User talk:Floridan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Contents 1 Hunt yests 2 Talk protocol 3 Hunting dog article 4 Nobility article 5 Dog breed names 6 Tags on dog photos 7 Upland hunting 8 Sergeant Major 9 Page Blanking 10 Spiritual warfare 11 LDS template 12 Rate of growth

[edit] Hunt yests

What, you've never heard of hunt yests?  :-) For some reason, my finger kept hitting the Y instead of the T and I thought I had caught them all. BTW, thanks so much for adding that article! Elf | Talk 05:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk protocol

Good question--most people answer on the other person's talk page because then that person receives the "you've got a message" notice. Some people respond on their own talk page, but most of them (the experienced ones anyway) usually ahve a note at the top of their talk page that says that's what they do. I sort of play the middle--I expect people to answer on my talk page, but whenever I leave a msg on someone else's talk page, I also add them to my watchlist for a week or so to see whether they respond there. I just might not notice it as fast (I have a rather large watchlist). Elf | Talk 05:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunting dog article

Someone added some details about various hunting dog types into the dog article, which was overkill for that particular article, but it was a good start at filling in info for the hunting dog article, which so far has been just a list of hunting dog types and example dogs of each type. So I moved the info from dog to hunting dog, making some really obvious gaps.

Would be great to have a 2-3 sentence summary of each grouping, nothing long and detailed at all, since there are separate articles for each type, but something that someone can read and get an idea of the differences among the types. Thought that might be something you'd be good at? Elf | Talk 03:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobility article

You asked (some time ago) for a rewrite of the article on Nobility. I have since rewritten large chunks of it, including many of the sentences that you highlighted as inadequate. You also pointed out that the article needed to distinguish between those characteristics which apply to all nobles and those which apply only in Western/European nations; I have created a new section on "non-Western nobility" to address this problem. As I feel that I have solved all the major problems with the article, I have deleted the rewrite bar. Please read the article, and feel free to tell me (on my talk page) if you don't like my changes. Walton monarchist89 15:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog breed names

Capitalization of breed names is a style rather than an absolute. Wikipedia style is indeed to capitalize the whole name. (Checking a few other pages is sometimes a good way to figure it out. :-) ). (My two favorite references, both encyclopedias of hundreds of dog breeds, capitalize, BTW. But the decision was actually made here before I started WPing.) Elf | Talk 01:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, I'm not here editing. I'm--uh--working on Release Notes for a 3-D graphics package. I have an alibi. I wasn't there. And I'm sticking to that story. Elf | Talk 01:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. TELL IT TO STOP RAINING!! ARGH! I'M TIRED OF THIS! IT'S BEEN RAINING ALL DAY! THIS IS CALIFORNIA AND IT'S ***SPRING*** D****IT!!!!!!! (Sorry, had to say it to SOMEone.) - me again

[edit] Tags on dog photos

I'm wondering about the tags on the dog photos you uploaded (Image:Kerygma Cockers Echo & Pheasant.JPG and Image:Kerygma Cockers Mistyside.jpg); text says "who released this photo to be used on Wikipedia" but they're flagged with public-domain tags. Did the creators release them into the public domain? Need to be specific about that and not that they think the photos will be used only on Wikipedia and nowhere else. Also, not sure that "PD-self" is valid in this case because you're not the creator of the works--possibly NoRightsReserved or {{PD-because | reason}} (where reason would be something like "permission given via email by xxx at www.yyy.com" or something similar) would be more appropriate? Elf | Talk 18:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I found another one that might be even better; read: Template talk:PD-release. (This stuff has changed so much in the last year or so--trying to find my way around the license templates is a --ahem--challenge.) Elf | Talk 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upland hunting

I am not necessarilly suggesting that it is a problem that 'upland hunting' is a US term. My concern is that, because both terms are in common parlance, the less knowledgeable reader may expect upland hunting to be about hunting such as that which takes place in hilly areas. In the UK, for example, fox hunting in upland areas took a very different form to hunting in lowland areas. That said, if 'upland hunting' is the correct US term, of course it must be used, but with appropriate explanation. I know little about hunting in America. Do I deduce, from your helpful reference to UK rough shooting that 'upland hunting' does not include the UK 'driven shooting' where lines of (human) beaters flush the birds into the air to be shot? MikeHobday 06:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sergeant Major

Since the military meaning is by far the most common, that should have stayed as the default, with a Sergeant Major (disambiguation) page created, as I have now done. As for adding "UK" after the RSM and CSM pages, the same applies - the UK/Commonwealth terms are by far the most common definitions of these terms and should be the default. Also please watch the use of spaces and capitalisation in your article titles. Thanks. -- Necrothesp 12:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Blanking

On 28-May, you blanked Torero. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated from my talk page: You'll need to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. An adminstrator has to do the move since the redirect page will need to be deleted. Switches like that are required to be listed for discussion to ensure people are in agreement. Let me know if you have other questions! -- JLaTondre 01:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual warfare

Hi. I have reverted the change you made to Spiritual warfare. You are correct that it's an accurate quote, but, unfortunately, it's an exact copy/paste of the text from the CSM. Please see the quotation here [1]. I know that you acted in good faith and didn't realize it was a copyright violation - I just wanted to let you know why I reverted you. FYI, User:Eliecergui, who originally added that passage, is a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user, User:Guillen. He doesn't speak great English and most anything that he writes seems to be either (a) from an online translation like Google or (b) copied and pasted from somewhere else. He was blocked after a number of personal attacks [2] [3] BigDT 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDS template

Generally navigation templates like {{LDS}} are only used on the pages that are links in the template itself, and, sometimes, other major articles. We generally don't include them on articles related to the topic which are not central. Thus I removed it from Fanny Alger, but left it on Kirtland --Trödel 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be ok with any major article positive or negative - but a person that may or may not have had a relationship with JS that was very short in length and had no impact at all on the direction or history of the church is not one that should be used - it would be like putting it on Alvin R. Dyer's article. I wouldn't agree with putting it on either. --Trödel 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Alger is that it is not clear that it was the first polygamous marriage, and it definately wasn't part of the plural marriage theology. Louisa Beaman is more likely. However, although much discussed and definately a huge impact on the church in the late 1800s (when the US seized assets over it, etc) - from my POV - polygamy's impact on the current church is exagerrated. --Trödel 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rate of growth

Unfortunately there is no really easy answer to the claims of being fastest growing. As far as the LDS church is concerned, they have great records and a clear indicator for membership. The reported membership numbers per year are available here The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Membership history. A person is counted as a member if they

1. are age 9 and over and have been baptised by someone holding the priesthood and under the direction of the appropriate priesthood leader (either the Bishop or the Mission president) or
2. are under age 9 and were listed as a child of record by either parent (with consent of the other - though written approval is not required) on the records of the church - this is usually done when a baby is blessed (similar to christening), or when parents who are actively attending church have children attending with them - they will want the children listed on the class rolls and with the family.

Note that children of record which elect not to be baptized are no longer counted as members after they turn 9 (they can be baptised after they turn 8). Weekly attendence varies from 30-70% and is generally about 40-50% churchwide. With lower attendence in South America and higher attendence in the western United States.

The problem comes with quoting growth rates over short periods of time - for example during the 80s the LDS church had tremendous growth - but in the 90s and 2000s it has slowed to about 2-3% per year. Additionally over the 90s and 2000s the Jehovah Witness numbers have improved and, I think, they are the fastest growing.

Note that there are disputes over the LDS Church's numbers since people who stop attending are still counted as members until they are either Excommunicated or request Name Removal. Critics of the church claim that a large number of those not attending should not be counted because they no longer believe. However, having lived in wards in AZ, CA, NJ and FL, (with callings like Elder's Quorum president, Ward Clerk or counselor to the EQ pres in every location) my personal experience has been much different, I would estimate that 3-7% of those not attending should not be counted (or about 1-3% of total membership - but that is total OR.

Let me know if you have any questions. Another good location for statistics on membership is www.adherents.com - but I suspect you've already been there and since they report everything it is confusing at times. --Trödel 03:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)