User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 15

^{Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!}

Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil.

If I'm not responding, that's probably because

It is approximately 4:28 PM where this user lives (South Carolina). [refresh]

and I may be asleep, job hunting, or I totally may just not care enough to bother. If it's before 8 AM or after 11 pm, you will definitely want me to respond.

**If you want to:**
say that I should become an admin, leave a message here.	accuse me of a Christian bias, read this.	accuse Wikipedia's policies or me of an anti-Christian bias, read this.
leave a conversational or non-serious message (wazzup, barnstar, hate mail), go here.	leave me a serious message (about article improvement), click here.	see my contributions, go here.

New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).

I'm back from "vacation" in the mountains of Georgia. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your beef?

I carefully read No Original Research again to refresh my memory. It says "primary sources are permitted if used carefully" It also says "all material added...must be attributable...even if not actually attributed" So you need to explain why you delete my posts without considering them or discussing them. Are we to eliminate the self-evident fact that Jesus as the Bridegroom is rooted in the Old Testament since the New Testament didn't exist while he was here on earth? There is clearly a parallel between Rev. 21:2, 9-10 and the use of multiple names for the bride: (the city; Jerusalem; the bride; the wife of the Lamb) and numerous verses in Isaiah.

If you will read carefully my most recent post--A New Beginning--you will find my comments on my extensive experience concerning this and related issues. But let me describe here my experience on WP-- In trying to write on Sustainable systems theory I was rapidly and repeatedly deleted by otherwise brilliant experts on human-designed complex systems who didn't have the slightest insight into the difference between their field and complex sustainable systems in nature (such as ecosystems).--But since I already knew Gregory Bateson had spent over a decade trying to explain this and establish the foundations for a metascience that would unify various fields--and he wasn't understood so why should I feel offended? It's just that it is increasingly and urgently needed to understand the global ecosystem.

Today I also spent a considerable amount of time on Amazon.com. There are over 25 books listed on the Bride of Christ, most of them published in the last 10 years, most of them evangelical but two older ones are respectively Russian Orthodox and Catholic. But none of them a history of the first 3 centuries of the Christian church. This suggests there is a need for a WP entry on the Bride of Christ. (There is a mention that it was Tertullian who first officially used the term Bride of Christ--at least in writing.

Over the last 40+ years I've come across a considerable amount of information on the early church--however I didn't purchase or record it with intentions of citing it on WP. (That Martin Luther eliminated some books of the Old Testament from the Protestant canon after consulting with Jewish scholars on the Hebrew canon is one of them).--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Bride of Christ involved interpretation of a primary source, instead of simply stating "(Book chapter:verse) mentions the Bride of Christ in a verse that reads (verbatim verse that actually uses the words 'Bride of Christ.')" The No Original Research guidelines also say "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Wikipedia does not care for self-evident facts or clear parallels, it only cares about direct sourcing with no interpretation by the editors.

If it is not directly quoting the primary source (without interpretation) or summarizing a secondary source (without addition), it does not go on this site.

The talk pages are not the place to develop ideas relating to the subject, only to discuss how the articles may be improved.

Editor insight does not matter, only neutrally handling sources.

Wikipedia is not the place to right "great wrongs", and it is not the place to push new ideas. Google books may have materials you might be interested in, but be sure to make sure the publisher is not a pay-to-print group, and be aware that sectarian publishers may be disqualified for being non-neutral. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Stops in at Ian's place and eat's the last piece of left over beef)... Let's just look at this for a minute...

"Note in Rev.21 the bride has other names--the holy city, new Jerusalem, the Lamb's wife. In the Old Testament the bride is referred to in Isaiah, also with other names--the city; Jerusalem; Zion; daughter Zion; the wife; the mother." - User:Margaret9mary

Note from another of Ians talk page watchers, read the post by User:Jasonasosa below this one. This is an encyclopedia, a compendium of knowledge, not a publisher of Original thought or connections. You MUST rely on secondary or even better yet tertiary sources for everything. Primary sources are for direct quotes only. Any other use is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and is not welcome here, at all, period. Ever. He iro 18:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, an editor telling the wiki-community to "note" something... is editorializing (WP:EDITORIAL) and is extremely poo-pooed. Further, as Ian pointed out, you User:Margaret9mary have not included any sources for your statement linking Revelation to Isaiah. You can't just post that without a proper academic source. You should immerse yourself in understanding WP:RELIABLE. Food for thought, aye?

Ian's friendly stalker, — Jasonasosa 06:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of ancient Israel and Judah

I'll block if the IP edits again, but you probably know you are at 3RR and there's no exception for this sort of dispute. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kept meaning to make it complete reverts, but then he'd go and edit another section. Sorry about that. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message from JoshAlfred

You say that one of the guidelines of wiki is "not to post anything that is a crystal ball hypothesis." My contribution offered the greater convergence of of machines, with industry, and biology, as a possibility. Over all there have been deducible convergences of these units. What more, transhumanism is a respectable crystal ball hypothesis, and mine is similar to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshAlfred (talk • contribs)

Since that convergence hasn't happened yet, it falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL (don't post about stuff that hasn't happened yet as if it's a fact). Transhumanism is not presented as a fact that has occured, but a notable theory that some notable individuals have had. Wikipedia does not accept personal theories or original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you with this crap

If you look at who is responsible for this page... then you might know what kind of "beast" we are dealing with... Just look really hard for a wiki User name you might recognize... lol — Jasonasosa 17:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. Saw when checking out his forum deal. At least it's not Sam Moser. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is pretty creepy. — Jasonasosa 17:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BW of M thinks that when he talks... "(thunder sounds)" So, I don't know man... too many creepsters around if you ask me. — Jasonasosa 18:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dybbuk meaning

I see where you added to the dybbuk article, I did my best to clean it up, but I'm new at this and that bot reverted it to the original. My problem with it is the first part of the article. The meaning of the word is not right. A dybbuk being a evil or malevolent being isn't true. It can be a lost soul or a soul with unfinished business, and not always evil. Its referenced to the Britannica page, but that page has nothing to do with that first part. I'll look again to see where I can find the meaning that I was taught, and it explains in more detail the word.

Cajunnavy (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Cajunnavy[reply]

The malevolent bit is also supported by the Encyclopedia Judaica article, where Scholem refers to the Dybbuk as evil. It's not demonic, but it is quite the opposite of kind. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, growing up I was always told that a dybbuk doesn't have to be a bad thing. It could be a lost soul who still needs to accomplish something in order to pass on. So it can take possession of someone but only to help them reach the same goal that the dybbuk could not it its life. Cajunnavy (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find a source that reflects that, we might be able to include that view as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on anther wiki type encyclopedia. It talks about good and bad dybbuks as I was taught, but I'm gonna make some calls to make sure that there is a difference between the dybbuk and the ibbur. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Dybbuk.

Cajunnavy (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I got it figured out now. The dybbuk is the bad version of a possession and the ibbur would be the good kind. I've just been combining the two in my mind and there is a clear difference. And that webpage I put in the earlier post kinda does the same thing that I was doing. They put the two forms in one group and just call them dybbuk's. Sorry for bothering you for so long on this. But thank you for your patience and understanding.

Cajunnavy (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Oh, by the way, New World Encyclopedia doesn't qualify as a reliable source, since it's a Wiki (any user-generated content almost always automatically fails WP:RS). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much when I sat down and gave it a good read, and then looked at there sources. They were using the same GhostVillage one, that I had an issue with in the first place that started this whole discussion. Thanks again for your time and patience.

Cajunnavy (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"properly sourced" in TGD article

Hi Ian,

Can you elaborate more on this subject please? Exactly, what is missing in this edit?--199.164.159.2 (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said over at Talk:The God Delusion, it really needs one or two major sources that overviews all the criticism, such as a whole chapter in a book, or a whole article from a newspaper or journal. A few sentences from multiple books, taken together to say "many authors" usually goes against our no original research policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian,

I found this book that overviews a lot of criticism toward Dawkins in one of its chapters. Do you think this qualifies for what you were asking above?

Thanks --24.94.18.234 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that this book got a good review here makes it ready to be used for criticism?

The Google books link you send is published by the Wikimedia foundation, indicating that it's a reprint of an old version of the article. That's no different than citing Wikipedia, which is not allowed. The second book, being published by Brill, qualifies as a reliable source, depending on how it is used. While "Religion and the New Atheism" does discuss Pape at length, it does not connect it to Dawkins or his God Delusion, instead focusing on Sam Harris's The End of Faith. Discussion of Pape's studies may be appropriate to add there, but not to the God Delusion article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I can use the material from "Religion and the New Atheism" that are talking about Dawkins or "The God Delusion" in their corresponding article, correct?--24.94.18.234 (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is only summarizing material from "Religion and the New Atheism" that is discussed at length (i.e. more than a few lines), probably. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party Edit

Just noticed you reverted an edit I made to the Tea Party Movement due to no reason for edit being given, Fair enough. I don't want to get into an edit war so I wanted to come here to talk with you before reapplying the change with reasons.

The edit removed the "Tea bagger" paragraph from the "Background" section of the article. The reason for its removal are 1) Undue weight, 2) Defamation, and 3) Contentious label. I'd like to remove the paragraph once again with these reasons provided.Magicjava (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend discussing it over at Talk:Tea Party movement, though past discussion has concluded that the section is simply describing others' discussion of the term, giving the weight due from the reliable sources cited. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yor feedback. I'll do that. --Magicjava (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

FYI, I mentioned your name on ANI in a thread on the reverts that took place today on Tea Party Movement. You'll find the thread here. Essentially, I expressed my opinion that some editors were following WP:BRD and some were not. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue you are involved with. Meowy 20:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

relax

I'm not seeing any of that AN/I thread as any huge outcry for you to be blocked. Any reasonable admin. will be aware of what's going on, what's happened, and not conflate your edits with someone else's. The fact that you've already implied (if not outright stated) that you feel yourself that you overstepped some boundaries also should speak volumes as well. Relax, get some sleep (or take a walk depending on where you geo-locate), and I'll check back tomorrow (well - actually later today for me). If I have to go back to my admin. account <sigh, a.g.a.i.n.> - I will. — ChedZILLA 06:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. After seeing a few people in a row suggest that I be blocked (glancing at the discussion on my phone at 2 AM), I thought it would be a good idea to ask them to think about what they were saying. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message from a Sockpuppet of Josh24B

This page Bus Routes in York has been propsed by City of York Council due to Demand as York Does not have Funding for Bus information and they is only very Few Places to get timetables which on the Bus is the main one but they are not printed often and this page has been popular in York & Leeds mainly Visitors and City of York Council are Aware that it is has been deleted a Few Times but they are trying to Keep it open and ask people to keep it running.

Thanks i hope you understand, YoGoplus

YoGoplus 18:53, 29th August 2012 (UTC)

That's a lie, Josh. I've talked with folks over there. And even if you weren't a lying, Wikipedia is not a directory or an advertising service. What is your problem? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Aware of Josh24B (Sockpuppet), but i can Asure you i am not this person as it was brought up on other pages and one of my old acconts i cant access as i dont know the password so i created this one and i am Focesing on pages were information added by a Supected Sockpuppet of Josh24B was Usful and so therefore was put back on and i am Aware that i have Been Taged for beening a Sockpuppet but i am not i have also tagged people of beening sockpuppets (Not Josh24B) but i would like you to pass on these comments to Wikipedia

Thank You, YoGoplus — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoGoplus (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep lying Josh? And what part of Wikipedia is not a directory do you not understand? Bus schedules are simply not accepted here, even if they were not wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the edit on Abraham?

Why did you remove my post???????? The site I linked to doesn't advertise and the info was strictly information that was appropriate to the topic.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not a Admin and just a poster like I am I'm undoing your undo. Please leave my posts alone. Keep your anti-Christian bigotry to yourself.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I'm not an admin doesn't mean I can't report you to admins for spamming. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goats

Don't let him get your goat. He should be blocked shortly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I'm counting. I'm gonna go fix my mom's car now since I'm at 3r. Thanks ahead for taking over. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: it's an article about a conspiracy theory anyway. Sit it out until the user's been sorted. I'm going to go do some painting. Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand why someone is eliminating my accomplishments from a page

page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-sports_trading_card#Sketch_cards It's come to my attention that someone is maliciously removing me from a page, where I was very much a part of the subject. For some reason they keep erasing my information - even though I have given quality information, cited facts, given links, etc on the Talk pages, and, even asked for them to contact me personally. Is there a way to end this ? For me, this is a strong accomplishment of mine that I would like to be recognized for... and not to have someone remove it on a whim or to be malicious. Is there someone to discuss this with ? I'm sorry, I just don't understand your systems here on the site, and when they send me info, I can't find what they are referring to. It's easy to contact me - rustyweb@aol.com thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustygilligan (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:LessHeard vanU

Really don't care to see bullying and admin intimidation to protect their buddy on my page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

cc:

GabeMc

Ian.thomson

Both of you knock this crap off right now or you won't be editing. — Ched : ? 23:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Admin informed of the situation and trouted). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to show quite a bit more respect for LHvU. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting what happened, because this appears to be "not look into things" day:

My message was "Retired editors do not harass other users. There was no reason for this post except to goad and push him, which is immature and uncivil."

I have no prior involvement in this, I don't care whatever (looks like something about the Beatles?) issue that LHvU and GabeMc have between them. LHvU harassed GabeMc. Period. He hid behind his retirement, and continued to goad GabeMc over a month after GabeMc left LHvU alone. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Admin is so informed, and refuses the offer of fish. With all due respect, you're placing far too much focus on a template. {{retired}} is a quick and convenient way of saying: "I'm not always around these days", it is NOT a form of exile. People are free to come and go as they please here. PERIOD - END OF. I'm quite aware of "teh history", and frankly the whole "T/the Beatles" issue is one of the most asinine wastes of time I've seen since the ndash/mdash stupidity. "Retired" does NOT give you the ability to get uppity and snarky with someone. Now, if Gabe has an issue with something that Mark said, then I'm fine with him responding to it as he sees fit; but to be quite frank here - the whole "don't post to my talk page" thing is utter bullshit. I suggest he/you all read the TOS. In other word, and quite blunt words, you can take your trout and stick it where the sun don't shine son. — Ched : ? 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I see that you two are going to play favorites, no point in bothering with people who don't think that WP:Harassment doesn't apply to their friends. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WitsBlomstein

Please file an SPI on this user. Im getting sick of this TP edit war. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message on my page

It seems more you are pretty clear that you are Meatpuppetring alongside with them since you havent actually disputed or given any real argument to what the history of the article talk was all about WK:ICANTHEARYOU

Next ignoring of what was actually said will prompt a meatpuppetry investigation of trying to gather multiple users to contrl an article. here this is an formalityWitsBlomstein (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence to accuse me of meat puppetry, but there is plenty to accuse you of sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence that says you arent meatpuppetring, I on the other hand have plenty to accuse you of meatpuppeting. since we can check history of you and the others, unless rosita wasnt involved when talking about the article in question. its her and you who should stop edit warring.WitsBlomstein (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good Lord, you expect that sort of Spanish Inquisition "guilty until proven innocent" fascist crap to work here? I've never been involved in the Jew Watch article until I saw a report on the administrator's noticeboard about edit warring. That can be plainly seen checking the page history or my contributions. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will the real meatpuppet please stand up? In other words, quit edit warring on the god damned talk page. Please. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed an SPI. If WitsBlomstein wishes to file one on me, he can do so here. All he has to do is replace "checkuser=no" with yes, put the names of my supposed puppets in the name fields, and then put the evidence after the "evidence=" field. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now I'll request pp for the talk page. Sheesh. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, blocked. Thanks for the SPI. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another message from someone who doesn't know where the bottom is

If the person(s) who I am having this dispute with stops inserting original research,unverifiable and unsourced claims this "edit war" will cease and desist instantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old-timer0 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you -- Wait, you did continue it. I'm reporting you. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pic

Are you almost done with the religious symbols pic? Pass a Method talk 13:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, sorry. Still need some sort of confirmation from WikiProject China as to what would be a good symbol for Shenism, which I'm asking for now. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about using this symbol instead? Pass a Method talk 16:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring it up on Talk:Religion. We're trying to avoid having Nine Billion ~~Names of God~~ Neopagan symbols, but that symbol's association with Druidry may predate 20th century Neopaganism (if only as part of the early modern Neodruid revival, which was about as open to Christianity as Paganism). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulford

I have noticed that you seem to be removing big chunks of information from this page and also Osbaldwick, and i have noticed that you think it is false information, see these sites and check it out for yourself http://www.yorkbus.co.uk/?subSiteID=3 (Transdev York), http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/york/ (First York), http://www.arrivabus.co.uk/yorkshire/ (Arriva Yorkshire). Osbaldwickparish (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filed yet another SPI, Josh. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

View the Sites in the Link!!!!! Osbaldwickparish (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Osbaldwickparish

You may be aware that this is a website as well and i am promoting York Sport Village and No it is Correct and why don't you tell me why it is wrong see there sight the link is in another section on your talk page, i do live in York you know Osbaldwickparish (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care Josh. Just go get help. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even listen and my name is Julie actually so why don't you click on the links and find the information which i put on off these sites so there i am aware of Murton50M who probably was a sockpuppet and i don't know what there problem was and we have launch this account to promote thing in areas in York like York Sport Village which i created why don't you read it!! Osbaldwickparish (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior falls into two categories:

Some of it matches Josh24B's
Some of it is purely promotional

Either way, once an admin becomes aware of you, you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No i am giving information about it just like all the other pages on wikpedia about places & Buildings Eg York Minster Osbaldwickparish (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]