignitaries at the funeral of Pope John Paul II

Thanks for the photo of the American delegation paying their respects to Pope John Paul II. Please note that this is one of the largest American delegations to a memorial service outside of the U.S. The memorial service outside the U.S. that saw the largest American delegation was the state funeral of Sir Winston Churchill in 1965. -- user:SNIyer12

Wrong picture on Cardinal Turcotte page

Hello Gerald! I was just browsing and noticed the picture you uploaded of Cardinal Turcotte is wrong. I live in Montréal and Cardinal Turcotte's face is very well known here. That cardinal is not the right one. I'll try finding a better image and will replace it. --Bobsky 18:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I'm so sorry! --Gerald Farinas 18:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Photo

Gerald -- thanks for uploading Image:Popebenedictxvi firsttimeonthrone.jpg, you had tagged it coming from the Vatican. Can you just reference the source so we're certain of that? Thanks, it's a great pic and hopefully should stay. --Wgfinley 03:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's the source of your photo? What Vatican page or source? — Rickyrab | Talk 04:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox pope template

Gerald, I'm a bit disappointed that your template for the popes was replaced by one I think infinitely inferior. I'm asking people to vote at Template talk:Infobox pope. Please drop along.

Papal installation

Hi Gerald,

Your move of papal inauguration to papal installation is correct. A pope cannot have an installation ceremony as he becomes pope the minute he says yes when asked if he accepts his election. The ceremony is an inauguration. Many inaugurations are installations (eg, in the US and Ireland) but many are purely symbolic. But an installation by definition can never be symbolic and involves entry into office, a description that cannot apply in the case of popes. So I've moved the page to Papal Inauguration which is the technically correct term and is the one I've heard used by all credible sources (eg, the BBC, Reuters, etc etc). FearÉIREANN 22:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

John 3:8. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help with my user page

Hi, Gerald. Thanks for your note. Yes, that would be very kind of you, if you could upload my photo. There's no copyright, as it was just taken by my father, with my camera, for me last week.

Ann Heneghan 21:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see you've done it. Thanks, that's really nice of you. I hope it wasn't a big job. I'm happy with size and positioning too. I'm hoping to start a doctorate next year, so perhaps after my next graduation I'll be clever enough to upload the photo myself! I do intend to learn. Thanks again. Ann Heneghan 17:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cathedral of the Assumption, Louisville, Kentucky

Gerald:

Saw your stub on the COA. I was a cantor there many years ago, and a good friend of mine is the Rector. I'm working (with help from materials he's provided me) to put together a comprehensive COA article. Would love to know what attachment you have to the COA. Essjay 17:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Benedictine

Gerald:

Thanks for your work on the various Benedictine pages (OSB, RB, etc). Your idea of consolidating Benedictine and Benedictine (disambiguation) is very interesting and could be very useful.

HOWEVER, I have serious issue with some of your edits, as well as with your modus operandi of making dozens of changes to the look, the tone, and the content of the articles and then labelling ALL of these changes "minor". Additionally, you have made these changes without making any comments on the various articles' talk pages.

I would very much like to discuss this with you and with the other editors (including a Benedictine nun) who have been working hard on these articles, so that we can come to some consensus on how we would like to proceed.

In the mean time, I would ask you not to make any further edits to the various Benedictine pages. If you do, please have the courtesy to participate in discussion on the talk pages.

Thank you in advance. I look forward to working together with you on this project. JHCC 16:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits

From the Help:Editing section, under Minor Edits:

The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit". A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word [emphasis mine].

I see that your recent changes to the Benedictine articles previously mentioned (and in fact to almost all of your User Contributions) continue to be marked Minor, even though they clearly do not conform to the rule of thumb given above. Please stop doing this; any user who chooses to "Hide minor edits" will not see your edits. JHCC 16:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Gerald, congratulations on the new pope table. It is really lovely to look at. I'm most impressed. FearÉIREANN 20:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gerald, I think that the Funeral of Pope John Paul II article is definitely worthy of Featured Article status, so I've posted it on the peer review. Thanks for all the work you've done on this article. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk random} 21:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and what are your thoughts on the pope infobox? Bratsche^{talk random} 22:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gerald, since you stopped at Pope Clement XIII, I continued with Pope Benedict XIV and on, do you mind telling me if everyting is ok? --Astrowob 01:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your quick response, and for changing over the icons to PNG format. grendel|khan 18:54, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Funeral of Pope John Paul II

Hi. I'm trying to finish the funeral article to get it up to FA status. The one comment that the article recieved on peer review said that inline citations were needed. Since you posted much of the material, would you mind just getting the sources to me, so that I can stick them in the text, and add references at the bottom of the page. The peer review is located here, if you want to take a look at it. Thanks. Bratsche^{talk random} 19:57, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:OnwardToGolgotha

This user has engaged in some pretty terrible vandalism today, including placing a Nazi symbol on the Christianity page and a racist cartoon on the Negroid page. I am not an Administrator, but think that, if possible, you could look into this user and perhaps give him a warning. Thanks for your time. KHM03 22:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Your opinions are earnestly sought on for deletion:Crowns. To put it simply, there were various lists on crowns and state symbols buried on files, hardly touched, and full of unwritten articles. I created a series of I'd say thirty articles on crowns, types of crowns, crown jewels etc, at considerable time and effort. I created a provisional template to link the articles together, which I planned, once I had all the information in place, to separate into a series of templates as there was too much information for one large one.

SimonP, who has been waging war on templates for ages (usually as a minority of one, through he usually forces his opinion on pages - such as his deletions of the Template:Commonwealth Realms from articles on Commonwealth Realms - by wearing people down on the issue) nominated the template for deletion. While some users have praised the template for creating a workable themed group with a visual unity via the template, a couple of people are determined to delete the template and use their beloved, hideously ugly, lists, the same lists that had proved to be a dead end for all these articles before.

Given your own commitment to proper professional design, not amateurish layouts, on Wikipedia, I would welcome your contribution. The antics of SimonP makes me wonder why bother doing any serious work here, when all one get is attempts by a small number of people to replace professionally laid out information by visually unattractive, frequently complicated and because of the ease of edits, perrennially inaccurate long lists. I would very much like to hear your views on the matter on the TfD page linked above. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)