User talk:Fishhead64/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA

We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Via Media POV

Fishhead, I respect your opinion concerning the Anglican Communion. Many people wish that it were a "Via Media" and it has tried to embody that to a great degree. I too wish that it was more than a sentament from the time of the tractarians. I notice that your intrests extend to Roman Catholic history, liturgy and theology. I happen to sympathize and am moving East.

The common sentiment I hear on Wikipedia articles is something like this, "Anglicanism is something apart from Protestantism, it is widely considered via media between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism." I believe this to be a POV and not representative of the facts.

I would answer this statement first by pointing out that Lutheranism is also a "via media between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism."

Just because it is a via media between Roman Catholics and Protestants doe snot mean that it is NOT PROTESTANT. Just ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian if Anglicans are Protestant. Historical Protestant in my opinion should be catholic Protestant, from the Magisterial Reformation and therefore should exclude the Radical Reformation and any group which does not baptize infants. As the main article on Denominations indicates, only Lutherans officially protested anything anyway and they are much more catholic than Calvinists and Evangelicals. I myself come from a High Church (small "c" catholic) Presbyterian tradition and find I have much in common with my friends in Continuing Anglican churches.

Historically, Anglicanism is more like they are a via media between Calvinism and Lutheranism. The liturgy is very Lutheran in character while the Eucharistic theology is close to that of Calvin. Take for instance the Prayer Book of 1559. The High Church party loved it for it's catholic character and explicit epiclesis, while Cramner loved it for it's evangelical power and ambiguity. If anything, Anglicanism is intentionally ambiguous.

There is a lot of latitude within the Anglican Communion. In fact it's demographic is moving south very fast, by that I mean to the very evangelical African con tenant. The Anglicans there are much more smiler to conservative (sometimes charismatic) evangelical protestants.

Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans have much more in common with each other than they do with Pentecostals (groups of these who mimic pentecostals today not withstanding). I have absolutely nothing in common with a Pentecostal, except that I was raised pentecostal. We don't share any of the same beliefs. You can not arbitrarily create a umbrella called "Protestantism" and force every one but Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox into it and then arbitrarily yank Anglicans out too. At the very least, Restorationists, Pentecostals, and Non-Trinitarians should not be included. The Reformers would be rolling in their grave. And such a position is very inclusive because it does not separate the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists, and Baptists, and Brethren, etc). This craziness is like including the Assyrian Church of the East in with the Autocephulous Churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The dream of a via media is just that a dream. I wish it were true. The words of Rev. Alban Waggener, former continuing Anglican pastor, express my own frustration: "I believe that if things had been different we might have ended up restoring the faith of Holy England as it had been before William the Conqueror... I spent from 1989 until 2006 in that body, the few bodies of that group, hoping I suppose that that might be finally an opportunity to accomplish what I always thought was the true destiny of Anglicanism, to be the Western Orthodox Church. But I and four other people believed that, so it didn't get very far."

If Pentecostals are Protestant, then the word Protestant only denotes a category of Christian denominations not Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. In this case, Anglicans are most assuredly Protestant. They are closest in theology to Lutherans and high church (or small "c" catholic) Presbyterians. Pentecostals have nothing in common with these three "Magisterial Reformation" churches.--76.194.207.158 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

→---------------------------------------------------

A few responses:

"The common sentiment I hear on Wikipedia articles is something like this, "Anglicanism is something apart from Protestantism, it is widely considered via media between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism." I believe this to be a POV and not representative of the facts."

See bullet 3 [1]

The word Catholic appears twice, protestant never. [2]

More: [3]

If it is POV, it is POV of self identification, and just as relevent as the Eastern Church's claim to be the "Orthodox" Church or that of Rome's claim of being the only "Catholic" Church.

"Take for instance the Prayer Book of 1559. The High Church party loved it for it's catholic character and explicit epiclesis, while Cramner loved it for it's evangelical power and ambiguity. If anything, Anglicanism is intentionally ambiguous."

NONSENSE! Cranmer had been incinerated in 1556 and therefore had no opinion on Parker's 1559 Prayer book. The book and Anglicanism are intentionally ambiguous as they strive to be neither Roman nor Protestant.

"I would answer this statement first by pointing out that Lutheranism is also a "via media between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.""

Lutheranism IS Protestantism, I am sure you know the origin of the word. To claim those who protested at the Imperial Diet were not Protestant is not POV, it is wrong.

"Just because it is a via media between Roman Catholics and Protestants doe snot mean that it is NOT PROTESTANT. Just ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian if Anglicans are Protestant."

Their POV is just, that a non NPOV.

"Historical Protestant in my opinion should be catholic Protestant, from the Magisterial Reformation and therefore should exclude the Radical Reformation and any group which does not baptize infants."

With all respect, your POV is just another POV.

"Historically, Anglicanism is more like they are a via media between Calvinism and Lutheranism. The liturgy is very Lutheran in character while the Eucharistic theology is close to that of Calvin."

The liturgy is largely based of off the old Sarum Rite. Since the Oxford Movement and later Vatican II, there are now many Anglican churches that have masses that are more "Catholic" then current Roman massss, at least as Catholic mass would have been understood at the time of Trent. As for Eucharistic theology, it ranges from "real presence" all the way up to and including transubstantaion. Some may take a Calvinist approach, but certainly not a majority, or even a plurality. Most faithful believe in something between Geneva and Rome, neither Protestant nor Catholic. Even Lutheran's do not reserve the sacrament, which all but the lowest of low do in Anglicanism. In the last century, benediction has caught on in some Anglo Catholic communities. Calvin would would explode with anger if he knew.

It is not my place to decide who else is or is not Protestant, but for historical, theological, and notions of self identity, it would be incorrect to refer to Anglicans solely as Protestant.

A body of literature backs this up and if you disagree, remember: WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.

Best wishes, -- SECisek 11:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

→---------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

I do believe there are Lutheran's who would reserve the sacrament, and I would too if I were the pastor / father of our parish. One Lutheran pastor I knew stopped reserving the sacrament because a thief broke into the temple and drank some of the consecrated wine. He felt compelled from that time on to ensure that all the holy blood was consumed at the time of Eucharist in order to prevent such inadvertent blaspheme on the part of the ignorant.

Of course the Prayerbook of the Church of Scotland was much more Catholic than the previous ones, containing an explicit epiclesis that even the Liturgy of St. Gregory in Rome did not have at that time. I love the DeJurs, or however you spell those great catholic, pre-tractarians. And Lancelot Andrews, a true Hierarch.

The website you sent me to say they are Catholic and Reformed. My own parish's website [4] does not refer to our parish as protestant but as Reformed and Evangelical. It does not say that we are Catholic, so this is a problem of self identification, though we are. Just not enough for me. [5] is another website of Reformed Catholics and [6] Pastor Johnson's parish in Phoenix area.

I am not in a pissing contest. I apologize for and retract all false statements. I also realize I have a point of view about the three hands of Augustinian, Catholic, Western Orthodoxy (Lutheran, Anglican, & Reformed). But this comes from an established category, the Magisterial Reformation as opposed to the Radical Reformation. Historically the Church of England came out of the Magisterial Reformation and was heavily influenced by both Calvinists and Lutherans. Groups within each of the "Thee Hands of Western Orthodoxy" wish their Provinces were more Catholic. Sadly many are going the way of Saddleback Church rather than Antioch and Jerusalem.

And the fact, not POV, is that the Anglican Communion is, or will be composed mostly of Provinces in the Southern Hemisphere, where they are obviously more evangelical and charismatic, being evangelized primarily by the low church party of the COE. That is not POV, but a fact that the majority demographic in the AC may soon be evangelical through and through.

It has been nice to talk to you. --76.194.207.158 12:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Victoria_flag.gif listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Victoria_flag.gif has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

This is NOT vandalism.. I just do not know how to write to someone on Wikipedia otherwise.. My comment is that I find that you edit/delete items on here strongly based on the way you live your life. That is unfair when considering the context of the background of Wikipedia.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Glad to see your wiki-fasting is ended--you might want to remove the notice from your user and user talk pages that says you will be back after Easter--or else expand the notice so that people realize the timepoint of your return is a fifty-day period and not just the first Sunday after the first full moon after equinox. :-) --Bhuck 10:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Dear Fishhead64, I read your accusation that I am posting POV material out of denominational pride. It is you, sir, with your threat of censorship, who fails the NPOV test. The image to which I linked does not, as you claim, indicate that the " RC Church is the undeviating original", but rather shows it and the Eastern Orthodox as similarly diverging at the same time. Perhaps your first objection has to do with the fact that image has the characteristic of showing the relative numbers of adherents of each branch - the width of the largest branch is accurately about half of the total of all of the line widths. This is an objective representation. It is also not NPOV to obscure the protestant nature of the Anglican Communion. The word "protestant" is even part of the formal name of the primary Anglican church in the United States. The Church of Ireland missionaries say,'As an Anglican Evangelical Mission Society, we are a Protestant and Reformed Agency'. The British monarch swears an oath to maintain "the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". Whatever else the Anglican Communion is, it also protestant in nature, and to ignore that fact is distinctly a minority POV. 71.245.167.64 03:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches all profess the Nicene Creed and also define themselves as reformed and catholic. The Anglican Church is not distinctive in that regard. In any case, the purpose of the image depicting the major branches of Christianity is to show how they branched, not to describe the nuances of the theologies of the branches. It is a fact that the branches differ in size. If you believe that the size of a religious group is indicative of its validity, then perhaps you should reconsider your own affiliation; if you believe otherwise, then you shouldn't object to that characteristic being depicted. 71.245.167.64 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Incidentally

As I understand the new rules, I have to ask you first before I nominate you to be an administrator.

Want to be an administrator? DS 23:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"What could go wrong", you ask. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! ... ahem. We have had people desysopped in disgrace. Anyway, before you decide, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, and let me know. DS 01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Go here to accept your nomination. DS 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Schism (religion)

There is a survey at Talk:Schism (religion) regarding the choice of the best schematic drawing. Since you (and every one but a certain editor) has reverted to the older version, you may want to add a comment. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast

---

8000 years

I think the oldest archaological site on the Island is up by the Brooks Peninsula or Quatsino Sound, although that might be a subsea site like those they've been working on finding lately. That's the only valid date that can actually be cited, although the consensus is always that people settled here shortly after the ice withdrew, which was also the case in Scandinavia etc. so glacial-withdrawal seems to be the other viable date; this is the approach used by the Sto:lo Historical Atlas and I've seen Sechelt, Nuxalk etc legends which clearly are about the withdrawal of the ice; as also is the Story of chinook-wind on chinook wind, which is about the retreat of the Place Glacier (near Birken). Anyway, tidied up the language a bit there but I think there's citable archaeological digs out there, though AFAIK nothing as old as Xa:ytem or other sites as old like Keatley Creek or the Scowlitz Mounds.Skookum1 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator, and with a very large majority in support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 13:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Fishhead64!! Didn't meant to be impolite but your page has been on my watchlist since our last correspondence. At last - the BC WikiProject has an admin member (unless someone there hasn't been telling). I'm leaving Wikipedia myself within the next ten days or so....long story (email me if you want to know) but rampaging through un-made articles and fixes before I'm gone...Skookum1 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

G'day and congratulations from downunder. I look forward to seeing your good work. Cheers--VS ^talk 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!! I've already seen you at work on AIV :) - Alison^☺ 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I was gonna wiite you about what's goin' on but I lot my glasses earlie and it's too cumbersome working with the screen on increase++++ so this is being typed near-blind. I was wanting to explain to you by private email about everything but your Wikimail isn't switched on; you can contact me also through my email which is on www.cayoosh.net or www.myspace.com/tamanassman's message system. I"m afraid I got a little, er, heated - no, that's not quite the word - "vehement" - just now with User:TheMightyQuill who means well but in my eperience over judges the intent of otherse' edits; I have an issue with the Japanese internments page (and so many others) which says some truisms about why I won't miss some of what Wiki tends towards, but wanted to comment to you that if you happend to read it that's actually incidental and more by way of colourful language (though still true); anyway, perhaps you'd care to mediate th the content issue under dispete here, as I think you understand where I'm coming from through all the customary verbiage eand tangentiality; I'm not trying to soft-soap anything; I'm making sure that the laundry being used to wash history doesn't have too much lye in it. I won't recount the debate here, but it has to do with whether or not "self-supporting centres" were "inernment camps" or not; the NAJC definfes them didstinctly, a veteran o the self-suppotting centres also makes a point of it. That's not good enough for TheMightyQuill. Why do poeple only go from modern rehasses of history, with all their political overload built into the curriculum/content, instead of actually reading source materials, and studying more abotu the era than just the one event/aspect that they're only interested in. Wahtever; I can barely see and would rathe be playing music, although I may pause and write a list page (which I can do blind, unlike this which needs thinking about/typographical care). But to heck with it (I didn't say H**l because you're a priest ;-) ) I'll leave off and hopefully there's not too many typos in the proceedings....and no, the specs aren't here....;ost 'em on the bus it seems.Skookum1 07:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW you're just the person for me to give my Mission to Nootka, by Father Brabant, ed. Charles Lillard, which is Brabant's journal of his posting to Hesquit and Matlahaw's attack and lots more on Nuu-chah-nulth life and politics, belief, custom etc. It's not my area of BC for keeping books around on (otherwise I'd have A-G Morice, Lejuene and all the rest o that stuff here); but I'm 'downsizing' and am reducing my library; for now this next week only keeping my core Lillooet stuff, having loaned the rest of my hsitory stuff to my friend who runs http://www.fortlangley.ca (if you ever need something looked up, she has my books) but noticed Brabant just after I posted here; I'll vbe coming to victoria in May - intending on playing on the Causeway and who knows where else (I don't busk, just have fun....athough I might put out a hat on the Causeway) or I could mail it to you, as it's small; booklet sized, not even 1/2 inch think. Anyway, still typing blind. G'nite.Skookum1 07:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Just saw your post on the talkpage. I've looked through your recent edits and there doesn't seem anything obviously wrong with the discussions you've closed. What do you mean by "archived discussions"? WjBscribe 06:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No those are the ones that need to be closed because they've been there more than 5 days. That's exactly the ones you should be closing :-). WjBscribe 06:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The heading is "Old discussions". The bit in brackets below about archived discussions is a link not a description of the pages below... WjBscribe 06:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir James Douglas

I see that you have moved this page back. I find this move back rather annoying, Sir James Douglas was the first of his name on historic record, a great hero of the wars of Scottish Independence, and furthermore was known as Sir James within his lifetime and by contemporary chroniclers, a name also by which he is known today. The disambiguation problems by calling him the Black Douglas arise because all Earls of Douglas and their close kindred from the 3rd Earl of Douglas to the ninth were known as Black Douglas. This to differentiate betrween them and the Red Douglas Earls of Angus. Sir James was feudal superior of the barony of Douglas, called commonly today a lairdship, but know then as the lordship of Douglas, this was not a title in peerage, as this had not been formally rationalised at this date. The name James which has been used as a common name throughout the history of the House of Douglas is in regard of this early warrior. The governor of British Columbia, although I am not sure of it exactly, was (great?) grandson of Dunbar Douglas, 4th Earl of Selkirk, therefore a direct male descendant of Sir William the Hardy, Sir James Douglas father. regards. Brendandh 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurów

Could you please write a stub about Kurów on Koine Greek language here - just a few sentences based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w ? Only 3-5 sentences enough. Please.

PS. Article about Kurów is already on 179 languages. If you do that, please put interwiki link into English version. If your village/town/city isn't yet on PL wiki, I can do article about it. (I'm first author of requests) Pietras1988 ^TALK 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Melanesian nuns

Fishhead, you have removed the {{no rationale}} tag from your own upload Image:Melanesian sisters.jpg and put it back into articles without ever supplying a fair use rationale. Please see our non-free content criteria, which require that you explain, for each article in which it is used, what reason you feel this image is permitted under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright policy and/or law, and why a free image could not serve the same purpose. — CharlotteWebb 01:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi CharlotteWebb, I reviewed the page on fair use concerning publicity photos, and found this:

Most photos that are found on the Internet are not publicity photos. Publicity photos found on the Internet typically have the following characteristics:

• They are found in a section of a web site called "media kit", "press kit", "press", or something similar
• The images are available in high-resolution TIFF versions (upload a low-resolution JPEG version to Wikipedia though)
• There is text on the site asking that the photographer be credited and/or there is licence text permitting reproduction for certain purposes (usually using them to sell products is prohibited).

Given that the photo appeared as part of an ACNS press release, with instructions on how to credit it, does this not constitute fair use? I can't find any fairer use images of individuals in Anglican orders, but I can keep looking. Thanks! fishhead64 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not relevant. What is relevant is that if Wikipedia wants a photo of Anglican nuns we can get a free one. For example, being an Anglican priest, it should be especially easy to obtain a free photo of nuns in your place of worship. See WP:NFCC#1: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Unless your rationale for using this non-free image is more specific than "this article could use a photo of some nuns", it needs to be deleted as replaceable fair use. As you have not actually provided a rationale, I can only assume I have estimated it correctly. — CharlotteWebb 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Henry Irwin

Hi, I just made the article on the ghost town, Donald, British Columbia and I was wondering if you knew anything about the Anglican priest, Henry Irwin, aka Father Pat, that is mentioned in the source I based the article on, Bruce Ramsey's Ghost Town's of British Columbia. Anyway, if you, or someone else "in the know" is planning an article on him someday, I uploaded a picture of him image:Henry Irwin.gif. As for myself I know nothing on him past the little bit I put in the Donald article, but it seems like there might be quite a story there somewhere.CindyBo 10:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Logo icbc.gif

Hello, Fishhead64. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Logo icbc.gif) was found at the following location: User talk:Fishhead64/Archive 1. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion and assistance requested on Persecution of early Christians by the Jews

I'm interested in your opinion regarding this "new" article which was created by extracting text from the Persecution of Christians article. Please read both the article and the discussion on the Talk Page.

First, the article as it stands now is canted in favor of those who would minimize or altogether dismiss the NT accounts of persecution of Christians by the Jews. It strikes me that this is a minority opinion among Christians although it may be a more consensus opinion among liberal theologians. How then to re-balance the article? The "fact" that early Christians were persecuted by the Jews is so widely accepted in Christian theology that I don't know how to find sources that state this explicitly. Can you help?

Second, there are editors who insist that the Bible is not itself a reliable source. This stance extends even to assertions as to what it says. Thus, the text that says "According to the NT, Christians were peresecuted by the Jews" is being challenged for lack of sourcing. In fact, text that asserted that Jesus predicted Christians would be persecuted by Jews was just recently deleted.

I understand that it is problematic to use the Bible as a source of historical fact. Moreover, it is difficult to use the Bible as a source even for what the Bible itself says since "what the Bible says" is open to interpretation. For example, do the Bible passages in question really mean that Jesus predicted the Christians would be persecuted by the Jews? Seems obvious to me but apparently not so obvious to some other editors.

The problem is that I have found no sources on the Web that make this assertion although many assume it to be true. Can you help in this regard?

Thanks. --Richard 00:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

RCC

I have been talking this guy in cirlces trying to keep the heading "Catholic Church" (versus RCC) off of the List of Archbishops of Canterbury. I saw you had this problem sometime ago, as well. Was anything ever decided? I don't think there should even BE distinctions on the "list" of ABCs. SECisek 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anglican realignment

Hi, I don't know if you want to step into Anglican realignment again. You are clearly very knowledgable and have made very sensible contributions in the past. Anyway, the article could use your expertise. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah!

I'm pleased to see that you've returned from your exodus. DS 00:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Polytonic template

Perhaps you know who can remedy the non-functioning of this template and attend to this plea? Thanks. Lima 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether due to a Wikipedia change or to the fact that I have just upgraded to Internet Explorer 7, the template is now working for me. Lima 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Community of Christ the King

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Community of Christ the King, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Longhair\^talk 08:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bstamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bstamp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GS logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:GS logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't seen you around for a while, so I've done my best to resolve this. David Underdown 10:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Will ye not come back?

Your contributions to the Anglicanism project were excellent but I imagine either wikistress or the dangerous signs of Wikiholism warned you away. I've just noticed - I was updating the Anglicanism participants list - that you are active but very careful with your time on Wikipedia. Would you be interested in say adopting an article a quarter - Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter - and becoming a Wikipedia:WikiOgre for the Anglicanism project? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand your feelings that writing for Wikipedia is often like writing into a void. Toss in a handful of troublemakers and it seems pointless. Nevertheless, a number of us - not just me – really have noticed your contributions in a positive way and even a few edits here and there is a good thing. After all, we are all just volunteers and this can be no more than a hobby. By the way, I'm in the same diocese as you but just one of the lay people. It is why I have appreciated your contributions because you really do know what you are talking - typing – about. Good luck at your new parish and Merry Christmas to you. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No positive feed back? I doubt I would have ever edited Wikipedia if I had not run across some of your work. Welcome back in what ever degree you choose to contribute and have a happy Christmas season. -- SECisek (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you need positive feedback, here's even more! I mean, how often do people BOOKMARK OTHER USERS that they find to be helpful, good sources of information, and positive role models for behavior? I have 13 pages in my watchlist; >YOU< are on that list. Bill Ward (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You did get one of these, right?

The Richard Hooker Memorial Barnstar for hard work and diligence on the Anglicanism WikiProject

--SECisek (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that may have happened!!! Glad to be one to correct that horible oversight. Your work has been an inspiration to me. -- SECisek (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LogoBCUC.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:LogoBCUC.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anglican orders (template)

Greetings. I enjoyed reading your UserPage - although it was slightly spooky at times, in that it felt a bit like reading about myself (I'm an Anglican priest, Wikipedia editor, interested in LGBT issues, and a keeper of guinea pigs (14 at present)).

Anyway, thanks for your very useful infobox on Anglican Religious Orders, which I use very often as a navigational tool. I just wondered if you had considered splitting it internally into 'Orders for Men' and 'Orders for Women', as it is quite a long list? It might be helpful - just a thought? All the best for Lent, HW, and beyond...! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver

You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Vancouver registration list but not on the Members list. The WikiProject Vancouver is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Members and place your name in alphabetically. Also the WikiProject is currently discussing some proposed changes on the talk page. Thank you for your time. Mkdw^talk 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Island/South Coast cats

please see Category talk:Coast of British Columbia, new section.Skookum1 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Algomalogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Algomalogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arcticlogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Arcticlogo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Talk

Did you intend to override my comment, as you did here, or was it some sort of Wiki blip? Doesn't really matter, the comments were similar nonetheless :) Dionix (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Dionix (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Sanders

You recently moved this article to Harland Sanders, citing a policy about titles of living people, and something on its talk page. Can you explain this move to me? Sanders has been dead since 1980, and is far better known as "Colonel Sanders" than as "Harland Sanders." Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  12:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin

Thanks, I was attempting to 'neutralize' the paragraph (which read like the Episcopal Press Release - in the Anglican Souther Cone Article!). Your revision is better than mine. Bo (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)