Jump to content

User talk:Fishhead64/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Anglican sacraments

I would think that--although the current definition of course sadly remains in place--the fact that there is serious argument merits inclusion in the article. In the civil sphere, we have several articles on same-sex marriage in countries where it is not yet legally recognised, but the article simply discusses the debate itself (for nowe). Anyway, that's my tuppence. Carolynparrishfan 12:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anglican Eucharistic theology

I wonder if you'd like to take a look at Anglican Eucharistic theology? I've tried to synthesise various discrete discussions into one article. Perhaps you'll tell me what you think? Carolynparrishfan 16:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means Fishhead64 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A question about your recent edit on administration: Is this in fact the case? You would know better than I would, but it was my impression that at least in Canada we kept a fully open table. Carolynparrishfan 12:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The practice varies, depending on the piety of the priest and/or parish. I suppose (but don't know) that dioceses may have guidelines in this regard. The rubrics of the BCP state that it is the duty of a parish priest to refuse to administer Communion to those s/he knows to be living in "grievous sin" who refuse to repent, as well as to those in the congregation between whom "hatred and malice" exist. Similar rubrics exist in the American prayer book. The BAS is silent on the issue. In any event, the discretion of the priest has never been superceded by an injunction to communicate all who so desire, at least in North America. Given the more conservative nature of other provinces, I would be surprised to find anything more permissive there. Fishhead64 16:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Rcmp_food_5937.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rcmp_food_5937.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Fishhead64 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Is there no chance that you could take a photograph of RCMP officers in the uniform we don't have a picture of? Jkelly 23:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Alas, I am one of those luddites who still uses a manual (not even automatic!) camera, and I don't have a scanner. Fishhead64 00:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Buckingham Palace confirmed that Windsor is Queen Elizabeth's surname when facts in her article were being researched. Please don't remove it. It will be reinserted as per a long standing debate on the issue. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My interest was in bolding her birth name per Wiki policy. I'm not about to get into an edit war over her surname, for gawdsake. Fishhead64 23:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You made a number of errors in the edit.
  1. You added in that she was born Elizabeth . . ." That format is only used where someone changes their name, as with popes, etc. Elizabeth never changed her name: she simply has two. A regnal name, Elizabeth II, and a personal name.
  2. You rephrased the reference to Windsor to refer to the House of Windsor. That is in the article elsewhere. Royal House is only stated in the opening where some royal hasn't a surname. Elizabeth has a surname. Since 1917 British monarchs have had the same Royal House and surname, Windsor. Prior to that they had different ones; a surname Wettin and a Royal House name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
  3. You removed date of birth from brackets.

All the edits bar the bolding were wrong and had to be undone. The Manual of Style and the Naming Conventions cover the rules on WP articles. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be much more interested in this than I am :) Fishhead64 23:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Just got into it on WP because when I came here first the pages on royalty were a laughing stock. (They had the Prince of Wales down as Charles Windsor — they couldn't even get his surname, much less title, right!) So a gang of us turned the royalty pages from an embarrassing mess into proper encyclopaedic articles. (I spent a fortune on phonecalls to Buckingham Palace checking information, such as whether the Queen has a surname, and if so what is it.) As a historian I also like to see facts correct. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


BC History page/sections

Hi; just added some stuff to the '20s and '30s section of the British Columbia page; too lengthy but "draft" to cover the main points; can probably be moved in part or toto to the history page, and I didn't mean to be so Vancouver-centric either. All tricky stuff, and the closer we get to the modern era the more political/NPOV/delicate it's going to get (esp. the '80s and '90s, never mind the '00s). About what I put in - I thought the prohibition-related smuggling economy was worth a mention (cite is a book called Slow Boat on Rum Row by a guy whose job it was to sit in the middle of the fog-bound Strait of Juan de Fuca waiting for radio signals from Aldergrove to tell him when the freighter from Mexico would be at its rendezvous point off Port San Juan; I won't read it again, if you'd like it let me know and I'll send it over pro bono. Wanted to describe the labour troubles of the '30s better but not familiar with the material, and there's a point to the bit about the Soldier Parties that I'll have to narrow down after another read through Morton.Skookum1 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Judge Begbie

Hi. Just dropped by the Begbie page because of some changes someone made there (they were OK/good) and decided to make some comments on the Talk page there towards further expansion; you're kind of the bio guy lately for BC so I'm just giving you a heads-up in case there's anything you want to put together about him. My bit about the Tudor duds and the pugs comes from Donald J. Hauka's McGowan's War, which is one of the best histories of the earliest days of the mainland colony I think exists (if there are any better I doubt it and would like to know what they are). I've got other bits from Lillooet, where the Hanging Tree is supposedly connected to Begbie but there's no evidence the two hangings he commissioned there ever took place at The Tree. I've suggested on the Begbie talk page that a list of important/notable trials; the McLean Bros., Klatsassan, Kootenay Brown, Bill Miner, etc would be a good addition; any that come to mind?Skookum1 07:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Liquor Store vs LDB/LCS etc

Hi; just saw your removal of the Liquor Store listing in Canadian words, and I tend to agree except in regard to the use of the various folk-acronyms based on the name of the provincial liquor agency; LCB in the old days here, LDB now, apparently LCS and whatever else in other provinces. I'm wondering if instead of in Canadian words there maybe should be a List of Canadian acronyms: LDB, LCS, NAFTA, AFN, ICBC, BCRIC, JTF-2, DINA, UBCIC and all the rest. Quite a list if we ever started it, come to think of it...Skookum1 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Skookum, sorry that I didn't reply to your earlier notes - I've been re-fighting the Thirty Years War on the Roman Catholicism and related pages. My philosophy of Canadian words I included on the talk page that - I personally don't think that acronyms cut it. Basically, they're not words, they represent persons, places, and things using ordinary, common English words. Fishhead64 00:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to start on the Yakima, Cayuse and Palouse Wars for Indian Wars, and have engaged a discussion at Talk:Indian Wars about how the article shouldn't just be about the US (a problematic bias throughout the North American Indigenous People's WikiProject, as I'm discovering although not surprised by). So I hear you on the Thirty Years War thing (fascinating; I did a paper on the geopolitical transformation of the HRE as a result, don't think I have it anymore; had to do with the consolidation of small duchies and the enlargement of the Margravates eastwards, and all kinds of speciality-geopolitical issues at work). About acronyms: I'm old-fashioned, too, and went to bat against "VanCity" but apparently it's in text-talk and gen-XXX lingo, even though for me it's only a credit union. So with acronyms the reality is they're part of the spoken language, or at least many of them are. I don't think they should be on the Canadian words page either, or in the slang page or the Canadian English page either; other than perhaps as a special small section for really-used ones, i.e. heard in speech so regularly that they've become words. ICBC's like that, as we both know, and in the Canyon "DFO" is a dirty word. So while I agree about avoiding trendspeak and pointless acronyms, there are some that seem worthy/necessary to mention. The Liquor Store ones not importantly, though (I never use LDB, for instance, I still say LCB).Skookum1 00:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
PS it's "Skookum1", as in Skookum-one; kind of like a CB handle. Came from when I couldn't get skookum@telus.net and settled for skookum1@telus.net, but I've liked it ever since. Also my fido.ca email.Skookum1 00:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Lower Mainland business

Not a big deal, but FYI and possible amusement check out Talk:Lower Mainland. I should try and be more succinct with this stuff but it's beginning to be a campaign of sorts on my part; almost worth a book. "Cottage Country" for the Cariboo, "Southern Interior" for the southern Okanagan plsu the Boundary plus the West Kootenay, "Lake Country" as the rename for the Shuswap, and so on. I come from a place that doesn't exist any more, and what's left of it they changed the name to, and want to tear down. I'm pretty sensitive about having my geography renamed underneath me, as has also been being done in Vancouver of late in certain ways. The Lower Mainland thing really touched me off when I saw that the government's inclusion of the Sunshine Coast was being used as a Wiki-cite to revamp the Lower Mainland article; which is even more annoying because it's been revised into an ecoregion-based article as opposed to a cultural geography article. What's in a name? Lots, as we know.....Skookum1 17:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

United Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia

I've begun reworking your original-article text; please see Talk:United Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia.Skookum1 19:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

British Columbia Provincial Police

Someone had to write it, so I did, using http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/300/inditer/2000/10-10/bcpolice/bcp.htm and the Canadian Encylopedia entry. A bit of creative non-plagiarizing (games with syntax) from the lac-bac.gc.ca site; I was hoping you might go over it with a fine-tooth and see what could sound better. There's all kinds of famous cases here, and not a few scandals - the old force was notoriously corrupt, but I don't think you'll get their Veterans' Assn admitting to that or wanting to discuss it. Anyway, another history article that needs more work, just tossing it over to you if you're interested.Skookum1 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Lower Mainland?

Hi dere. Not sure if you're puttering by Lower Mainland ever, but I know you read a lot of BC history in your research; if you come by a usable definition/description of the Lower Mainland pls let me know or add it to that page; see Talk:Lower Mainland and you'll understand what's going on; wiki requirements for a valid cite had someone using the MoE's "Lower Mainland Region" as the "legal definition" of the Lower Mainland, but their region includes both upper and lower Sunshine Coast (Sunshine Coast and Powell River RDs) and I can't deal with that, not even a little bit. Still controversial because I can't find a cite to back me up, and non-BC editors are insisting I provide one. Much like the problems with writing about BC English or culture; because no one writes on these subjects, there are no cites/articles to refer to; so they can be treated as if they don't (or never) existed. Anyway, if you happen to know of a line in some book somewhere that defines the Lower Mainland let me know; my own boundaries for this are the border, the Skagit/Sumallo, Hope (maybe Yale, which isn't in the Interior but not really in the Lower Mainland either; but the Canyon is kind of its own world, although Lillooet is definitely the Interior, and so can be Lytton; but Boston Bar and Yale?); and on the NW the boundary is Lions Bay, more like Horseshoe Bay in fact as the term comes from pre-highway days. We all know the meaning of this term so well that I guess no one's ever stopped to define it "properly", much less legally. My other arguments discussions about this are on Talk:Lower Mainland. I think we should try and come up with a list of "traditional regions of BC", distinct from administrative divisions like RDs, LDs and ministerial bailiwicks. Lemme see, here's a preliminary list, with subareas:

  • Lower Mainland
    • Greater Vancouver
      • North Shore
      • Tricities/Northeast Sector/PoCoMo
      • Lower Fraser Valley (Surrey, Rmd, Delta are both Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley, and Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and New Westminster are all also referred to as being in the Lower Fraser Valley; Langley can also be Central Fraser Valley but usually ascribed to Lower Mainland; Mission and Abbotsford have been described as Lower Fraser Valley but they also have their own perspective as Central Fraser Valley. Maple Ridge is also obviously Fraser Valley, and Lower Fraser Valley to boot (not Central, although that certainly applies to Whonnock-Ruskin on the east end of the district).
    • Fraser Valley (see notes just above)
      • Lower Fraser Valley
      • Central Fraser Valley
      • Upper Fraser Valley
  • The Islands
    • Vancouver Island
      • Greater Victoria
        • Saanich Peninsula
        • Western Communities
      • Cowichan Valley
      • Greater Nanaimo (Chemainus to Parksville)
      • Comox Valley
      • North Island
      • Alberni Valley
      • West Coast ("Long Beach")
    • Southern Gulf Islands
    • Northern Gulf Islands
  • The Interior
    • Thompson
    • Fraser Canyon
    • Lillooet (old usage includes Pemberton Valley)
    • Cariboo
      • South Cariboo
    • Chilcotin (sometimes considered a subarea of Cariboo, but it isn't really; again that's a ministerial-allocation problem/history)
    • Okanagan
    • Shuswap (or Kamloops-Shuswap)
    • Kamloops-North Thompson
    • Nicola
    • Similkameen
    • Boundary
    • West Kootenay
    • Slocan
    • East Kootenay
    • Columbia (Big Bend, now in weather reports as Kinbasket, from Kinbasket Lake which flooded out the Big Bend)
    • The North
      • Omineca
      • Robson Valley
      • Bulkley Valley (Skeena-Bulkley is the real traditional region, though; which overlaps into North Coast at Terrace)
      • Peace District
      • Mackenzie District
    • Atlin District
    • Cassiar District
    • Stikine Plateau
  • Central Coast
  • North Coast
    • etc

On looking back and that I realize the traditional regions more than to do with the Interior than anywhere else; and you can tidy up my guesses at the Island(s), if you want.

BTW useful map: http://www.cayoosh.net/british_columbia_1896.png which I'm going to use in various articles, and also because boundary descriptions of things like RDs use the LD boundaries and they're not on another map in any useful fashion. Have to think about where I got this (online) before I can add it to a page, because of citability and GFDL ad all that.Skookum1 16:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

whoops that jpg shrinkage/fuzz was too much; here's some (larger) files in PNG format, including zoom-ins on Vancouver Island, SW BC (incl Okanagan and Thompson), and the Yale Land District (because of its subdivisions: Yale, Kamloops, Nicola and Okanagan). http://www.cayoosh.net/british_columbia_1896.png http://www.cayoosh.net/VIBritish_columbia_1896.png http://www.cayoosh.net/SWBritish_columbia_1896.png

http://www.cayoosh.net/YaleLDbritish_columbia_1896.png Skookum1 18:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that the definition of "Lower Mainland" is very informal, since it does not officially designate anything in particular. What I think it means (basically, everything south of Pemberton and west of Hope) may not be what someone in Prince George or Gibsons or Whistler or Clearbrook might think. The same goes for the other regions. After all, why not separate the Interior into the Southern Interior, the Northern Interior and the Central Interior? And why does that regional designation supersede others, such as the Okanagan, the Boundary, etc. Any articles need to reflect the diversity of viewpoints. Fishhead64 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Duchy of Lancaster

Simple answer: they're wrong. It's not too surprising, really, as it's a very common misconception, and you can't really expect the writers of Royal websites to be legal experts. It's a fundamental tenet of peerage law that the Sovereign cannot hold a peerage (hence the "merging in the Crown" of peerages held by someone who succeeds to the throne), and the title of "Duke of X" is associated only with a Dukedom, not a Duchy. As the Duchy of Lancaster article states, a Duchy is really a property company, and the "owner" of it is by no means a Duke. (The Royal website makes the same mistake, incidentally.) The best place to find out more is probably the newsgroup alt.talk.royalty, where the topic has doubtless been discussed many times. Proteus (Talk) 19:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond! Fishhead64 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is a cite from alt.talk.royalty that answers the question, and contradicts Proteus' assertion. Noisy | Talk 14:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Proteus is correct see my post at Talk:Duke_of_Lancaster for explanation. Alci12 16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

QEII

"I didn't post any links. Sheesh, have some perspective."

You introduced the whole "other side" argument. My remarks were therefore directed to the several comments above representing the opposing opinion - including the links that represented their opinion. Your post just happened to be last. It was not directed at you personally as the above ought to make obvious. Alci12 16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism

I am very sorry about that. I was using VandalProof, and sometimes when reverting a number a of previous edits, it will go back too far and remove good edits. I have only been using it for about a week, so I am not familiar with all its intricacies. It looks like you were able to go back to the last good version without much problem though, which is good. Now that I see what's happening, I'll make sure to be much more careful next time. - Dr. Zaret 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well good thing for the assume good faith rule. Saved my butt. - Dr. Zaret 15:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Zaret has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hi - Thanks for that, will see how i can help

Cities

I didn't mean to single out Saanich. I removed other like North Vancouver (district) before. Must have been re-added. It used to be that there were many many more. Even Whisler was on that list for some reason. --Arch26 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed all the non-cities from that list. I feel that this is an appropriate move and more importantly, it is now consistent with the same templates for other provinces (as far as I know) which only have true cities in there (for example, Fort McMurray is absent from the Alberta list as it is not actually a city, even though it is an urban area of city size). So, if you believe that non-cities MUST be in there, I recommend that you change the symantics so that the header is no longer "main cities", or you create a new header.
With reference to your last comment, yes, I agree with you. I think it should take the form of a new header (I don't know what that header is). It should also be made consistent across the country however, as I believe that these problems exist with other cities as well (I already pointed out For Mac which is NOT incoporated as such but still has a population of 70,000). What do you think? --Arch26 00:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe, it sohuld be changed from "city" to "place". That is the lingo that StatsCan sometimes uses. --Arch26 00:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's probably a good move. I'm just a little concerned about consistency. Seems that a lot of energy has been spent from other users making thiese things work across the board. I don't know how they'll react. --Arch26 00:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the Newfoundland template looks like a good example. A good place to start anyway. --Arch26 00:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
46! BC must have different rules about what constitutes a city than Alberta, because I think that's more than any other province. In Alberta for example, very few places under 20,000 are incorporated, even though some are technically allowed to be. And there are a few places over 20,000 that aren't either. Yet, in Saskatchewan, there are some very tiny cities (places that would never be a city in Alberta). Anyway, that's interesting. I would just make sure the list doesn't get too long. Should be easy to access information, and I'm not sure how many users visit Terrace, British Columbia's article enough to warrant having it in that particular list. --Arch26 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you two have worked out a good solution to the "city conundrum". Thanks for resolving this issue. --Ckatz 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mackenzie King

Ooops. My mistake. Thanks for catching it! --Alex S 17:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User pages

Hi. Just a note to let you know that you are occassionally posting your message to User pages rather than UserTalk pages. Also, if you are going to post this message many times, please take the time to have a quick read of WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming. Cheers TigerShark 23:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. No it is not wrong, but there are just a few guidelines that it is best to follow (which you'll find in the link). Cheers TigerShark 23:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglican History.

Thanks for your note. I would love to assist in any way I can, but I am not sure that I am really qualified to do so. I am a historian first and foremost, and have been busy spending a few sleepless hours correcting the many errors I have come across in these pages, including a few (two-from memory) on the history of the Church of England. Besides, I'm a Scot and a Presbyterian! Rcpaterson 00:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation

... but I'm afraid my input was one of clarification and iirc, a request for expert attention to clarify something that seemed a tad logically self-contradictory... but that was across several articles. IIRC, I was there because of related historical edits concerning the Protestant Reformation in general and the Counter-reformation. So I don't really think I can add much, being a fair to middlin' Roman Catholic. <g>

But thanks for asking. If you need a RC viewpoint on something in particular, feel free to ask! Best wishes! // FrankB 04:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My Denominations

I grew up in an Anglican church. It's called St. David's Anglican Church in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. Their sister church is an very old church Royal Church. That church is located in rural Prince Albert.

Now I go to Gateway Covenant Church in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. I have been going there for about 4 years or so.

I will move your message to my religion archives. Please feel free to post there. Mr. C.C. 06:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Thankyou kindly for your invitation, but I must decline. I do not know enough about Anglicanism. My edits were categorising that I later had to revert because I got the cats wrong! :D Dev 11:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Project Invitation

Hi - thanks for the invite to the Anglicanism project! I've be very interested in becoming involved. Hitherto I've been very much a part time Wikipedian, though I'm interested in becoming more heavily involved - I've never participated in a WikiProject before. I would be coming at the thing from a secular viewpoint, and I wouldn't call myself a Christian. That said, neither am I the sort of Dawkinsite that delights in rubbing moderate Christians up the wrong way. On the other hand, I'm quite a theology and church history geek - I hope this should help me fit in with a list of other editors that seems to be mostly made up of practising Christians. I suppose my areas would be the role of Anglicanism (from um, let's see... the British Civil Wars through to the Glorious Revolution) and UK church architecture - I live in the north of England, where we have the world's finest cathedrals :-) Do I sound like a good fit? Bedesboy 12:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't join your project. I am neither an Anglican nor somebody who knows alot about Anglicanism. I wrote the article on the Episcopal Diocese of California to cover a recent event. Most of my stuff is about California or the San Francisco Bay Area in particular. Dspserpico 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation. I started some of the Anglican articles soon after Wikipedia's birth, but lately I haven't had much time to keep up with Wikipedia. I'll see what little contributions I can make, though. Claudine C. (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your message in my Talk page. Appreciate the encouragement. Will try to contribute whenever I can but I can tell you up front that my main motivation is to ensure information from my side of the world is well represented in Wikipedia. The original 2 paragraph entry on the Church of the Province of South East Asia didn't really do much credit to a movement that has been in my country for more than 200 years :). -- Bob K, 04:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the invitation. It sounds interesting, though I may somewhat have shot my wad for the moment with my contributions on Anglicanism in Papua New Guinea; the Diocese of Qu'Appelle; St Paul's Cathedral, Regina; Morning Prayer; Evensong; Michael Peers; and minor tweaks here and there in Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. No doubt I'll recover my enthusiasm in due course. However, I shall keep my eye on the project and if anything strikes me as something I can make a useful contribution to, I shall do so. Masalai 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My involvement in Wiki, like that in genealogy, comes and goes, which is to say I'm bound to contribute here and there. Thanks for the invitation! Kencf 02:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Will see what I can do - although I dip in and out of wikipedia despite now coming up for 1000 mainspace edits! Most thinks relating to the Church of Ireland are weak, should probably concentrate my fire there, although I have a digital SLR and live and work in Central London so can supply London images as required. Gerry Lynch 14:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As you noticed I do some editing on Anglican topics but I tend not to formally join Wikipedia projects because then I feel under a (self-imposed) obligation which I would prefer not to be. Nonetheless, I wish you all the best and will continue to keep an eye on the main articles. Dabbler 12:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BC WikiProject

Hi; pretty sure you're signed up as one of the prospective BC wikiproject people, and you being the other main BC history maven here I thought I should give you a headsup; I expanded the draft tables I put on BC Wikiproject Draft Page and thought you might find them useful; I've only added sample entries, and there's lots more to be put in, including your bios and other articles on BC.Skookum1 23:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Fishhead. Your persistence in injustice makes me anything but cheery. If you had looked more closely at the the little revert war that was going on, you would see that the other person was trying very hard to block all references to the persecution of Catholics at the hands of your your church. The wording chosen made it seem like there was some kind of parity in the matter. That is a bald lie. Crimes against humanity are evils. And yes, Anglican evils against Catholics are innumerable. And you, faithful to your lineage persist in your Anglo-superiority complex in insisting that the Catholic Church not use its name on WP. Don't talk to me about civility when the collective result of your "civility" is cruel and wicked injustice.--Vaquero100 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


"Roman"

Fishhead. You use of "Roman" Catholic priest to identify me on the Anglicanism page was provocative. --Vaquero100 22:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead. I hope you had a nice walk, but it apparently did nothing for your disposition toward Catholics.

It was provocative in the context of this 2 month discussion, and you know it.

"Catholic priest" Google yields 3,110,000. --Vaquero100 01:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand your last comment. Of course this discussion is about the campaign by you and your fellows to eliminate the use of the Catholic Church's name. All the while your arguments have revolved around some moralistic claim that the Catholic Church should not use this name. The fact is that the Catholic Church does use this name. It is the only real world entity that does use this name and it is the most common meaning for this name. To force the Catholic Church to use some secondary name on WP is an injustice, and one you have thrown great effort toward. When will this anti-Catholicism end? We have a right to name ourselves every bit as much as Anglican have the right to call themselves "Catholic and Reformed."
I engaged in that little dance with you so you would know what it is like to have someone else define you. And it made you angry. Now you know how you have made many, many Catholics on WP feel with your constant edits and Talk page antics on the RCC page. You aparently need to experience this to have even the slightest empathy (of which I have yet to see any evidence on your part)-amazing for Anglican clergyman who by reputation tend to wiegh the complexity of every pastoral situation, even to the point of looking relativistic ---unless, aparently, this has to do with the name of the Catholic Church. --Vaquero100 01:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I do not oject to any church using the term catholic or even calling itself part of the Catholic Church acording to its own understand of that. I am not arguing religion here. I am arguing against a campaign to deprive the Catholic Church of the use of its name. That you have been most vocally a part of. And your fellow Anglicans have been doing the same across WP. Why does one group get to decide the name of another group? Frankly, I don't really care what the name of the Society of Catholic Priests calls itself. I really don't. They should call themselves whatever they want. I tinkered with their article name to make a point because this is exactly what you have done to the Catholic Church. Really, we Catholics would like to just be left alone. But anti-Catholic have dominated the Catholic pages on WP. This includes yourself, Fishhead. Just allow us to use our name for God's sake. It's not that complicated. --Vaquero100 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


It appears that we are literally "talking past" one another at the moment. Comical, really. Maybe there are a couple of things that you can learn from this. What you call give and take looks like domination when you have the upper hand. That gets other people angry. You need to know this, Fishhead. Your "courtesy" only comes across as smugness which is all the more maddening. I believe I DID have to get you angry to get you to see this. Note that it took 2 months for me to get to this point. Your tone comes across as superior like a cat playing with a mouse. Both in the real world and in WP, people have the right to name themselves. Please honor that. --Vaquero100 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism prj

Hi! Thanks for having invited me to take part at this project. I think one of the 1st things to do is to remake this article: Anglo-Catholicism. It is very low-churchly directed. Personally I felt offensed when I read it (I consider myself as high-churchly evangelical Catholic, although I use the BCP). I don't know, almost all the articles related to Anglicanism are too "low". - Waelsch 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Institutionalized discrimination in the case of anti-Catholicism

Fishhead. I too, have given a lot of thought to our discussions. As I have said before, I am sure that you are a decent person. And as you have said, we might like each other if we were to meet.

This has given me pause. I have been having trouble reconciling the disparity between a good person and his such completely wrong headed thinking. In truth we live in different worlds, and perhaps our differences are a result of "culture." While this may be accurate and at least lift some of the yolk of personal responsibility from the individual, it has not left me with any less concern for the present situation. We are not so easily freed from having to make moral judgements.

I am experimenting with the explanation of institutionalized discrimination of minorities. In England, there is a long history of anti-Catholicism just as there is a long history of racism in our collective European past. It is an interesting parallel that Catholics were blamed for the London fire in much the same way as Christians were blamed for the fire in Rome in the age of Nero. Minorities tend to be scapegoated. If they are despised, they often lose control over their own name. "Christian" is a good example. Originally a slur, it became the institutionalized name of the faith and was eventually accepted by the Church itself. (Although, after 2000 years, the Church has never forgotten the origin of its name. This fact is recalled better than much else we might like to know from the same era.)

It is clear that "Roman" is a term that comes from England and England alone. No other Protestant body shares the "branch theory" of Christianity. No other Protestant group has had the need to rename the Catholic Church. Yes, we all incorporate the creed, but historically German Lutherans changed "catholic" to "Christian" in the creed, a practice that is preserved today in the various Lutheran churches in the United States and other places, particularly but not exclusively those of German decent.

In the early days of the English Reformation it was clear that the "reformers" could not disparage Catholics directly as many of the English retained their Catholic sympathies. So, the venom was reserved for the Pope in particular. Anti-Catholic slurs in English all originate in this period and all reflect this disdain for the papacy. Eventually, the anti-Catholicism in England became more generalized even to the point of rejecting the episcopacy as well as the sacramental life of the Chruch. However, the slurs having originated in the earlier period, remained focused on Rome and the pope (with the exception of fisheaters and the like).

If "Roman" became acceptible to English Catholics, a small abused minority in the era of the Catholic Match, it is quite likely that this was under duress, especially as Catholic emancipation was more than two centuries in the future at that time. Clearly, whoever was involved could not speak for the Catholic Church as a whole. There is no documentation anywhere that at this or at any other time the Catholic Church had taken the decision to change its name to accommodate Anglican or anyone else's theological claims.

If "Roman" became acceptible as a compromise to Catholics in the period of the "Catholic Match" this was never the case in the rest of the Catholic world. "Roman" has not become part of the language in Italy, Spain or France. In fact, it is not part of the language in America either, except colloquially (that is, there is no insistance on the qualifier, "Roman."

In many places where the English (and therefore Anglicanism and the English language) dominated in age of their empire, understandably the use of "Roman" also spread. The U.S. is an interesting exception to this rule. The English lanuage remained but for the most part the English did not. After the Revolution the Tories went to Canada. Future English immigration to North American also went to Canada. Most of the cultural and religious influence in the U.S. then went to the Scottish Calvinists, hence the "P" in PECUSA, and congregationalist polity in a church called "Episcopal." (It took nearly 50 years for American jurisprudence to even recognize Catholic bishops!) And, consequently in America "Roman" in the forced sense is unknown among most Protestants, Catholics and even many ECUSA members. This forced sense was unknown to me as a Catholic who frequented ECUSA services growing up. Also, American immigration over the last two centuries has included a great number of Catholics from other language groups. In all of the other languages "Catholic Church" was not just the norm, but the only name for the Church.

Today, in an age of neo-conservatism, some pious American Catholics like to say "Roman" because of the popularity of John Paul II, their conservative sympathies, and because liberal Catholics like to refer to the "American Catholic Church." (It is very similar to the French 19th Century ultra-montanism movement in opposition to Gallicanism.) But even these Catholics would never use "Roman" for the reasons you site. Even these Catholics know that the name of the Catholic Church is such. Like "Christian," "Roman," originating in a slur, has been turned into something positive. Likewise, however, as "Christian" has never become the name of the Church, neither has "Roman."

I live in a seminary with missionaries coming and going from around the world, as well as bishops and other religious who have lived in Rome and worked extensively with the Roman curia. None is ashamed of Rome and we have a great affection for our popes over the years. As I have discussed this argument on WP, no one here is confused about the name of the Church. "Roman" for us is employed sometimes in the pious sense "I love being a 'Roman' Catholic," or occasionally on a parish sign when there is a Polish National Catholic Church or an Anglo-Catholic church in the same neighborhood using the term "Catholic" deceptively to gain unwitting new members looking for a Catholic Church. (This has happened often with Mexican immigrants, whose Baptismal certificates I have personally had to procure from these other parishes.)

My conclusion is that the tendancy to "correct" every instance of the use of "Catholic" with the qualifier, "Roman" is something that Anglicans can get away with where they are socially dominant. This then is how they behave in a public arena where it might otherwise be assumed uncivil.

While other Christians do use the creed with the term "Catholic" or "catholic" intact, they do not have this tendancy to "correct" instances of unqualified Catholic Church references. When the Orthodox call themselves "the Orthodox" I have no problem with that. That is the name they have chosen. Use of such a name does not imply that Catholics or others cannot claim to be Orthodox also. In fact, we do. To my knowledge the Catholic Church has never told another church how to name itself. Nor do Christians generally get into debates about their respective churches' names. That would be silly. In fact, in a truly pluralistic society, such a discussion is absurd. One learns to let others be. One learns to say "ok, I dont agree with it, but its not my business what they do or say or call themselves." Unless it is a question of life and death, like abortion, we don't get into moral arguments with other believers or non-believers. What would be the point?

Still, we have this one glaring example of Anglicans, yes, Anglicans, who have inherited a birthright, they believe, to rename the Catholic Church. This is where institutionalized discrimination built upon centuries of being dominant comes in. This is how a good person can be so utterly wrong-headed. This is how even a good person can justify himself by saying "everybody else does it." (Including every person who recites the creed on Sunday as an advocate of renaming the Catholic Church is a prime example.) This is institutionalized discrimination by a former majority: a sense of privilege or birthright to control others, perhaps it is the last vestige of Empire in Anglo cultures. This at least agrees with Philip Jenkins' book. He speculated that while old style anti-Catholicism is on the wane among Protestants, it would soon increase among liberal Protestant churches with female and gay clergy as feminism and the gay movement are the driving forces of the new Anti-Catholicism.

I have seen institutionalized racism in the American South where I grew up. I even participated in the mindset unwittingly. I hope I have changed my mentality, but since this is not personal opinion but one's perception of reality shaped by the social environment, one cannot always be sure what his biases really are.

I don't say all this, Fishhead, to blame or absolve. It is just the only way I can reconcile the disparity between who you are and the way you think. For it is simply untenable in human discourse that one party should insist on how another party is named. This is not just a WP squabble, but a moral matter I'd invite you to consider seriously. --Vaquero100 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I could write a much longer discourse on why the OED got it wrong. "Oxford" explains a lot. There are very good reasons for this dictionary to get it wrong!

Possibly there is a certain element of ethnic and sectarian isolation involved in this person's challenge to the entirely non-pejorative use of the qualifier "Roman." In places other than where this person appears to live there are Ukrainian Catholics, Greek Catholics, Melkite Greek Catholics and a range of other uniat denominations in communion with Rome but not following the western rite. There is no putdown involved in being clear in one's references. Masalai 23:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your query about language legislation in Saskatchewan

Yes, English and French are both official, and no provincial legislation required. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the 1980s, indeed, that every Act of the Saskatchewan legislature to date was deemed null and void because none was enacted in French as well as English; there was a brief holiday granted to allow the laws of the province to remain in force while French translations were provided. This was a result of Saskatchewan (and Alberta) having been formed out of the North-West Territories. Masalai 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AWB

I am not using AWB. Fishhead. This is not POV pushing. This is using the accurate name of the Catholic Church. "Roman" is POV. Vaquero100 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


If you are taling about the Sacraments article, that was a week ago. You have been away awhile. Welcome back. Vaquero100 22:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Altars

No. you're wrong. Please correct this. Canonically, the distinction is between moveable and immoveable. Freestanding versus against the wall is an artistic, architectural distinction. Any altar permanently placed and affixed to the floor is a fixed altar. Whether or not it is fixed to the wall or freestanding is a non-canonical distinction.HarvardOxon 00:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the article. It is not about "your tradition." It is about altars in the history of Christianity, and makes ample reference to Catholicism, and Anglicanism which follows in that tradition. mI have several degrees in Roman Catholic theology, history and canon law. If the whole section is going into details about Medieval Catholic practice, Vatican II, etc., I'm not sure why your forcing it into your understanding of "your tradition." Furthermore, as stated above, you are dividing apples and oranges: there are two different questions: canonically, what is an altar (movable or portable) and architecturally what is it (frestanding or against the wall). By mixing those all together and then dividing up catholic and Orthodox altars according to (I'll take your word for it, but I wonder) the Anglican canon law distinction, you make the article inaccurate. It wa sperfectly fine, why change it???HarvardOxon 00:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


NO No No. Why do you insist on fiddlinhg arou8nhd withy things you have manifestly shown you do not understand??? No, "In the Roman Rite, it describes free-standing altars generally." No No NO. A portable altar is not the same thing. The two terms have nothing 2whatever to do with each other. If you don't know the material, if you do not know Catholic canon law, please stop fiddling around with things you do not have knolwedge of.HarvardOxon 06:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic marriage → Roman Catholic views of marriage etal

You do know that any user can do a move if the target name is not being used, right? WP:RM is for moves that might be contested or require an admin. Vegaswikian 05:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Yea I have seen that some people are not happy with these moves. But given the track record and the logic they will happen that's why I suggested the move on the ones with red links. Your choice, but I beleive they will happen. Vegaswikian 05:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM

In response to your recent request for page moves, please read Wikipedia:Requested_moves#What_requested_moves_are_not_for:, and modify your request to fufill these requirements. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was a bit vague when I first asked you. It was 4:35 in the morning here and I was tired, but that is no excuse. Anyway, categories to be renamed should be listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum

Please see RE BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum re: Talk:List of United States military history events#Border Commission troops in the Pacific Northwest. If you think maybe I should also move some or copy some of my other stuff from NW history and BC history pages let me know; I never mean to blog, but I'm voluble and to me everything's interconnected; never meaning to dominate a page so have made this area to post my historical rambles on. Thoughts?Skookum1 03:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

McGowan's War FYI

Just expanded on a recent expansion of the original McGowan's War stub I created; thought you might be interested; and as with anyone into BC history, I highly recommend the Donald Hauka book listed in the refs; covers a lot of ground other than McGowan's War per se; snippets of life in Victoria that are really neat (Begbie with his silk-leashed pugs and Elizabethan courtier's outfit is such an amazing window on his character away from saddlebag justice). More fixes are needed and I'll be trying to dig up faces and maps to go with the article; which given I through-wrote it could probably use some grammar/sentence-breaking work. A great story, and important to BC history; it's got me going now on finally writing the Fraser Canyon War, maybe by tomorrow night (have to go to a barbeque today, thank heaven for the sun over here, unlike yesterday). I know you don't usually respond to me, and may have found some of my opining very un-p.c., but I'm of the old "tell it like it is" school and really hope we can all collaborate friendly-wise; the point of the BC&PacNW History Forum is a repository for map and resource materials, and discussion or lexicons that are too unwieldy for a usual wiki page (e.g. [[Chinook Jargon's word list has been getting over-long - not just my fault, either - and should be "somewhere" other than on its main page). Best regards, and have another item for you following in next message/edit which relates to Island history.Skookum1 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hans Lars Helgesen (MLA Esquimalt 1878-1886)

Created this the other day after coming across it in Strangers Entertained, which I gather you may have seen (1871 Centennial Committee publication on ethnic groups in BC). Although a Cariboozer, Helgesen wound up representing Esquimalt 1878-1886 and, if I recall right, was also a cabinet minister; one of the first non-Britons (and/or non-canadien) to be so in Canada; he ran for office twice more in 1890 and 1894 but then retired from politics. This is only a stub as I know there's other bits on him in Morton and Akrigg. But given that there may be more on him in Island history that you may know about that I don't, I thought I'd let you know this bio has been begun; if you can add or check anything, please do. (No, even though he's Norwegian Canadian we're not related...not that I know of, anyway....)Skookum1 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fraser Canyon War

Just winged it in one sitting; have to check back with the books later but I think you'll enjoy it; quite the tale...Skookum1 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

BC Stubs

Pls see User talk:Agent 86#RE: another category of stub neededSkookum1 18:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking comments on talk page - Reply

I don't understand why you blanked my comments here? Fishhead64 04:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether I've done that, but see: User talk:Cyde#Help - a bug. In case that I done it, my apologies. Sijo Ripa 12:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You're invited :)

WikiProject on Bodybuilding Please accept this invite to join the new WikiProject Bodybuilding, a WikiProject dedicated to improving bodybuilding related articles. Simply click here to accept! Addbot (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fraser 1808

From your just-recent edit to the Vancouver page:

The explorer and North West Company trader Simon Fraser and his crew were the first Europeans known to have visited the site of the present-day city. In 1808, they descended the Fraser River as far as Point Grey, near the University of British Columbia

Actually they didn't quite make it as far as saltwater, being driven back in the area of Marpole by irate Musqueam who were upset at the conduct of unknown Boston traders who had visited/raided recently; or so the story goes (I think it's in Matthews). I've just been browsing Alan Morley's book and IIRC there was some contact between the Musqueams and the Spanish, although it doesn't sound like the latter landed. But definitely Simon Fraser didn't make it to Point Grey; more like Oak Street; the great shell midden was in the area of the Fraser Arms Hotel, and that was decidedly Musqueam/Mahlie turf; I think either Morley or Matthews is pretty specific about the location, which gets fudged in latter-day rehashes; as with the monument to Lucklucky, the site where Gassy Jack started his plank-cum-saloon operation, which is a good 100 yards or more north in what used to be open water; and didn't Vancouver land at Qwhy-qwhy (Lumberman's Arch)?Skookum1 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism project worklist

Hi Fishhead, I've started putting together a worklist/assessment page for the project which is currently located at User:Wine Guy/Sandbox. As you are the founder of the project, I'd very much like to get your feedback before I move it into the project space. I'm creating this partially in response to a request from the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team to identify "key articles", and it also seems a handy way to organise and identify articles which are important to the subject. Once I get a reasonable start (the next day or two), I'll move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anglicanism/Assessment, unless you feel there's a better place for it. I hope you'll have a chance to look over what's there so far and drop a note on my talk page. Thanks for your help. Cheers! --Wine Guy Talk 23:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anglicanism/Assessment. --Wine Guy Talk 01:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman mediation

Hello, I have volunteered to mediate this case. Please see my comments over at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman. Thanks! Fishhead64 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fishhead, but I'm really just an observer to the mess. I'll kick in whatever I can. I'm not sure if the disputing parties will really come to the table. Sandy 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Crown and politics

The Crown plays a (symbolic) role in Australian government, but has no role in Australian politics. Adam 22:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic sacraments

It seems like you were involved in the discussion around the name of Roman Catholic sacraments and the disambiguation of Catholic sacraments however, these pages were moved, what seems like out of process today. I do not want to get involved in this conflict, however since you were initially involved on the talk page, I thought I'd at least bring it up to you.--Andrew c 20:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bishop categories

As I discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism#Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in England, I'm trying to sort Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in England, as a precursor to doing all the bishops categories. Any help (or drumming up of help) would be most appreciated, as it's a large task! :-)[[User:Neddyseagoon | [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 22:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicola (chief) FYI

Not in your line of bios, but a bio and thought you might find it intersting; also sent a mail to Vancouver Wikipedians but I don't know who's even checking that group now....we gotta try and unfizzle it at some point maybe. Nicola's the first in a series - David Spintlum, Hunter Jack, August Jack and others all need good bios as well as Simon Gunanoot and Slumach; characters as well as political figures. Hope you like the Nicola article; he's got mystique still in the Interior and I was never sure of the details before, until the writing of this (thanks to a scanned copy of certain chapters of Teit).Skookum1 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC) PS if you can think of any relevant categories - he's a First Nations leader, can he not also be a provincial/colonial leader? Or is First Nations leaders a subcat of BC politicians cats? Will figure out when I'm back from Lillooet next week...Skookum1 07:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

List of dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada/List of Anglican Church of Canada dioceses

One or the other of these two items could obviously be deleted; alas, the procedure for doing so is quite beyond me. Would you care to do the honours? (Both are mentioned in the Anglican Church of Canada article.) Masalai 10:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Fishhead! You're a plagiarist!

Plagiarised lock-stock and barrel from http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/dnzb/Find_Quick.asp?PersonEssay=1S5

Looks like a straightforward cut-n-paste job to me. That's what scholarship is really about! Am I right?

Now in normal circumstances, if this oversized weblog had any scholarship (or know what that meant) or had any scruples, they would delete the article and throw your cheating ass from the project. But they won't because it's much better to block an IP address and delete this from the discussion (and from the histories). And then someone will deal with the "slight problem of provenance" later on.

PS To the admins who will undoubtedly use any unproveable excuse as a justification for censorship of the truth

I am not a sockpuppet of anyone
I am not a formerly banned editor
You can only get a sysop bit when you can demonstrate you have no shame or conscience.
You see that bit at the bottom of the edit screen that says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted"? It's only for show.
  • Although I disapprove of John A's confrontational tone, and disagree with many of his conclusions, I must concur with his assessment that you copied the content of the article on George Augustus Selwyn from the aforementioned website, and... oh my. Wait.

I'm terribly sorry, it appears that the inappropriate material was added by User:Frederica Horne instead, and that your edits (which followed hers) were limited to adjusting the material to meet Wikipedia formatting standards. DS 14:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise to Fishhead64

Dear Fishhead64

In a previous excitable post I accused you of plagiarism. It has been pointed out to me that that is not true. The article concerned had been plagiarized to be true, but not by you.

You were an innocent bystander shot in the crossfire because you were the last person to edit the discussion page.

I unreservedly apologize for my actions in falsely accusing you of plagiarism. I'm sure you share my distaste for plagiarism and the need to deal strongly with the cheats who do it.

Sincerely

John A --86.142.246.231 14:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim Webb

Webb own't be a senator until he's sworn in on January 3, 2007. Please don't prematurely assign him to the seat. -Will Beback 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The protocol is found in WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". As a rule we seek to wait until an event ahs occured before we presume it will occur. So it's OK to that Webb is a senator elect, but it is premature to say that he is a senator. The same applies to every elected politician prior to their swearing-in. That's the dogmatic side. The pragmatic side is that countless new and old users are adding the designation despite the rules, even when asked to stop. That makes it counterproductive to waste time on stanching the flow. We can wait a week, when everyone has moved on, and fix it then, or wait two months and fix it in another way. So Tester is caught on one side of the pragmatic/dogmatic divide, and Webb the other. Yes, they should be handlded similarly. If you can suggest an effective editing strategy in this regard I'd be happy to hear it. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver

This is an important message being sent out too all participants. We are currently recalling our list of participants. Any one who is inactive in the project will be moved to the "inactive" list respectively. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vancouver#ROLL_CALL_-_All_Read|the project talk page for more details]] -- Selmo (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Amy Klobuchar

To delay posting her as the "current" Senator is fair, because she doesn't take office until January. To cite "wiki is not a crystal ball" is misleading, because the election was held and she won. To state, for example, that the Super Bowl is scheduled to be in a certain stadium in a certain year, also doesn't mean it will be, because you never know when an earthquake will happen, or a players' strike; but I don't think the "crystal ball" rule would apply there, either. Wahkeenah 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fishhead64/Archive_2&oldid=1143003298"