User talk:MPS

Welcome to my Talk Page. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of my page. Normally, I try to check for messages frequently.

"MPS" - My name is Jeff Kelley and Im a reporter with the Times Dispatch. Doing a story on Wikipedia and am in need of Richmond people who are contributing to it. Id like to talk to you about Wikipedia and your entries, also possibly get a picture if you are in town (My name is on the Times Dispatch site on Wikipedia)

Please call at 649-6348 or email [email protected], as soon as possible.

Thanks, Jeff Kelley Times-Dispatch

• Richmond VA

• Iraqi resistance#Standoff in Najaf .28August_2004.29|Standoff in Najaf

Hi MPS, I saw your link to Culture of Richmond, Virginia and will add what I can. Thanks for starting the article. Monkeyman 21:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, MPS, there is already a category "Racecourses". Please add your racetracks to that category and redirect "List of racetracks", or alternatively, have the category list on your racetrack page. You'll save a lot of effort! Grace Note 14:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You voted for Roaring Twenties, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Falphin 03:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't watch Mary Kay, this morning somebody changed one word in the article so that it said "Mary Kay is a brand of food sold by Mary Kay, Inc." Hilarious. Speaking if which, check out Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. Breakall 6/9/2005

Nice job on the new Thomas Dale and L.C. Bird articles. --Breakall 200506161358

Check out my additions to Premodernity and let me know what you think. Breakall 23:15, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

I am having trouble figuring out how to do one of the things you suggested (adding a box containing the progression from premodernity to postmodernity). I think it's a good idea -- could you create it? Breakall 16:59, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Check out the Wikipedia Animate Greasemonkey script:

"This Greasemonkey script allows you to view a series of modifications to a Wikipedia article as a video-like sequence."

You can see a screencast of the script in action on Jon Udell's blog.

Breakall 2005 July 5 17:39 (UTC)

I moved your contributions in the Pat Robertson page from a location deep inside the article (about Hugh Chavez) to the intro section, as your contribution is not specific to Hugo Chavez. Because I moved it to the intro, I had to condense it. --Asbl 17:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, Pat Robertson received a lot of attention, and for some reason other users did not like that sentence. I therefore waited a couple of months, to a time where the article does not receive as much attention, which has so far proved to be a good strategy. The sentence you wrote (which I moved and condensed) has so far lasted for a week! I think it was a good addition to the article. --Asbl 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== New category == added a new cateogry on proportion and emphasis so as to better categorize Wikipedia:Recentism (quite a bit debate on that which is good). I think if filled out the category could be useful and even become part of the welcome package. I've noted some suggestions on the Recentism talk. Let me know what you think. Marskell 12:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you created William Byrd I you must have some sources of where you get information on colonial Virginians, could give me any sites you use for Virginia related articles? Jobe6 07:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ya thanks for the link. Its hard to find information for William Randolph because when i google him, all i get is results for William Randolph Hearst. Jobe6 05:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your comment to not bite newcomers is absolutely well-taken. I often try to save people who've been "bitten" in fact (see User talk:Ryan Moore for instance).

It's a little different with BigDaddy. I've exchanged a half-a-dozen e-mails with him so my comments on his attitude aren't without basis. He seems literally unable to assume good faith with other users. Disagreement touches off a long rant about a liberal conspiracy on Wiki. He really doesn't understand that this isn't a blog and (despite friendly attempts to stop him) basically every comment of his on talk is a long-winded questioning of the previous editor's motives. These effectively become a personal attack. Are you serious?!! You're last comment is a JOKE!!!' and on and on. --Marskell 23:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Not too long ago you wrote me a warm greeting. It started with "...I noticed that you maybe got off on the wrong foot with some people." and ended with "I hope that you stick around long enough to realize wikipedia ...is just a bunch of flawed people trying to write a good encyclopedia."

That was a very gracious greeting and I appreciated it.

I wonder though, if you would review what I've been through the last month or so (check the Ann Coulter, Karl Rove and Pat Robertson talk pages for examples) and still maintain that position? I find the level of hostility towards me almost breathtaking. Thanks again for your comments. Big Daddy 06:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I been watching the television in Ohio, and I heard about the situation with Taylor M. Behl. It's good cause. A missing girl, a photographer (P.O.I.) and big ratings. Good! If your from Richmond, VA could you do me a favor? If I can get enough information on her I would be able to put up an article devoted to her. Or if you know go ahead a make one article for her. Let's hope for her safe return. Also hope Fox News don't make this the biggest saga since Hurricane Katrina. Thanks. LILVOKA. 21 September 2005.

• Great-----Trust me, I don't usually go hard on anyone! But the information provided for Taylor Behl, good. I never judge anyone by the persona. Let Bill O'Reilly to do it for us! Thanks again! LILVOKA.

Skyring here. I was delighted to be able to start off the article on Patrick Henry's church, and I'm glad you've added more. I don't have the local knowledge, being from Canberra, and it was a chain of lucky events involving champagne and the National Building Museum that got me there for a cherished hour or so. It was a thrill.

• Article on Richmond and Washington

• Pete's travel journal - journal entry 61 refers to the church.

We haven't spoken in a while. I relocated to Grove in James City County (near Williamsburg) this past summer. I noticed in your FFV article there is a dead category link. I would fix, but don't know how. I am still working on some Richmond-related articles, such as the latest, Boulevard Bridge and Virginia State Highway 161, aka the old Belt Boulevard bypass!

Mark in Historic Triangle Vaoverland 09:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and got started. It has a long way to go. On the Talk page, i suggested that we limit the southern boundary to a little north of Chesterfield Courthouse, so that we don't duplicate too much with what should really be in Chesterfield's article. thansk for category help ref FFV. Mark (relocated to the Historic Triangle) Vaoverland 04:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a new category under Virginia history for James River Plantations. Categories are one of my areas of weakness. Can you help by creating it, and let me know? If you like my talk box, which helps organize new messages on user talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vaoverland. I'd be glad to return this favor by making one for you and placing it one this page. It has really helped me with my talk page. Also, did you do anything about the Transportation in Richmond category idea?

Mark Vaoverland 15:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the TALK BOX here and on your user page (that latter sends messages here also). We can change the color, but it takes some experimentation.

I want category to include articles on some of the James River plantations which are gone, with some sites extant (ie Green Spring Plantation) and some only memories, and built over (ie Richneck Plantation). What is the upper box all about?

Drop me your e-mail address at [email protected] if you want to know a little more about me. I communicate with several other Wikipedians that way.

Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 21:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left a few notes as comments embedded in the article. However, most of what I planned is in place, probably in need of some more work maybe by others. Let me know what you think when you have a chance, please. Mark Vaoverland 21:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help. While there are categories for all the counties, only a few cities in Virginia have categories. I don't how to make additional ones, and I need to. can you either do this, or leave me word how it is done. I seem to be having trouble with the process. Also, what do you think of Transportation in Richmond, Virginia up to this point? Thanks Mark Vaoverland 22:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of the total list of Virginia cities, only these 8 have their own categories:

• Alexandria, Virginia
• Charlottesville, Virginia
• Chesapeake, Virginia
• Fairfax, Virginia
• Newport News, Virginia
• Norfolk, Virginia
• Richmond, Virginia
• Virginia Beach, Virginia

The ones we need to add are:

• Bedford, Virginia
• Bristol, Virginia
• Buena Vista, Virginia
• Colonial Heights, Virginia
• Covington, Virginia
• Danville, Virginia
• Emporia, Virginia
• Falls Church, Virginia
• Franklin, Virginia
• Fredericksburg, Virginia
• Galax, Virginia
• Hampton, Virginia
• Harrisonburg, Virginia
• Hopewell, Virginia
• Lexington, Virginia
• Lynchburg, Virginia
• Manassas, Virginia
• Manassas Park, Virginia
• Martinsville, Virginia
• Norton, Virginia
• Petersburg, Virginia
• Poquoson, Virginia
• Portsmouth, Virginia
• Radford, Virginia
• Roanoke, Virginia
• Salem, Virginia
• Staunton, Virginia
• Suffolk, Virginia
• Waynesboro, Virginia
• Williamsburg, Virginia
• Winchester, Virginia

Thanks for the cat help. What's the word on Transportation in Richmond? Mark Vaoverland 21:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The GRTC logo is copyrighted, as our most recent maps. (drat!). Were you satisfied with the general concept of all of Henrico, all of the city (duh) and northern portions of Chesterfield as a rough approximation of the area covered for the article? Mark Vaoverland 21:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep adding as you can. It is easier for me to edit and build on existing stuff than work from scratch. (That is due to a typing transposition disability I have). I need to finish in the history section about the RMA and tolls on I-95, which will provide backstory for the content you just added. FYI, Powhite Parkway and Downtown Expressway were built as RMA toll facilities, I-195 was built with Interstate funding, and Virginia State Highway 195 was built with state funds ass a small section from Cary Street east to the area of the Boulevard, which is why thsi non-interstate designated portion is toll free. that bizarre combination fo funding combine to form solutions to the complete network. The Powhite Pkwy from Cary street to Chippenham opened first around 1973.

This link is super if you want to learn more. Be sure to read about the Riverside Parkway (not built) whcih would have annihilated the Pony Pasture. Roads to the Future website Mark Vaoverland 21:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete his original AfD, I deleted his added comment and assertion in the title of the article that it's an "advertisement for noon-notable Amway MLM team"

This claim is completely untrue, and does not belong at the beginning of the article. 1) Team of Destiny is not "non-notable" in the world of Quxitar 2) Amway is not Quixtar. Quixtar is not Amway. 3) Team of Destiny is not Amway or Quixtar. They are completely separate entities. 4) The article is in no way an advertisement.

It seems to me that Ze Miguel is just a disgruntled peson who doesn't like TOD or anything else related to it. He is not presenting all the facts, and he is asserting things that are not true. Barwick 16:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the section on vanity, and I understand his assertion, but I am contesting his assertion, and have noted that in the discussion for the AfD. I have not deleted his comments (nor should I have), but I have contested them in the discussion. Thanks. Barwick 16:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some work on this subject. It is a little tricky, because many in the area do not consider themselves part of Greater Richmond, except when it suits specific purposes. So, we try to strike a balance, right? Mark Vaoverland 23:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took the name ... of Virginia from the existing dab page on Tri-cities. Thnaks for the compliments. I also did some significant work on the Prince George County article. Mark Vaoverland 20:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an account, I just wasn't signed in when I commented. Roygene 05:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an account, I just wasn't signed in when I commented. Roygene 05:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I reverted your last edit to gay rights because, I think, putting 'homophobia' in quotes is inappropriate for the context in which it appears. If you think that change is over the top, message me and maybe we can hash it out. -Seth Mahoney 03:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it can be a loaded term and can be used inappropriately. I think, though, in that context it is perfectly acceptable, since it says "so and so says X", not "X is so". Anyway, thanks for being understanding. Though it seems like we're often coming at many articles from opposite "sides", I continue to appreciate your tone and respectfulness, and I do think that your contributions help make for better articles. -Seth Mahoney 04:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was just splittign up National Folk Festival, mainly so that the AUstralian Folk festival can be included in teh relavent categories etc. Could you please explain why the entry for the Australian festival is a direct copy and paste copy violation from [1]? --Martyman-(talk) 21:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what kind of response is that? Copyright is a major issue on wikipedia. If the project is going to be taken seriously it really needs to avoid careless editors breaking the law. Also, it is not just a matter of me fixing it. Legally the copyright infringing information needs to be purged from the site requiring administrator intervention. I really hope you are not still creating pages based directly on copyrighted material. --Martyman-(talk) 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I add NPOV tag? I thought that was obvious from the text, but I added a discussion comment anyway. Cheers, Jquarry 22:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've removed the entry about US postal rates increasing from the 2006 article. I think that this is a minor event of local interest only. Since the rates are only domestic, they do not affect anyone living in another country. Additionally, if we were to include this, we should also include the increases in Canada (CAD0.01 on January 1) and Greenland (DKK0.25 on January 16). Additionally, Germany changed international rates on January 1, but domestic rates remained unchanged. Pburka 23:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for putting that advice about first delete vote back. I decided to make a fix to the warning that had been bugging me based on your boldness (no idea why I was holding back, really)... For the record I use the userid "Lar" because my name is "Larry" (I used to get lars a fair bit back in high school but stomped it out...), not mad or anything!!!! just thought I'd mention it! No reply necessary but if you do, here is fine, I watch talk pages I recently left comments on. All the best. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to do a decent amount of content addition, copyediting, restyling, and vandalsim protection recently. I hope it helps :) Avi 03:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPS,

Thanks for the encouragement. I might have ventured more extensive editing, but alas I was kinda just checking in on things this morning before I had to be somewhere—I just didn't have time to do much more. There's a part of me that hesitates to jump in much on that article with the sheer amount of vicious fighting over there. I noticed quite a bit of back and forth on that top-of-the-page definition and so this weekend attempted to help by offering a definition out of an actual source (the reference from Donald McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms). I didn't necessarily expect it to stand as contributed, and so have been checking in mostly to make sure that it didn't get changed while leaving the same citation--which had clearly happened. Seeing that, I wanted to get rid of the footnote and seeing the other edits only had time to add the NPOV. Anyway... I wish good luck to someone who would venture a responsible editing of that article, but don't have time or energy to do that myself for at least a couple of weeks.

Emerymat 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just had to revert this guy again, adding the Richmond Discussion Forums to the page. Can we just make it easier for all of us and ban this poor soul? Dr. Cash 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a message on Nlu's talk page regarding this. This is an administrator who just earlier today warned our anonymous buddy to stop vandalising the page. Dr. Cash 00:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPS,

Didn't know if you'd seen this yet: ( http://news.ucc.org/index.php?option=com_content&&task=view&&id=440&&Itemid=54 )

Emerymat 15:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since newsworthy General Synod, UCC reports both positive, negative fallout

Written by J. Bennett Guess Thursday, 19 January 2006

Leaders of the 1.3-million-member United Church of Christ are reporting mixed statistical and financial outcomes — both positive and negative — during the six-month period that followed its General Synod’s controversial decision to affirm support for same-gender marriage equality. Since July, about 49 churches — or less than one percent of the UCC’s 5,725 churches — have voted to disaffiliate, according to the denomination’s research office. Most, but not all, of the departures appear related to disagreement with the marriage-equality resolution.

The withdrawals, however, also come amid a resurgence of interest in the UCC by new or existing churches, with 23 congregations affiliating with the UCC during 2005 and an additional 42 churches expressing a “firm interest” in joining. The year also ended with some hopeful financial indicators, including significant increases for some national offerings and special appeals.

“The number of departing churches is far fewer than some had earlier projected,” said General Minister and President John H. Thomas, who nonetheless described the last half of 2005 as a period marked by “extensive conversation,” “education,” and at times, “exhaustion.”

“We grieve the loss of any and every congregation that decides to leave,” Thomas said, “not only because of the loss of members but also for the loss of shared history, ministry and fellowship.”

Based on 2004 financial data, the withdrawing churches — with a combined membership of 10,535 — contributed about $89,000 annually to support Our Church’s Wider Mission (OCWM), the denomination’s shared purse that funds ministries at the Association, Conference, national and international settings. Those receipts represent less than three-tenths of 1 percent of the $32 million contributed to OCWM each year.

Most of the departing churches appear to have been distancing themselves financially from the denomination for many years, said William Morgan, the UCC’s chief financial officer.

Morgan also acknowledged that an undetermined number of churches have voted to remain with the UCC but have indicated they will consider reducing financial support for OCWM in 2006. That effort, he said, could be offset by supportive congregations that intend to increase OCWM contributions.

“While some fluctuations in OCWM can surely be attributed to Synod-related issues,” Morgan said, “we’re also hearing from many churches that have other budgetary concerns, such as rising heating costs, insurance premiums and other expenses that impact their OCWM giving. There are other factors to consider.”

The UCC is unique among many of the historical mainline denominations because individual congregations retain legal ownership of their buildings and property, making it easier for UCC congregations to decide their own futures. Worth noting, not all churches that vote to leave the UCC necessarily stay away forever. In the past two years, five once-departed churches have voted to return.

Church officials also reported a sharp increase in inquiries about UCC affiliation. The Rev. David Schoen of the UCC’s Evangelism Ministry, said that, in addition to discussions with 42 existing non-UCC churches, his office has had conversations with more than 20 pastors or lay persons interested in starting new congregations where none currently exists. “We’ve seen great new enthusiasm for new church development,” Schoen said.

In October, the 4,300-member Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, Texas, voted overwhelmingly to pursue UCC affiliation and cited the General Synod’s marriage resolution as a motivating factor behind its decision. At least two more large-membership churches with an eye toward joining the UCC have planned congregational votes in 2006.

The process by which local Associations grant formal standing to incoming churches can sometimes take several months to complete, Schoen said.

In addition to the inquiries, 10 churches were granted full standing during the year and 13 congregations were recognized as newly planted churches.The UCC also marked a record-setting year for financial support of special offerings and appeals, global disaster response and the UCC’s Stillspeaking Initiative.

“While every setting of the church has fretted over finances this year, members of the United Church of Christ have demonstrated amazing, record-breaking generosity,” Thomas announced in late December.

UCC members contributed a record-shattering $9 million through national church offices to support national and international relief — a response fueled by churchwide concern for victims of the tsunami in Asia and East Africa, the hurricanes in the southeastern U.S., violence in Darfur and the Sudan, the earthquake in Pakistan and Kashmir, as well as global hunger and the spread of HIV/AIDS infection. The 2005 financial total is more than three times the $2.1 million given over a two-year period in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Web-based giving through <ucc.org> quadrupled in 2005, with nearly $500,000 coming from 2,800 givers, a three-fold increase in online donors.

Although year-end remittances are not due until the end of January, Morgan projects the church will come close to its $32 million goal for national and Conference basic support, which funds the church’s mission infrastructure. Plus, he said, it looks like the church will realize a 3-to-5 percent overall increase in receipts for the UCC’s four national special-mission offerings, which are received annually and earmarked for global development, justice advocacy, evangelism and church renewal, and support for church retirees.

Also, more than $1.5 million in second-mile giving was received to support the Stillspeaking Initiative, the UCC’s national advertising campaign, which is planning to debut a third TV commercial in late March.

I was particular interested in the numbers, though. The article gives somewhat different numbers about the number of congregations leaving, and gives us some previously unknown numbers on the those considering joining. Emerymat 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPS,

I can understand (to a degree) a certain desire to question news releases from Cleveland--personally I trust them fairly well, but I can understand why some wouldn't. However, I don't understand why there would be such a vast discrepancy between the numbers given in the recent release and the number presented by the website you cite: 42 vs. 75. Any hypotheses? Also, if we're in to being NPOV, shouldn't we give credit to both numbers--seems like only quoting the 75 is biased toward that faction?

Emerymat 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Your information was far more comprehensive than mine anyway.  :) Monkeyman 15:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I reverted your edit that placed Largo Town Center (Washington Metro) in Category:Town center shopping malls. The Largo Town Center article is about a train station, which is why I reverted it (case of mistaken identity?). I'm wondering if you really mean Boulevard at the Capital Centre, which is adjacent to the station? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Awesome! Way to be bold! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix the spelling on your category Unites States Seminaries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria h (talk • contribs)

I was refering to the "s" at the end of united.

Why thanks! I appreciate it! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right it does seem it's not even worth discussing it. OK. My reaction may be just because in French - my native language - "consciousness" & "conscience" both translated as "conscience", and I do not even see how philosophically it could be that much distinguished. No pasa nada... Lapaz 15:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the West End area starts around the Glenside Dr. and Douglas Freeman area, but I could be wrong. Va girl2468 03:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you've been badmouthing me and the way I closed the cfd from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 9. And I also see that after I closed it, you went ahead and claimed your own "consensus". If you have a problem with the way I closed something, that's fine, but next time take it to WP:DRV. That's what it's for. Please don't ignore the decision and go out on your own again. --Kbdank71 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i do have an account called Roygene, its just very tedious to log in every time I come here

I'm curious about your addition of Category:Upper Peninsula of Michigan to Black Fly. The article doesn't mention anything UP-specific, and the fly seems to be just about everywhere. Any specific reason? -- dcclark (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that black flies are a big pain in the UP (I've done my fair share of hiking there as well), but my point is: the UP isn't mentioned in the article at all. Perhaps you could add a line or two? -- dcclark (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffy, thanks for adding the new section. -- dcclark (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been noticing your many recent and ongoing contributions. Rather than Richmond, I have been working more on eastern Virginia stuff recently from our new home in Grove, Virginia, but I did want to take a moment to compliment you on your continued efforts. Mark Vaoverland 01:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did that before I created an account. I appreciate the tip. I was trying like crazy to figure out why all the seminaries were under "P" Thanks again! Soulful scholar 17:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I read both policies (and most others) but as you saw this was not the case. I reacted to the comment of an anonymous user on the talk page and wanted to attribute the sentence in the lead to someone, but I did not find anyone. But really the worst POV of the whole article is the information it does not contain. --Jan Smolik 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I will pass this along to the coordinator of our Wikiproject - Trains , User:Slambo. Mark. Vaoverland 21:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your question and responded: Talk:Modern_English_Bible_translations#Open_Source_modern_English_translations --J. J. 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverted back to "the mond," extremely common colloquialism in the West End and various other parts of richmond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morriss (talk • contribs)

Huh? I know the message is intended for this Talk-Page-User but I think it should at least be intelligible to other readers. Mike Hayes (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say good work on your other continued contributions on Richmond. Great town, and now great article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Morriss (talk • contribs)

MPS, first, you changed the local church paragraph to say "local churches allow Associations covenental authority to participate in the ordanation of clergy and granting of denominational standing". I think this is a misconception. Issues of ordination and standing are governed by the Constitution of the United Church of Christ, and thus are not matters of local churches "allowing" authority (i.e. ceeding it). Our denominational constitution does not give the local churches that authority to begin with.

Second, I could see where a bit of UCC vs. Presbyterian explanation is helpful. I'm wondering if it could be done in a smoother, less verbose way. Also, I really do not like the assertion that we are "ultimately" a congregational system. As I wrote in my own ordination paper (and my church and ministry committee did not take issue with), "it is clear that the United Church of Christ is neither truly congregationalist nor truly presbyterian, and I believe we oversimplify the dynamic when we try to say we’re “closer” to one or the other." Emerymat 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good contributions on the "Homophobia" debate. It does appear that just about anything written about homosexuality on WP is written BY pro-homosexual activists. See my struggle on [Civil Partnerships].Ros Power 21:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPS,

Thanks for your vigilence in watching edits on the United Church of Christ page. While certainly you and I get into the occasional disagreement, it is clear we are both committed to protecting the article from shoddy, sloppy, and unrepresentative edits (i.e. many of the recent edits from Mtstroud). Thanks Emerymat 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPS,

I agree that what you mention is among the aspects of the article that should be expanded. As I could envision it, I would imagine the article to have a structure like:

• Intro
• Origins of the UCC
• History -- Perhaps a separate full page, with summary on the main UCC page
  • Developments leading to the 1957 union (any other pre-1957 history belongs on the pages of the predecessor denoms.)
  • History since 1957
• Polity -- perhaps a separate full page, with summary on the main UCC page
• Theology and Worship in the UCC -- not exactly sure how this would be done, but I think it's important
• UCC Institutions
• Ecumenical Relations
• so-called "Current Issues"
• List of famous UCCers
• etc.

Anything else?

And, to answer your question, yes there is a rather complicated history to the 1957 union. I believe talks began in the early 1940s. Perhaps in the next couple of weeks, I can find some time to write a draft of a possible UCC history page/section.

Emerymat 16:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you were the one to design the Greater Richmond Region navigation template. I wanted to let you know that I redesigned it so that it was more efficient. I noticed on some articles that the placement of the box left blank white space, due to how all the tables were aligned. I designed it to be like most other navigation templates, so that it will appear at the bottom of the page. If you have any questions about what I did, feel free to contact me. --No1lakersfan 22:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you like what I did. I felt that I had to do something so that all the pages looked uniform to a certain degree. If you have any other projects that you think I could help with, please feel free to let me know. I am willing to help out in any way with Wikipedia. --No1lakersfan 23:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you'd looked over the Satori article with a possible view to inhouse advertising: don't worry, I'm the only contributor so far and have absolutely no commercial attachment to Spaceward whatsoever. My only interest is in preserving the history of this application, as Spaceward have recently announced that they are unlikely to continue further development. There is a thread to this end on the Saroti forum here. Thank you!

--Specialbrew 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... User:Exploding Boy at the homophobia article. i tried to insert the word "pejoratively" in a sentence that says that homophobia may be referred to "opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds". he won't have it. i already reported him as a WP:3RR violator. r b-j 05:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing.

The reason I made the Wikipedia page is because I couldn't find such a page at UCC.org. I compiled it by going from conference page to conference page. But I know it has to be incomplete because there was some ambiguity about what was or wasn't an association and some conference sites were, eh, not so useful.

Hello! I noticed you were trying to add something about the current U.S. heat wave to the article. Please note that the heat wave has nothing to do with Tropical Storm Chris - Chris is in the Caribbean and far away from the heat wave, and sea surface temperatures need more than any single heat wave to be affected. The amount of energy Chris is releasing into the air also does not contribute to the heat wave, as it is far too insignificant and the energy is staying near the same place and not reaching the East Coast (or else the cyclone would move with it!).

Also, I noticed that you've reverted others twice; please remember the three-revert rule. Thanks, and happy editing! —AySz88\^-^ 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the heat wave is not an event of the hurricane season, so please don't add it there. I also don't see any of the talk page messages you referenced, or any edits at all between your edits to 2006AHS, according to your contributions log. Which talk page are you indicating?

As for why heat waves can't exactly cause hurricanes, heat waves are not coherent weather systems, as opposed to, for example, a cold front or a mid-lattitude cyclone. They are more of a social construct. Connecting tropical cyclones with heat waves doesn't make any sense beacuse heat waves aren't tangible - it's like saying an Excessive Heat Warning is raising SSTs. You might associate high temperatures with high SSTs and tropical cyclones instead. I hope that explanation makes sense to you.

Also, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was threatening 3RR, but I'd already heard complaints about the "reverts" (regardless of whether they actually were). It also appears that your talk page messages didn't go through.

Thank you! Happy editing, —AySz88\^-^ 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your note. Let me know if there is more I can do to help. Also, if you think it's appropriate, feel free to edit or remove my warning. UCCer 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the guidance and look forward to working with you to add/edit meaningful, neutral content on the UCC

The original statement by Scotland Yard implies that the bombings would have occurred soon. [2] The relevant text is "The investigation reached a critical point last night when the decision was made to take urgent action in order to disrupt what we believe was being planned." While the spokesman is being slightly obscure, it is fairly clear that urgent action was required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluap (talk • contribs)

Sorry for forgetting to sign :-) I've changed the article to give a direct quote from the police statement. Bluap 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London's calling and it's calling you gay.

-A TRUE RICHMONDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.14.167 (talk • contribs)

   There is nothing remotely threatening about the above message, I think you have a persecution complex =/ 

   -A TRUE RICHMONDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.14.167 (talk • contribs)  

I apologize for my unwarranted attacks toward you

-A TRUE RICHMONDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.14.167 (talk • contribs)

Hello! You look like someone who might be interested in joining the Virginia WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you help us :-) T REX_speak 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GRTCroutes.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You may have an interest, since I saw your name in the history list of the List of bow tie wearers article: an admin is suggesting deleting it. When I looked into the Bow tie page, I found there's already a list there. I don't have an opinion on which list should remain, but one really should go. I'd appreciate your advice on the Talk:Bow tie page, if you're interested and have the time.Noroton 00:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the current List of North American ports in excel which I can convert to your format, or send it along to you if want(comma seperated if better). I need to rebold some of the port names.

The lat/long were necessary for sorting, and I have them in decimal degree form.

Someone else will have to check lat/long for Mexican (and Central American) ports, but what's there is in order. Typos galore. rmo13 04:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 06:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Marriage Law Project, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/about_mlp.cfm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Marriage Law Project. Then you should do one of the following:

• Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Marriage Law Project where we can find that note; or
• Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Marriage Law Project.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Keep working on it so that if can become one of our good or even featured articles.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at ways to develop articles on annual conferences of The United Methodist Church. Each Annual Conference is unique, and their websites often provide widely varying degrees of information. I am trying to create a "uniform" format that I can use when creating articles for the various Annual Conferences. Dmwarren 06:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Dmwarren[reply]

At the moment the article is about a pressure group and offers no proof of any notability. eg. there is no independent coverage about MLP from the press. Nuttah68

The latest links you have provided have changed nothing. To clarify, to change my mind I am looking for independent reports ABOUT Marriage Law Project, not stories where MLP give an opinion to an article not about them. Nuttah68 19:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what I am getting at, see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), especially Assertions of Notability point 2. Nuttah68 19:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

try this out for size. [3] It's catholic, but indepentent ... maybe. MPS 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start, but proof has to be in the article. Put it there and see if the admins believe one story constitutes significant coverage. Nuttah68 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just yesterday stumbled over the the Marriage article and i noticed that it was carefully worded to leave no hint of the common assumption of the spouses in a marriage being a man and a woman. clearly this is the same sculpting of the article to reflect what some POV thinks should be reality, but being that the laws of governments representing the vast majority of the world's population assume heterosexual marriage, or that the religious traditions of the large majority of the world's population also apply the term "marriage" to heterosexual, usually monogamous and hopefully life-long relationships, the article should reflect that fact. do you know of an online reference that lists the nations/states that recognize same-sex marriage (or prohibit the converse) and religious traditions that recognize same-sex marriage (or reject the converse)? a list like that, possibly with the populations of the jurisdictions or the claimed membership of the religious traditions, would be helpful for a verifiable source. just FYI. r b-j 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just to let you know that i have spent my 3RR's at Marriage until tomorrow. it, of course doesn't need to be reverted to my version, but the extraction of any reference to "husband and wife" is pretty clearly POV. r b-j 03:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tmeline on the grounds that it makes too many assumptions which the text does not endores. Thus, if the Pastoral Epistles are Paul's, it may be that Eusebius is wrong about the beheading. As for the Council of Jerusalem, this is very difficult to date with the agreement of many scholars. I think it is best left out, which is why I have removed it. I hope you will understand.Roger Arguile 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good revert on your part for my first deletion of the whole section: you're right, the rest of it is well-sourced. Yonmei 16:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPS,

I'm not sure you understand what I was trying to do about a week ago in creating sub-articles re: some of these not-so-current "Current" issues in the UCC. I really don't think the main UCC article needs, rather should even have, all this blah-blah-blah about these things. Aside from my continuing belief that the majority of the text gives far more credit than is deserved to the conservative factions, the article just keeps becoming more and more un-encyclopedic and chatty/bloggy. I am again going to encourage you to actually look at and read the ELCA and PCUSA articles as examples or models of how denomination articles can be (and good ones, I think).

Emerymat 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Always good when someone reads an essay and accuses you of being biased the wrong way. I clearly lean more towards the collectivist ideal (the heretical) than the individualist ideal (the orthodox). You should read the conclusions rather than just stopping at the title. My point is that the dialectic tension between the Thesis position (the individual editor) and the Antithesis position (the collectivist community) generates the Synthesis position (the true Wikipedia) which is greater than either position by itself. Hegel, dialectic, and all that jazz. I clearly assert that I expect NO editor to fall into one camp or the other clearly, and yet also try to be a way to present both positions. If you want to see why the words "Orthodox" and "Heretic" were chosen specifically, see the contentious MFD for Esperanza, where the Esperanzans were treated as "heretics" by the "orthodox" editors who sought for the deletion of the entire group. If you have some suggestions on how to specifically present the information in a more neutral way, short of renaming the article (the title is provocative, but the text is clearly striving to be neutral) please do so. --Jayron32 03:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not that i'll undo it, but i can think of the West allowing for divorce (as opposed to "lifelong convenant") since Henry VIII. and probably longer than that. r b-j 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to make a template to attach to articles with very long lead paragraphs, if there isn't one already. Please discuss on the WP:LEAD talk page. FrummerThanThou 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_famous_Richmonders&diff=prev&oldid=91089280

Someone else actually added my name to the list. Thank you for removing it, but there was no need for cynical thoughts on why it was put there.

Hi, Richmond (MPS)! Since moving down here to Grove, I have been working on Wikipedia: WikiProject Virginia and several other projects partially in preparation for Jamestown 2007. User: No1lakersfan has worked in collaboration on an number of these most of this past year. He is now a high school senior hoping to gain admittance to one of Virginia's public universities for the Fall 2007 semester. Following advice, he has done maintenance and reference-adding work, as well spending time on articles. He is a good collaborator and I believe he would enhance our efforts with WP as an administrator and use the additional tools and powers wisely. Since you know me from our past communications, I wanted to request that you consider entering a vote, hopefully in support, if you agree with my judgment and recommendation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/No1lakersfan 2.

• Please feel free to communicate with me on my Talk page at User talk: Vaoverland if you have any questions or reservations. Best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season. Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MPS, I hope that you are having a happy holiay season. I have recently been nominated to become an administrator here on Wikipedia. I am asking that since I have worked with you in the past that you stop by my nomination page and consider entering a vote, hopefully in support of my becoming an administrator.

• Please feel free to communicate with me on my Talk page at User talk:No1lakersfan if you have any questions or reservations. Best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season. Thanks, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got this message...

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Essjay for the following reason (see our blocking policy): This IP address has been blocked temporarily. CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address is being used abusively; the address has been blocked to prevent further abuse. If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please post {{unblock}} on your talk page, with a note referencing this message. Please be sure to include the IP address (which should appear at the bottom of the block message). Administrators: Please consult with the checkuser who placed the block before unblocking. Your IP address is 67.150.54.87.

This is a dial-in server ... associated with sysmatrix.com... looking at my recent contributions I see no reason that I should have been blocked, so I can only assume someone else on this IP did something bad. Please let me know more info on what happened, and unblock me. MPS 07:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's the box I am supposed to post...

• You're not directly blocked -- rather, an entire range of IP addresses has been blocked, due to attempted disruption from one or more users; I've been in touch with the blocking checkuser, and I'll see if I can work this out. In the meantime, please bear with us, and thanks for your patience. Luna Santin 08:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the block affecting you: [4]. This is not your doing, but it may take a bit of time to clear up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): There has been some very intense abuse originating from this IP range, recently -- you had nothing to do with that, but unfortunately the IP addresses in here are very dynamic, so the only options are "block nothing" and "block everything." I've worked out a trial soft-blocking, provided that I'll be taking care of the damage that this unblock will probably cause. There's no perfect solution, here, but I didn't feel that sitting by and watching so many users blocked for things they had no part in would be appropriate. You should be able to edit, at this moment, but please do be wary of such blocks in the future -- I can't make any absolute promises, except that I'll do my best. Thank you for your time and patience. Best regards. Request handled by: Luna Santin 10:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you accuse me of hiding something on the The New Way Forward AfD? PTO 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That article would have been much better off if created after the speech, however. It is probably going to be re-created then, but anything before the speech is going to be media speculation. I'm sorry, but we have to keep the encyclopedia in mind. Cheers, PTO 00:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a name change, since nobody is calling it that. I removed the text of the specch since, if we want to inline it, it should go to Wikisource. And it needs references galore. But I won't oppose closing the AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the speech has actually been made I obviously see no reason to delete it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The List of bow tie wearers page has been nominated for article deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers) and there are already seven deletionists surrounding me. Are you, a contributor to that page (and to the discussion on the Bow tie page back in October) gonna let them do that?!? Defend our page! Go there to vote to uphold truth, justice and the civilized way!Noroton 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, MPS! 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 please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket 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 genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

forums and myspace links are not reliable sources. please do not add such links to wikipedia. thank you. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I rather think that my bot is fairly intelligent. For future reference, however, please read over WP:EL as per my bot's warning, and determine whether a church's Myspace group belongs in this encyclopedia. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MPS, being a fairly experienced editor on Wikipedia, I'm sure that you've read over WP:RS and WP:EL. However, I'm really not sure what the problem is. External links are only to be used when they can contribute to the reader's comprehension of the article, not just to have an enormous set of links at the bottom of every article that don't really do anything. I've gone to the Myspace group, the forums, etc, and I can't find any information there that hasn't been gone over in the article. So, before you accuse myself and Joe of Wikilawyering, do realize that the links aren't notable or relevant and shouldn't be included in the article. Shadow1 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! Please use the Preview' (ATP+P) function to check changes from your edits. Bye and good work! --Attilios 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Big Daddy Weave, 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 Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing 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 its subject's notability under the 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. Murderbike 04:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's done. cheers! Murderbike 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw you'd added a lot of Three Letter Acronym ridden text to an article that says "Don't Do That(tm), because people will find it incomprehensible." Perhaps I should have added "as per WP:WOTTA" to my edit summary or so.

At any rate, my "revert" was intended in the same sense of humor as the page itself, so... seeing your response, I'm guessing you laughed your head off and put that crazy new version in there. ;-)

A bit more seriously: Of course it's ok to use TLAs in places. The main thrust of wotta is that you should take care not to let them become shibboleths, else huge numbers of people won't be able to understand you. There's 300 pages in the essay category alone. We can't expect everyone to memorise all that! Does that sound reasonable to you?

--Kim Bruning 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Hey, I totally understand your point about the massive deletion from 2000s. However shocking it was, however, I feel that it was probably a very good move. That article was possibly the longest article in Wikipedia, and had evolved into a ridiculous catch-all. I think that all of us who had contributed to it over the years lost something--some people more than others. But what had happened to it was really embarrassing to the Wikipedia project, I realize. That wasn't an article about a decade, in the same way that the articles on the 1960s and 1930s are on their decades. Those articles—while still imperfect, I admit—were summations on their respective decades, and kept to a reasonable length. The article on 2000s was a completely unkempt mess of everything that anyone thought to put in there, with barely a semblance of organization, and with nothing that shouldn't just be placed elsewhere. It shouldn't be necessary to have (for fashion in the 2000s, see Fashion in the 2000s) comment in the 2000s; let that be found in the article on Fashion. An articles content is supposed to be bound by what it has in common, and the only thing in common that these eclectic bits had was that they took place during the 2000s, and if that's all you need to have in common, then you can just eliminate every other article in the encyclopedia except the decade articles. Why have an article on "Sports", when all you need is a subsection on sports within the articles on the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, etc. Why have an article on "Fashion", when all you need is—well, you get the picture.

What is needed is just a brief glimpse of what changed the world during that decade, what was truly notable, and frankly, such a task is nearly impossible today, since we are still in the middle of it. If someone had tried to write an article on the 1960s in March of 1963, they would have written some pretty dumb stuff to the eyes of the future, because no one in 1963 knew what the "'60s" would look like (pre-Vietnam, pre-Kennedy, Kennedy, and King assasinations). But that is what we're trying to do today (the 2000s article was started in March, 2003). I think the article as it existed did more harm than good to the pursuit of knowledge. Just my two cents worth. Unschool 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per one of my favorite essays, WP:RECENT, we shouldn't delete information on an article just because there is so much of it. How do I say this concisely?... Wikipedia has no place to aggregate content on the verifiable trends of this decade, and this is a great loss. I will add the content on to my personal page until I can find a place to put it. MPS 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The point that content should not be deleted because there is "so much of it" is well taken; I actually agree. But it's not just the quantity, it's the presentation. We need to ask ourselves, Is this article helping to inform about the title subject? I would submit that 2000s did not. It had instead become a collection of mini-ego trips, with people (myself included) inserting bits of trivia that they happened to know. The result was chaos and confusion (forgive my redundancy).

I would be willing, with my limited time, to help construct a better article, but I am pessimistic. Others have tried, but the article had gotten so big that no one could manage it. I just now placed in on a Word® document, Times New Roman 12-font, and it took 56 pages! It was essentially too big to fix. And yes, the content is elsewhere, as it should be. If it's not, it probably was non-notable. And that's another point. We do delete new articles because they are non-notable, but there exists no effective way to do the same thing to content within an article of this size. Fortunately, this article was almost certainly the only one of its size and kind in Wikipedia.

Please let me know what ideas you come up with for improving the situation. You are obviously a thoughtful editor.Unschool 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on the talk page regarding the article title before you moved it. I've reverted. The talk page says why. Let's use official designations from the weather agencies, and not media made-up designations. – Chacor 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this message was received:

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Dmcdevit for the following reason (see our blocking policy): anonymizing hotspot, please use a regular internet connection. This IP address has been blocked temporarily.CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address is being used abusively;the address has been blocked to prevent further abuse. If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please post {{unblock}} on your talk page, with a notereferencing this message. Please be sure to include the IP address (which should appear at the bottom of the block message). Administrators should not undo any block that is specifically called a "Checkuser" block. Period. The Checkuser knows something that you don't. If the unblock template goes up you need to ask the Checkuser why the block is there. The Checkuser might not tell you, but they will review the situation and decide whether the block can be lifted. It may not be obvious why that block is in place, but there is a reason.[1] (see: block log • current autoblocks) Your IP address is 64.241.37.140.

I am at a Panera bread hotspot. I think I should be unblocked from editing since the IP block was not due to me (it was due to another panera editor) ... and further, I like to edit wikipedia while eating focaccia bread sandwiches!!!! Please unblock panera or I will have to go somewhere else!!!! MPS 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd first like to say that looking through your User page, you have created a lot of articles that are very dear to me. I am a Richmond resident. I was very impressed to see that you created the Phil Meggs article (I had him as a professor, the last year he taught). Judging from your user page, it looks like you have done a lot of good. However, I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article John 17:21, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Andrew c 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for renaming the article. That clears up my concerns.-Andrew c 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you've created a number of stub articles with uncategorised stub tags recently. It'd be helpful if you could use a categorised stub tag where possible, such as {{Iraq-geo-stub}} - a full list can be found here. Thanks, Jeodesic 22:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago, you left a couple of comments on the Ernest M. Skinner page requesting expansion etc. Given your apparent interest in the topic, I thought I'd let you know about the new Pipe Organ Project WP:PipeOrgan in case it was of any interest. I've just tagged the Skinner page as being within the scope of the project, so your suggestion may yet be taken up! If this Project doesn't take your fancy, no problem. Best wishes, Bencherlite 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi their. No problem at all mate. I will start doing the rest of the maps soon and clean that page up so that their are less red links. Chaldean 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is random, but I had to get on Wikipedia to see what you've been up to with your spare time...wow. I'm impressed. Anyway, maybe I'll start using this. I'll definitely keep checking up on you. Perhaps I'll add something in from time to time as well. See you on Thursday? Word. Bunderkin 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article, while still retaining its old name, has been merged with other lists of anime cons, comic book shows, horror cons, etc. and is now an indiscriminate hotchpotch of media shows, furrymeets, comics expositions, Creation "Cons" and everything else. I don't know what, if anything, we can do about it. The motivation appears (though I must AGF) to have been to make it easier for t-shirt dealers and the like to decide where to go on a given weekend, rather than for fans to find actual science fiction conventions. --Orange Mike 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your edits to Sabeel, and I wanted to explain why. First, there's a very contentious discussion about POV in the article, including the length of the Criticism section, at Talk:Sabeel. I agree that headers would make that section more "readable," but they also make it longer and give it more weight in the Contents. Before making the Criticism section any longer than it already is, please join the discussion at the Talk page.

Regarding the Church groups, the Churches passed resolutions that were "influenced" by Sabeel. Members of those Churches formed groups to influence Church policy and overturn those resolutions. As far as I can tell, that's an internal Church matter, not a Sabeel issue, unless you can show that these groups are opposed to Sabeel as well as the Church policies. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No relation. The lawyer is Malik Zulu Shabazz