Jump to content

User talk:T. Anthony/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Starting anew

A new year and all. Well I've changed the look of the main page and archived everything. I guess looking through all the things I've done one thing occurred to me today. That being we need more on Draughts! I have an idea on that. More "serious" stuff also occurred to me, but it's nice to be lighter on occasion.--T. Anthony 06:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


I decided to move some links back from the archive as some are useful to me to have on this page.

You have put in a lot of diligent work recently, and your contributions have improved the project. For those reasons, I award you this Barnstar on behalf of the Wikipedia community. Thank you. Willmcw 12:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I also decided to expand it some.--T. Anthony 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cordwainer Smith

I've never read him, but he sounds as if he might be an okay writer. I'm just unsure as to whether or not his books are still on sale at the chain stores. Chooserr 03:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You might not find him at the chain stores, but his stuff is at the Science Fiction Book Club and should be easy to find at Amazon. His stuff became more Christian themed starting in 1960, before that he was something of a nominal Methodist. The stories involving Casher O'Neill are maybe the most Christian. Specifically On the Storm Planet. The other neat thing about that story is that on one page of it there is an unusual sentence. It doesn't look that unusual, but the first letter of each word in it spells out a phrase.(I think this is called acrostic) The phrase is "Kennedy Shot." I think his stories in the more Christian period really are better, but some of the ones before then are pretty good. The fifties stuff is quite exotic for that era with some fascinating imagery. The main criticism I've heard is that the Universe he created is never really resolved and that even in his short life he never seemed to work much toward that. Also some find it irritating that he had a tendency to begin with someone telling you that the story is an old legend or story they are going to recount. Also at times his stories sound a bit sexist. It would probably be more accurate though to say that his stories are kind of down on feminism, but positive on women as a rule. (If not entirely understanding them) Anyway this should give some information on his writing if you're interested.--T. Anthony 04:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Well it sounds interesting enough I might pick something up by him next time I go into the used bookstore. Currently I'm working on finishing "Declare" and start on two murray leinster books I picked up today. Chooserr 06:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

List of notable brain tumor patients

Would it satisfy your concerns about the nomination if I provided websites that quote the original 5-year-old list? Durova 02:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It might, but I'm not really opposed. I was just cautious on the matter.--T. Anthony 04:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's a partial version that's been up for five years. The nonprofit site removed my request to keep the full list off the web. [1] A 2004 discussion board post quotes parts of my list verbatim. [2] This fundraising drive cites a few examples from my list. [3] The North American Brain Tumor Coalition provided an edited and slightly modified version of my list to this author. [4]

I hope that's enough - don't want to overdo the links. regards, Durova 07:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Santa deal

I might take that down as the grammar in it bothers even me. (It should be "Wikipedians who believe in Santa" as people are meant) Still I like a bit of whimsy. Well that and it's sort of accurate in a way. Catholicism and Orthodoxy teaches that there is a St. Nicholas. There "is" because in both faiths there is a heaven he's believed to have entered. As a Catholic we believe in the intercession of saints. Therefore it's plausible within Catholicism that God through the intercession of St. Nicholas performs miracles during the Christmas season. The half-pagan mythos around St. Nick is valid in so far as with God all things are possible so St. Nicholas can certainly become those things for kids if that's required. The actual argument for the existence of Santa is a bit more involved then that and far more sentimental. It also likely sounds crazy, but anyway this is probably as close as I'm going to go to categorizing myself as a Catholic Wikipedian.--T. Anthony 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Religious Leaders in (year).

I've been watching the new pages list and have seen a lot of these coming from you. It looks like pretty good content, but all the pages appear the same. What is happening with these? Anabanana459 05:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting them out with the names I can find. This is going to involve some repetition as religious leaders can be in for decades. I'm hoping others can fill in with religious leaders I'm missing. Thanks for the query though.--T. Anthony 05:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hindu lists

Hello, I think you are somewhat confused on this Hindu vs Jew issue. The reason there are not many lists of famous Hindus is that they are likely listed under Indian, because Hindus have pretty much been tied to this country for an extremely long time, whereas Jewish people have been dispersed amongst many countries and have not had a state to tie to their identity until recently. Regards Arniep 14:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't work either because there aren't that many lists of Indians. See Category:Lists of Indians by state. Granted there is also List of Indians, List of Indian movie actresses, List of Indian monarchs, List of Indian mathematicians, List of Maurya emperors, List of Indian Americans, and List of Mughal emperors. However there are many peoples in India that would not be classed as Hindu, even in the broader ethnic sense of living within the Indus, and there are numerous Hindus overseas. And there are many people who are stateless to this day, like the Kurds, who also represent millions of people. So I'm not confused on this. Still I got tired of the debate. It wasn't going anywhere and I think people just failed to see the point.--T. Anthony 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The Indian list contains lots of small lists like the List of Jews did until it was separated (which is why there are so many Jewish lists), and for Indians abroad there is List of Indian Americans, List of British Asian people. Regards Arniep 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There is also List of Kurdish people. Regards Arniep 00:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not surprised there is such a list. There is a list of Hindus. I've checked lists of different groups though as I like lists. There really aren't all kinds of Hindu/Indian/Nepalese-related lists that make it more balanced. However Canadians are also very overrepresented in lists and I said that I think that's strange too. If a discussion on that had arisen I would've said much the same things. Anyway if it makes sense to you to have 59 Jewish lists and like a 100 Canadian lists, or whatever it was, okay. I'm just saying I don't get it as there are so many larger peoples and nations Wikipedia does not cover well. As lists can serve an expansion purpose that doubles the annoyance. That said this isn't really something I care that much about and I really am about sorry I ever mentioned it.--T. Anthony 08:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
T.Anthony, I don't really know what you are trying to get at. Are you saying that because a lot of people have put a lot of work into the Jewish lists they should deleted? If you saying you are upset that the Indian lists aren't complete, why not try and make them more complete or find some Indian wikipedians who could help you with that? Arniep 12:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Hinduism was always just a "for example." For that matter so is Jewish. I will switch it to Canadian lists versus Brazilian lists from now on as religion/ethnicity things are so touchy here. So the Jewish versus Hindu thing is dropped. It's over, I don't want to hear about it anymore. Now then Wikipedia is heavily biased to listing even only moderately noteworthy people from modern nations like Canada. When I was doing List of Mennonites I kind of had a joke subsection for awhile on Manitoba politicians. Maybe most Mennonites do live in Manitoba, but I'm skeptical of that. There's bound to have been noteworthy Mennonite politicians outside Canada even, but I had trouble finding them. On Brazilian writers the Encyclopedia Britannica is way better than this place.--T. Anthony 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Crossouts

Hi! Crossouts are easy: just use <s> and </s> tags before and after the crossed out section. -- Scott eiπ 07:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Church of Christ, Scientist

I think it would be good to work together to update the article. Although I'm fairly short on time I can look into getting some help. There are a few things we should think about.

If this article, which under the title Church of Christ, Scientist implies that the Church itself is going to be the main topic, is going to be merged with the article Christian Science, which I would recommend it is, then the article should inncorporate more than just basic history, but also have sections covering beliefs, practices, etc. I'd also like to see a section on common misconceptions, since there tend to be many of them.

I'd like to start new without removing what's already there. I don't know if wikipedia has a way of putting up a temporary page for ongoing or new projects, but I think this would be ideal.

There's also the question of how much history is discussed vs focusing on current topics. There is a lot of history that's been completely abandoned in the article that some may find interesting or useful. I suppose a good encyclopedia article can never have too much information.Jonamerica 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good points. First I simply meant input by Christian Scientists is important. It doesn't have to be you if you're too busy and I wasn't meaning to press on you. Second I think if the history section of a religion gets too long you are allowed to separate it off into its own article. I agree that much of the pre-WWII history of Christian Science is very significant and fascinating. So if it gets too long you can just separate it off. Lastly I hope I didn't offend you. Some things about your faith do strike me as fairly unorthodox, but much of what I was doing is trying to balance some very conflicting people. There is that Quadra person who is insistent that any reference to Christian Scientists as Christians be struck out. It's tricky doing these kinds of articles as I mentioned. Emotions run a bit higher/hotter.--T. Anthony 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty hard to offend a Christian Scientist. Well, there are ways, but we're understanding of the fact that what most people know about CS is rumor or simply a result of an upbringing of predujice. I find it fascinating that people feel they can claim that one religion is or is not Christian. I think we have to try to look at the issue from outside our own experiences. For example I think we would say that both Shi'ite and Sunni Muslams practice Islam. However, between the two groups there is much argument that one is the "real" Islam and the other is "false". They both read the Qur'an, but they interprut it differently, they have different leaders, different prayer rituals, and a different sense of how a person needs to live in order to be considered rightous.
Christianity is nothing but a number of sects of the same religion that began shortly following the crucifixion and resurection. Of course there are some religions that claim to be Christian but follow nothing of Christs teaching. (I feel quite frankly that anyone that would hold a sign that says, "AIDS is God's punishment of Gays" is decidedly un-Christian. And any religion that promotes intollerance and bigotry has lost the message.) However, Christianity isnt' about being right: being of the right faith, being of the right sexual orientation, being of the right dogma. Of course this may be a view that isn't shared with other Christians, and may be something that is unique to Christian Scientists. At firs Mary Baker Eddy didn't intended to start a church. She wrote Science and Health as a guide to better living and a way to better understand Christ's teachings and what He did. She had hopes that all religions would read and learn from her book and use it in their churches. Of course most reacted unfavorably and denounced her writings as un-Christain, almost always without even reading or understanding the book. Little has change in the past century.

List of Brazilian writers

This turned out to be more than I could handle. Still I think I did some good there before burning out. I might still work on it on occasion.--T. Anthony 15:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

G. E. M. Anscombe

Hi. I noticed you added Mrs. Anscombe to the category "Polymaths." Just curious what you know about her that gives her such an elevated status... the article itself doesn't describe much besides a talent for philosophy. I don't know much about her myself. David Bergan 06:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh gosh I did that so long ago I forgot why. I think a big part of it was someone complained about there being no women so I looked for women who contributed in more than one field. I think she did linguistics and theology right? What does her entry say?--T. Anthony 06:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
She did translation, theology, and logic it says. That might be all kind of related. I think there are enough women on the list of polymaths now that you can maybe take her out if she doesn't apply. She sounded...interesting. She was apparently one of the only famous women to wear a monocle[5]. (I normally distrust the Guardian, but whether she wore a monocle or not isn't political) I think I read she smoked cigars and swore pretty freely, but was a staunchly conservative Catholic who opposed contraception and abortion. Still being colorful doesn't have anything to do with it.--T. Anthony 07:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Women in Art

Thanks for helping expand the 20th century section of Women artists. That article is in need of major updating. - AKeen 19:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. It wasn't that great, but a start. I noticed the nineteenth century section is kind of meagre.--T. Anthony 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
When I found the article it went only up to 1800. I think the article was someone's report, which stopped at that era. Any expansion is a great thing. - AKeen 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See you later

I'll probably pop in now and again, but I think I'm wasting too much time here. Also there are things about this place that I find unappealing. Still I'll hopefully pop in on again during the weekends.--T. Anthony 09:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)



Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination)

Despite the overwhelming support for keeping the list in article namespace, the above relisting was closed early. At Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual place_names, the deletion is being reviewed once more (to restore the list from Wikipedia to article namespace (it's currently at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names). -- User:Docu

Not sure what to say. I really had intended to cutback. I'll look into it perhaps, thanks.--T. Anthony 06:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi. since you seem to say you prefer expanding the new article rather than recreating the old one, would you consider changing you "undelete" vote? Right now List of interesting or unusual place names is a redirect to the new article. -R. fiend 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm kind of back and forth actually, but I'll do it if I remember to.--T. Anthony 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, T. Anthony. Thank you for rewriting the article Seth Wescott. I/We (writing on behalf of other administrators) would thank you more if you had not ignored the instructions on the copyvio notice. By editing over the copyvio notice, the offending edits remain part of the edit history. Admins are supposed to delete them. The notice also acts as a tag to help admins identify problem articles. Next time, please do not remove the copyvio notice and please follow the instructions on it. Your contribution is very much appreciated. I'm just asking, if you happen to see another copyright violation and want to write a replacement article, please start anew on a temporary subpage as explained on the copyvio notice. It would make our jobs easier. Many thanks. -- PFHLai 10:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry. I never worked on one of those before.--T. Anthony 12:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

iconic smokers

I'm sorry I didn't answer your other questions, but I just don't know the answers. I just think that the reasons for inclusion into the list should be clear when reading the list. Zanaq 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Striver and AFDs

Whether or not Striver violated WP:POINT, no one is allowed to remove the AFD notices until the votes have been cast and a decision is made. KI 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't think I removed them. I guess I suggested he should though and that was wrong, apologies.--T. Anthony 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Mormon actors

I personally have no objection to a Category:Actors in LDS cinema, or however you want to name it...however, "Mormon actors" and "Christian actors" are titled to include literally all Mormons who happen to be actors (or actors who happen to be Mormons), and so forth for Christians. The deletion vote was (erroneously, in my opinion) labelled no consensus, which means we're back at square one. I noticed you altered the category description, so would you please list it for renaming on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion to a title that appropriately reflects your narrowed criteria, and remove any entries to which it no longer applies? Let me know if you need help on this. Thanks! Postdlf 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If I get the time today I will. I was out at a meeting and then did some shopping. I withdrew my keep vote so I wasn't sure what more I could do. (Well I could've switched to delete, but I wasn't entirely sure I agreed that much with you) Maybe it really was no concensus. Anyway I'll see if I'm awake enough to do the rename suggestion.--T. Anthony 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wells

I gave in, I have low willpower. That said my feelings haven't changed. I just have read so much about Wells I needed to put it somewhere and this is as good as a science fiction forum. Also I added something to child prodigies. Hopefully now I will be gone for good.--T. Anthony 11:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Back, sort of

On another forum someone mentioned an article I started. Also some of the lists I started seem to be in disrepair. So I'm back, sort of. My problems with this place remain, but it was a good waste of time. I fear I'll regret this and fast, but we'll see.--T. Anthony 03:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Steveo2 17:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot that I'd even mentioned the date of my birthday here. As I left on somewhat annoyed terms I'm pleased all is put behind me. I might become more regular again.--T. Anthony 20:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd wish you a little late Happy Birthday. Mr. Turcotte 22:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again--T. Anthony 06:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sayanora

I have not made myself as scarce as I intended, but I'll work harder on that. I really don't believe in this concept, Jimbo, or this place in general, and I've had no faith in it for a long time. The hypocrasy of still working on it because I feel fond of some lists I created is starting to make me feel guilty.--T. Anthony 13:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Hopefully this really is farewell. I ended my watchlist to reduce any additional temptation.--T. Anthony 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That was likely some time ago. I'd intended to kind of quit. I failed on that, but still I hope to be fairly inactive. Still religions interest me so I might consider it. Thanks for the attention.--T. Anthony 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic category

I never hid being Catholic, but I didn't personally want that on my user page. However I'm trying to be as inactive as possible so it no longer matters. Plus it might be useful in case anyone wants to ask about an obscure Catholic saint as I have books on them. Lastly it ticks off the kind of people I'm not too unhappy ticking off.--T. Anthony 11:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Inactivity?

For someone intending to be inactive I've been fairly active. I hope to change that, but admittedly some things here can still be fun on occasion.--T. Anthony 10:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

Hey T. Anthony,

I didn't mean to revert all your edits to the article Criticism of Judaism. I accidentally edited an older version, which means that my edits were only meant for that version. I have now reverted my own edits. I still don't think the article is all that great, but your edits sure did make it a lot better, they actually got rid of at least my first concern.

Sorry about that, I only realized I had removed all that content when I read your response on the talk page; it sounded weird to me, so then I checked the article history to see what you were talking about.

--CarabinieriTTaallkk 14:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I flew off the handle at first, sorry I'm just not a morning person. I'm thinking I'll keep the Asimov part after all, but the one quote I think needs confirmation or should be removed. For right now I'm going to just call it "a quote circulated online" or something to indicate problems with it. I'd work on the Zionist part, but maybe it should just be removed. I believe there was some kind of religious Zionism in the early nineteenth century, but it doesn't have much importance in the history of modern Israel.--T. Anthony 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Zionism

Cheers for changing what i said about zionism.I suppose what i had wriiten was a bit biased.You didnt have to change what i wrote about the bible though.Dermo69

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:T._Anthony/Archive_4&oldid=1141002906"