User talk:Tony164

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Tony164, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Extraordinary Machine 18:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

1 Signatures
2 Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board
3 Dalbeth
4 License tagging for Image:Cambuslang 001.JPG
5 License tagging for Image:Cambuslang Subscription School.JPG
6 License tagging for Image:Parkhead Station.jpg
7 Cadoc and Cambuslang
8 Statistical Accounts of Scotland
9 Your reverts on Greece
10 Your articles on ministers
11 Your edit to John Robertson (minister)
12 Signatures

[edit] Signatures

Just a quick note. You need to put your four tildes after your comments on Talk pages, not in the edit summary. AlistairMcMillan 01:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board

Wow! I am extremely impressed by your wonderful edits at John Mair. Just what we need, but see all too rarely. (Or perhaps because I do not read enough of the heavy, academic articles.

Please visit the new Scottish notice board. Here's shortcut: WP:SCOWNB, plus the new Portal:Scotland. Click the "Watch" tab while you are there, and sign up at the bottom if you like. We'd be very pleased to have you on board.--Mais oui! 23:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dalbeth

Instead of creating articles that consist only of "see also", please use the proper syntax for redirects. Henning Makholm 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Cambuslang 001.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Cambuslang 001.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Cambuslang Subscription School.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Cambuslang Subscription School.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

[edit] License tagging for Image:Parkhead Station.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Parkhead Station.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

[edit] Cadoc and Cambuslang

Just saw your addition to Cadoc. I followed the link and took a while reading through to find why on earth it had been linked. If it's the church you want to link to, and the article is relatively stable, it might be worth linking directly to the section in question, either visibly (Cambuslang#The church) or not (Cambuslang - you need to read the source to see that one). Or even just "The dedication of the church at Cambuslang" would do, which gives enough information for the curious to skip ahead to it. Also, I am a bit curious: have you a reference for the "recorded as wandering about the hills of Strathclyde" mention? The Cadoc article doesn't have anything about this, so it would be good to get the two articles in sync and to make a start of references for Cadoc: currently all we have is a note that one book is not to be trusted :) Telsa (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistical Accounts of Scotland

Thanks for writing this excellent intro on the accounts. Very useful. I made some redirects, like Old Statistical Account and so on. If you are writing Scots articles, you may like to have a look at the Scottish WP noticeboard, and there's a New articles page which will get things noticed. Or that's the idea anyway. Best of luck ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your reverts on Greece

Hi, why did you re-introduce your edit I had previously reverted on Greece, regarding the Greek Orthodox Church ([1])? I thought my edit summary was pretty self-explanatory: Church of Greece is factually incorrect in this instance. "Greek Orthodox Church" may be formally tagged as a dab page, but I believe it is actually the most informative place to point to in this instance. I'm a bit astonished at your seemingly mechanistic revert, are you a bot? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. May I also ask you to be more careful in general with replacing those links, unless you are very certain about their factual accuracy? For instance here: [2] - I doubt a Greek church in Hungary would belong to the actual Church of Greece; AFAIR orthodox churches across Europe are under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople, but as long as we are not sure, the more general page "Greek Orthodox Church" seems more appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've felt I had to revert or correct quite a couple of your edits on this matter. If you are concerned on formal grounds that links shouldn't go to dab pages, I think the best thing to do is to just no longer tag Greek Orthodox Church as a dab page. I left a note at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links page too, and there's now a discussion ongoing at Talk:Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I can see your concern, of course. If we can agree that that page should just not be treated like any garden-variety dab page in certein respects, there won't be a problem. Maybe the best thing would be to slightly expand that article, making it clear to the reader that "Greek Orthodoxy" as such is a concept more of historical-cultural-national self-identification than of either theological doctrine or church organisation. In theological terms, a person belongs simply to the Eastern Orthodox Church; in terms of ecclesiastical jurisdiction a parish or bishopric may belong to the Curch of Greece or the Patriarchate of Constantinople or whatever (but that's not a distinction of denomination of the parishioners). But still, people will implicitly self-identify as "Greek Orthodox", and many of the incoming links to that article are from pages where it's really that historical self-identification concept that's at issue, and the other distinctions are simply not very relevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your articles on ministers

Hey, your contributions are certainly well-researched and appreciated, but I and other users feel that some of the people you've added don't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia based on Wikipedia's notability criteria. Some are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J E Houston, Minister, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Blair, Minister, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Robertson, Minister. Your input in those discussions is certainly welcome. Regards, Elmer Clark 00:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to John Robertson (minister)

Your recent edit to John Robertson (minister) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 13:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI when you want to redirect a page to another page, you need to use #REDIRECT [[New PageName]] - that will automatically redirect the page and be less confusing for the user. -- Tawker 13:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)