User talk:Adrian Baker

Hi all

Im a newbie here, so if I upset or offend you, believe me, it is an accident!!

RE: Thanks for the welcome

No problem, it's nice when people drop by to say thanks. - Solar 22:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(PS Really nothing at all we would have in common?)

Classic Racing

Hi Adrian, welcome to Wikipedia. I found Classic Racing listed in the Dead-end pages. Don't worry, it's nothing serious - just a report that lists pages which don't have any wiki links either to or from them. (I guess the report was generated before there was a link from Motorcycle.) Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop's Stortford College

I am sorry if some of my changes were "not appreciated". However, it is my work you have chopped and changed in the first place, so I could really say the same thing about your changes - pots, kettles etc (and no, you do not have special privileges on Wikipedia because of your connections to the school)! But, to get down to specifics: Most of the people you added in your list of "spymasters and spycatchers" come with no explanation as to why they were - their description does not mention anything about links to the security services (Greenhill, Bracken, Crankshaw, Whelpton); teachers are not Old Stortfordians - they are former teachers, which is why I made a separate list; Bion's DNB entry says he was a pupil, not a master; you changed the link to Bion so it no longer linked to his article; we do not link "sir" (Collett, Cloutman, whose article does not say he was a knight, incidentally, although I'm perfectly happy to accept that he was if you know this to be true); preferred way to list the birthdate of a living person is "born xxxx", not "xxxx–"; "Lord Denis Greenhill" and "Viscount Brendan Bracken" are not correct usages of their titles (and I already had Greenhill's entry under his correct title - not sure why you changed it); your category change was simply wrong. In conclusion, I did not "delete" any of your work - I merely tidied it up, both in terms of fact and in terms of the way we do things on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure why you should object to this. As to your last point, there is no Wikipedia convention to discuss changes unless they are particularly controversial, which I do not believe these are, since I was merely copyediting and not deleting large chunks of anyone's work. -- Necrothesp 11:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some fair points Necrothesp - and as I did say, your tidying up is appreciated. I'll discuss this a little more on the relevant talk page, but I have no complaint with what you say above. Adrian Baker 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs some refs and infobox to be a "B" ... anychance? Victuallers 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Thank you for your kind comments. I'm a fromer teacher myself. I'm glad I was able to be of some assistence, and that my efforts here have had some positive effect, reaching beyond those I'm immediately in debate with. You might find the comments equally interesting on this site as well, where I have been active recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus-Myth This site and the other should probably merged into one, but you will find this discussion here also interesting, with the usual patterns of thought we'd expect to find exhibted therein. Thanks again. Giovanni33 03:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your post on the Talk:Jesus-Myth page

Thank you for responding to my post. I would like to refer you to my response to your post on the above named talk page[1], and I would like to say that I myself do not dispute the existence of the atom or of the Holocaust or of a spherical earth. I agree with your pointing out the reasonable criteria for accepting them as true. What I have a problem with is the high burden of proof that some editors that advocate that Jesus was just a myth impose just on Jesus. I am applying their skeptical criteria to other things in order to show how unreasonable their application of such criteria is. You make good points in your post. drboisclair 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breath of fresh air

Please stick around on the jesus/christianity pages as you are spot on with your analysis. I've tried to make the same points myself but in a sea of "well athiests do have faith really" and "how can you possibly doubt this or that about jesus" they get lost. I can see why science and religion clash - the difference in training and thought process means we are often speaking different languages. SOPHIA 22:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SOPHIA. Thanks for your kind comments. I'll keep in touch with the argument and perhaps I will return to the debate. It is futile though isn't it really? We shouldn't give up I suppose, but do you really expect to persuade christians to even understand the concept of a NPOV on religious arguments? We do have different thought processes but christian's religious zeal means that they are probably incapable of understanding where we come from. Correct use of the scientific method is designed to remove our inbuilt bias, and we are trained to see and understand that, but most christians certainly aren't trained to see theirs. One thing is for sure, ranting and raving like some do gets us nowhere! I'll keep visiting the jesus/christianity pages as you suggest, but I'm not keen to join in the kind of reverting wars that seem to be the standard of debate on many sites. Adrian Baker 00:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on once again - I'm not suggesting that you join our mad world - yes it's probably futile anyway. However little "rays of light" like your comments stop me feeling like I am the mad person and does demonstrate to the other side that "we are not alone"! My only purpose in all of this is to provide links to all the information that has been carefully kept from public view for all these years by those who feel that as we are not biblical historians we won't understand it all and therefore don't need to know it. If you read the gist of the debates that's what it's about - being given the data is wrong - we are only to be allowed certain interpretations of that data. SOPHIA 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

history of science

Adrian, since you're interested in history of science, you might considered joining Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science. May the Wiki be with you--ragesoss 01:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:T20side.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:T20side.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Memhall.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Memhall.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Lydden05.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lydden05.jpg, which you've attributed to Facebook. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]