User talk:Philip Stevens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] RCC vs. CC

I beg to disagree. For one thing, a redirect is not a major performance issue and wikipedia says not to make a mountain out of a molehill as far as it is concerned. Next, the term RCC is more or less an Anglo-centric carryover from Encyclopedia Britannica. I am of the camp that respects the objections of the agents of the Catholic Church, i.e. its priests, that is to say, that it identifies itself as merely the Catholic Church. I also subscribe to the argument of other WP editors that the naming convention of WP be fairly applied to the CC and hence name it as such. Other editors of WP would object of course and can definitely find sources of instances of ther term RCC being used but it is not the same as that being taught by its hierarchy. If you talk to Eastern Catholics, they would definitely object since they refer to themselves as Catholics, definitely, but not Roman Catholics (e.g. Maronite Catholics, Chaldean Catholics). A few editors in WP seem to monopolize an article and such is the behavior of most articles in WP. The term RCC is unfortunately an Anglican invention with an originally derogatory connotation (anti-papist) during the 18th cent. onwards and has unfortunately been applied by the British to the CC and hence infected wholescale the English language - but that's history for you. In sum, it is unfortunate that the terminology being used is incorrect and misleading although gaining acceptance. This is one of the weaknesses of WP since articles are made as a product more of consensus than objectivity. This is true whenever an article is an article of the humanities. Since no subject under the humanities can ever be objectively presented, everybody would just have to accept, including you, the realization that it will always be subject to change unlike a subject under science.

The humanities will always be subject to opinion and change, science less so. People will always have different opinions about the Mona Lisa but 1+1 will always equal 2. I hope you can appreciate my point of view. Dr mindbender 05:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points, but I fear that the majority of editors will not see it the way you do. Philip Stevens 07:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 02:50 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Template:Infobox Officeholder

Gerald Ford is no longer linked to the main page, so would it be possible for you to unprotect Template:Infobox Officeholder as there are edits that are waiting to be made. Thank you. Philip Stevens 11:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the template from {{mprotected2}} to {{hprotected}}, since the template is used in nearly two thousand places. You can always request that a change be made to the template by adding {{editprotected}}, with the requested edit, to the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 12:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel semi-protection would be better as there is no history of vandalism on the page. Philip Stevens 14:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BRoy titles templates poll

Hi, Philip Stevens! I've just started a poll about Category:British royal titles templates, and would really value your input - please do have your say! Cheers, – D B D does... 13:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Betty Boothroyd.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Betty Boothroyd.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. Quentin X 13:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers in sort keys

I notice you've changed 50 Cent a couple of times to sort as "Fifty Cent". Why is this? There doesn't seem to be any technical reason to avoid numerals in sort keys, and I haven't seen anything in the guidelines that suggests it. --Stemonitis 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No technical reason, but all other persons with a number in their name (40 Glocc for example) are categorised in this way. Philip Stevens 13:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be wary of making any unnecessary conversions between the text which is seen and that by which an article is sorted, so I think I would tend not to add sort keys to 50 Cent, 40 Glogg and any others. I can foresee that problems might arise if we start getting numbers above 99 which need to be sorted numerically (i.e. if one wanted "107 Person" to sort after "50 Cent"), but I don't think that applies yet. For that matter, numbers below 10 would create a similar problem. I need to think about this some more. --Stemonitis 14:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ayaka

Oh! Thanks for telling me; I never knew. --Jellyfisho?^seriously! 11:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year Links

I'm afraid i'll have to disagree with you. Just because some years don't have content don't mean they all don't, and eventually, all of them will anyway. I'm not sure how to go forward with this, but I guess for now putting the {{disputed}} tag on the 22nd Century and putting a note on the talk page to see what consensus thinks is best. Just H 14:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] list of people with chron's disease

i thought the idea was contribution. not try to make fat computer sad-acts get upset because someone not as 'leet' as them tried to join in on their silly game —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.174.238 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Infobox Officeholder

Made the changes per your request. Let me know if everything if anything got broken. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Philip Stevens 06:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem... done again. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - again. You have also added a lieutenant field, that's rather clever as I was thinking of doing that! --Philip Stevens 06:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current British MPs template

Your template Current British MPs, which had been deleted, was still being transclued in MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2005. I have just removed it from there, for a number of reasons:

if the template should exist, then it should be in mainspace, not userspace. It was deleted from mainspace, so it should not be used there
A template in userspace is less likely to be properly maintained, because some editors will quite reasonably refrain from editing a user's own pages

I think it would be vey useful to have a list of current MPs by party, and if you felt like converting your template into such a list I'm sure that it would be a very welcome addition to mainspace. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}

I wasn't aware that my template was still in use, sorry about that. I've created the page you suggested. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve it? --Philip Stevens 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that was quick! Well done :)

I have a few suggestions, for what they are worth:

sort the list by the MPs surnames, rather than by constituency: I think that to some exetent the constituency-sorted list duplicates the existing MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2005. But no need to delete the one you've just created: why not create an MP-sorted list as well?
add an extra column for something about electoral history, maybe just which MPs were elected in by-elections, or if you were feeing very energetic you could go back further and note when they were first elected
Expand the opening section to explain what "current MPs" means (i.e. elected at 2005 GE or in by-elections)
don't forget to add you new page(s) to MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election,_2005#See_also

Anyway, those are just my suggestions, and you should do what you think best and what you have energy for. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Mili_Avital_1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mili_Avital_1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Stargate Sha'uri.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stargate Sha'uri.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair infobox

Please see discussion here Talk:Tony_Blair#Title_in_infobox. I have removed your edit as such, obviously if that's incorrect please raise it there. The18thDoctor 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ST-TravisMayweather.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:ST-TravisMayweather.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.

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Neelix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Neelix.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Bariel Antos.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bariel Antos.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bariel Antos.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Bariel Antos.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:ST-TravisMayweather.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:ST-TravisMayweather.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katharine of Aragon

Hello there. Just wondering if you could give some advice on a debate on the Catherine of Aragon page regarding the spelling of her name. There is some heated discussion on the discussion page, could you drop by and add your thoughts?? CheersPaul75 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 13:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tony_Blair_signature.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tony_Blair_signature.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Eurovision 2008

Don't worry,I would not create an article until Eurovision 2007 takes place.I was just confused because of last year,there was an article about 2007 or something similar to it.

[edit] Category moved on {{User:JohnnyReb1977/Georgia}}

Philip,

Thanks for moving that cat. I never noticed it was the wrong one. Reb 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/i/User_talk%7EPhilip_Stevens_2b0c.html"