User talk:Chelseaboy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] George Carey
I have looked it up: and you are right, Bishops are distinct from priests in that they can consecrate other bishops and ordain priests. I will remove him (and rowan williams, which you missed :) Dev920 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Griffin
- Good heraldic addition! Welcome! --Wetman 03:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Public school
Hi. Heads-up re vote on name change at public school. A couple of us have switched our vote to back the new consensus: a merge with Independent school. I wondered if you would consider reviewing that Talk page and maybe switching support too, so that we can wrap this debate up and move on to improving new article?--Mais oui! 06:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Chelsea F.C.
Hey! Good job on cutting all that out from Current Season. Hope the comment is discouragement enough. Aabha 13:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] vandalism User:62.171.194.12
I had to block him (again). Thanks and keep up the good work. Cheers. Lectonar 10:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] re:Chelsea F.C.
Hey Chelseaboy
Thanks a lot! But so's Lampard,isn't it? ;) -Aabha | talk 18:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
Please don't revert content changes to an article (Wayne Rooney, in this case) and describe them as vandalism. Thanks. Proto||type 14:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I thought that might have been what had happened, but it looked weird as there was such a big time gap between my edit and your revert. Not to worry! :) Proto||type 14:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New College, Oxford
The link to the College Website is given in the infobox; it shourdn't be repeated. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry — it was partly that I thought that it was obvious (and I was probably wrong), but partly because I did explain in the edit summaries the first few times it happened on various College articles, and after a while I gave up. I shouldn't have done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Southwick, Northamptonshire
Good work - well done! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 06:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks...
Thanks for noticing my contributions. I appreciate it.--Evadb 17:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you for doing so also. {S}he deserves it. IP Address 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Heraldry Portal?
Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better. Thanks for all your hard work on heraldic topics.--Eva db 08:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ruth Kelly
Your reference to Ruth Kelly's viewson homosexuality, which have to be deduced is, I still feel, otiose. I think the whole article is a good example of the weakness of Wikipedia in that it allows people to put forward points of view under the guise of information. Thus, whether Cherie Blair is a 'devout' Catholic is unknown. She is a practising Catholic, more than that is not known. Any Catholic, such is the nature of that Church, is expected to conform to its teaching. That some do not is a matter of record. But in any case the argument about the relationship between religiously informed conscience and liberal views is not one that should permeate an article on a comparatively ephemeral figure. One could equally have an article on anti-Catholicism in England; it is pervasive. For th record the article is full of veiled criticism of Ms. Kelly's educational policies by those who have strong views. Unfortunately, the liberal consensus is hugely intolerant of other views, even if, as is the case, Ms. Kelly has worked hard to avoid making her views, whatever they are, on matters of sexuality, public and has, apparently, merely exercised her right of conscience. I do not intend to engage in a pointless edit war. I do suggest however that you remove the word 'devout' on the grounds that it is unprovable. Roger Arguile Ascension Day 2006 4.25 (UTC)
[edit] Cowley v Cowley
I'm going to edit your entry on Cowley v Cowley - but thought I'd give you a warning so you could comment first - because I think it gives a misleading impression. The case was dismissed not on the merits of the argument but on a fundermental lack of juristiction of the ordinary courts in the area of honour. It was a matter for the HofL alone. The legal question was therefore not clarified. Alci12 11:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your courteous heads up on the Cowley reference in Courtesy title - much appreciated. By all means go ahead and edit. This is under the heading "Divorced wives who remarry", isn't it - a point which crops up every now and then in English literature and fiction, so worth including the old practice although now obsolete, I think. The first two sentences should stay, shouldn't they, but the third one should no doubt be qualified to make clear the point you mention. The first two sentences refer to an excellent and interesting source on what was actually accepted in society at that time. I hope you will feel that the words "customary" in the first sentence, and "common practice" and "not a matter of right" "merely a matter of courtesy, and allowed by the usages of society" in Lord Macnaughten's words make the first two sentences quite correct - indeed, he is rather at pains, isn't he, to distinguish the "matter of right" from the "matter of courtesy... allowed by the usages of society." Anyway, I will be interested to see what you think. Chelseaboy 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Southwick, Northamptonshire
Brookie here - visited there today and added some pics. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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 22:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Shield sticker (colours brightened).jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 01:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Armorist.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Armorist.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 81.193.153.237 20:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
