User talk:TSP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, TSP, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 20:23, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo, TSP! It was good to bump into you at talk:Church of England. I used to be curate at St Andrew's Haughton-le-Skerne in Darlington. I moved down to Wiltshire three years ago. All the best with your contributions to Wikipedia and Diocesan Synod. Gareth Hughes 15:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi - yes explanation would have been proper. Ive modified the HCFE article to be more explanatory. -==SV 21:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] St. Malarkey

Good catch TSP; this apparent software glitch (see Talk at the article) has now happened to me twice for sure, and I vaguely remove a third time. At any rate, you wuz quite right, a lot woulda got wiped out without you, thanx. Bill 09:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doxbridge

Hi Tim,

Just been reading your interesting comment on the VfD page for the 'Doxbridge' article. I see from your user page that you work at DSU (I'm a postdoc at Cambridge). Out of interest, how common is use of the word Doxbridge in Durham, do you reckon? It's not a term that I'd come across before, so I'm wondering whether it's predominantly used at DU -- but I agree with you that every word starts off as a neologism :o) Having said that, I guess I'm slightly worried that creating an article (rather than a Wikitionary entry) for Doxbridge might be somewhat controversial: it's one thing having a term for the three universities collectively -- especially for reference to joint sporting events -- but a whole article suggests a special relationship that folks at Nottingham, Imperial, etc might resent!

In any case, for what it's worth, I reckon that comparisons between Durham and 'Oxbridge' do DU itself a disservice by not recognising its individual excellence -- it's a fantastic university in a really lovely city (my sister was a student there, so I visited rather a lot about 10 years ago). And of course, being from Cambridge, I reckon that the term Oxbridge is dodgy as well, as it associates that piffling little Oxford University with ourselves :-p

Stuart. -- Sjb90 4 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)

(I've added this page to my watch list, so do feel free to reply on here!)

Not very common - as I've just observed on the VFD page, the Google hits actually show more uses from Oxford and Cambridge than Durham. I've heard it very occasionally used, mostly in regard to sporting tournaments. I'm not fighting very hard for it to be kept, because it is a reasonably uncommon term; but it does annoy me that people are advocating its deletion on the grounds that it's purely a piece of Durham social climbing, because the facts don't seem to support that. (Though ironically one of the major themes in the Google hits is of message boards full of Oxford or Cambridge students complaining about the term - much more common than Durham students actually using it) :-)
I'm really not sure whether it deserves to be kept; on the one hand, it's reasonably uncommon; on the other, Wikipedia is not paper and it's a genuine term in, admittedly not common, use across quite a wide group of people. As I say, it wouldn't really annoy me if it was deleted; but it does annoy me the awful reasons being put forward for its deletion.
I'm not sure it makes any better a Wiktionary article than a Wikipedia article. The existence of the sports tournament is encyclopedic fact (which wouldn't really belong in a dictionary, or only as as a brief mention), and it's of encyclopedic rather than dictionary interest that the three, though for this rather limited purpose, choose to bracket themselves together in this way. TSP 4 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
Yes, I totally appreciate your comments here -- and I've added a supporting comment to this effect on the VfD page just now. Of course discussion about the use of the term at Oxford, Cambridge, or elsewhere does itself make its use more widespread and so potentially acceptable :o) I suspect the dictionary vs. encyclopaedia debate can be argued either way -- I don't have wildly strong views at this stage, either ;-) -- Sjb90 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

[edit] More Doxbridge

Thank you for your well-reasoned reply to Gangeska on the Doxbridge talk page and for your work on the Doxbridge section of Oxbridge. Well done! -- Jonel | Speak 02:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear! The latest compromise is very balanced (good work there), and certainly from my point of view justifies keeping reference to the term in Wikipedia (spoken as someone who's been at Cambridge for the past 8 years -- far too long...). -- Sjb90 11:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I seem to have been inadvertently sucked into this whole Doxbridge affair - having started by following a link from Van Mildert College and feeling the need to do a heavy edit on the original Doxbridge article to remove POV, then ending up feeling like the lone advocate for an article I never felt very strongly for in the first place! I'm pretty happy with the text in its current context, though; I hope that when the regular Oxbridge editors get around to reading it they'll agree. TSP 12:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

For an article whose inclusion was debatable in the first place, this Doxbridge lark is proving to be rather contentious! Some people seem to have really strong views on the issue. I have a feeling that this isn't something that will just die down and go away: there will always be more people who stumble across the article and remove a reference to Doxbridge than wish to add it in. How would you feel about a suggestion to move reference to the term from the Oxbridge article to the Durham University article? Sjb90 21:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* - well, it fits much better on Oxbridge, if it's going to be anywhere; and I don't like the idea of having to remove content from a page based on bad arguments, simply because those making the bad arguments are more numerous (are they more numerous?) than opposing them. Not that I believe there are no good arguments for its removal - but they're not the ones being made (nor did they convince the majority of experienced editors on VfD). TSP 08:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

see my comments on doxbridge talk page. You've done a good job on this one. 62.253.64.15 11:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Roman Catholic Church: Protestant dissenters

Dissenter is a precise term, but one which bears historical connotations that make it unacceptable in the context of the article - your point taken. But is it superfluous? Protestant is a vague term, a tag with no significance beyond its historical connotations - in itself, doesn't it confuse the issue that is to be joined ie. the universality of the church? In my view, it creates the same confusion as use of the term Papist, which is another historical tag. Please take a look at the discussion page on this article on the term Roman Catholic: there's a lot of talk, but no agreement on the terms of analysis, and it seems that logic is having to take second place to consensus. The introductory paragraph to an article ought to be crystal clear, but with this one even the title itself is confusing. Such is Wikipedia, but then Father Ted too used to skip essentials by saying, "That would be an ecumenical matter". God help us.--shtove 03:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Careful - you seem to have accidentally deleted most of the Roman Catholic Church page -and nobody noticed for several hours! --File Éireann 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Emily Davison

I also felt the source was incomplete for that entry, however the name of the textbook I used to study history has escaped me, so remove it if you wish.

[edit] Northern Arts Literature Fellowship

Hi TSP - Happy New Year!

I write to ask if you would be interested in helping create an article on "Northern Arts Literature Fellowship", a subject which I believe is offered at Durham University, as well as University of Newcastle upon Tyne? I notice from your user page that you work at Durham Uni, so I thought you may be a good person to ask. The reason I wanted to start this article is that I have an interest in Caribbean history and culture, particularly that of Guyana, where I worked for two years. I've created some articles on Guyanese writers, (for example) Fred D'Aguiar, and while researching D'Aguiar, noticed that he had been Northern Arts Literature Fellow at both unis. Any help, or suggestions, would be most appreciated (for example - should the article be just on "Northern Arts"?)

Hope you can help - All the best for 2006! Camillustalk 20:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

KarenS (talk • contribs) has added these links to a whole set of pages, even after I explained it, so I thought it best to remove them all, because it appears to be nothing but linkspamming. That said, I see nothing wrong with you re-adding some of these links if you think that they are useful. Guettarda 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scripture Union's Transformers holiday

What is "Scripture Union's Transformers holiday"? Does it involve Transformers? JIP | Talk 09:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move for RCC

Hi, thanks for your vote on the requested move. What do you think of this idea as a compromise: If we can't ultimately come to a consensus, then what about moving the entire Roman Catholic Church article over to replace the Catholicism article? We would then move the current Catholicism article to a new page, Catholicity, which is really what Catholicism is trying to address anyway. And then all requests for "Catholic Church", "Roman Catholic Church", etc., would redirect to Catholicism. If we cannot reach a consensus on the words "Catholic Church", I think "Catholicism" is a good compromise. Please indicate if you are amenable to this compromise idea. --Hyphen5 13:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for responding. Please see my my reply. I am very much willing to work with you and any other interested editors on a logical arrangement of these articles. I'm just kind of frustrated about how this debate has gone on forever with no action. Hopefully we can work something out. --Hyphen5 19:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

TSP, I have read the naming conventions. They say nothing about this controversy. Please direct me to the ones you think are relevant, because I must have totally missed them. --Hyphen5 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Your "alternate resolution"

Tim: Thanks for trying to bring the discussion back to the naming conventions. That's what I should have been doing; we've gotten distracted in arguing about who has the "moral right" to the name. I don't want to be the first to endorse your proposal, because I think everybody hates me so much that I wouldn't want them to associate you with me! But I just wanted to send a note of thanks for trying to bring sanity and clarity back to the discussion. P.S. I'm Frank. --Hyphen5 14:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what do you think of the Catholic Church (Roman) idea? --Hyphen5 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 12:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of category

Your redirect of Category:Dissident Catholic Theologians is inappropriate because it is a category, not an article. Once all the articles have been moved to the new category, it should be nominated for deletion, or in this case because it's a simple capitalization change, nominated for speedy deletion. See Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and WP:SD. --Blainster 20:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Roman Catholic Church

No problem. I quite understand, and I did, after all, allow it to get out of hand. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


You know, we came close to peace. But, I think your inflexibility has put an end to that any time soon. --Vaquero100 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Trying??? I really think this is just a game for you. Let's call it "Screw the Catholics." Honestly, I look around the other church articles on WP and find nothing even close to this kind of badgering. For a moment, I was weak. I was willing to take a second class place for the Catholic Church on WP just to make peace. But you and Fishhead are just far too arrogant to work with. --Vaquero100 18:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

TSP, I have looked at your user page as well. Your claim to objectivity is belied by your St. Chad's College roots and your status as the son or daughter of an Anglican bishop. Anglicans have a notorious history with regard to Catholicism. This is my personal experience and the lesson of history. Neither charity, justice nor common decency is your tradition's norm. As an American Southerner of both Irish and English decent,I am well familiar with the dynamics of discrimination. It is most powerful when it lurks just beneath one's conscious awareness. I hope you come to a new consciousness and a new conscience. --Vaquero100 09:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


TSP, I know you are right about the NPA. I owe you several apologies for some of the personal comments I have made on here and on other WP pages. I'm sure you are a fine person and that I'd enjoy meeting you.

Still, I am trying everything I can to figure out the motivation behind the Anglican POV and its unyielding manner. I know I should not assume "bad faith" in WP terms and I don't want to be uncharitable. Perhaps it is my lack of imagination that I can only see meanness in it. Anyway, it is still wrong.

My apologies,

John --Vaquero100 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


TSP, Greetings from Our Lady's University, home of the "Fightin' Irish". Yesterday, Mary McAleese was the honored speaker at our commencement ceremony. She was great. But she kept talking about the indomitable Irish spirit and the hardships of Irish history. We are mostly the progeny of the famine here, so we have our own family stories to tell...Anyway, I'm going to blame at least a bit of my bad spirit on the good Mary McAleese.

Thanks again for your support on the ancillary article names. I don't suppose it'll get far in the short term, but the Irish have learned a patient impatience. --Vaquero100 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure I have evidence; its in that same document, Humani Generis! You see the Church at large does not entitle itself by a any particular region or place. The Church, by far, has most commonily referred to itself by the most generic term, either simply the Church or the Catholic Church. When it adds adjectives to these titles it is more for "descriptive" purposes. Sort of like, say there were two or more countries (Churches) calling themselves by the same name then in the name clarity adding a geographic description to point out which country is being described.

For example, assume the following senario. An 1860 America where the North and South never unified, and the South decided to go by the same name "USA" - Then in a speech to the South Abe Lincoln in referring to the North must add a descriptive term to clarify which nation he is speaking of. Thus he may have to say : the "Washingtonian USA" .

Would Abe be changing the title of the country by making such at statement? No, he would be simply adding a geographical adjective as opposed to saying the more brash " the USA in union with me (the President)."

Thus when Pope XII made that statement he was using "Roman" as simply an additional adjective in pointing out what Church he was speaking of he was not suddenly changing the name of the Catholic Church.

Let us review Pope XII's encyclical where he mentions "Roman Catholic Church"

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine (such as Anglican Catholic, Orthodox Catholic Churches, etc.), explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith."

Hence, when he makes that statement, he humbly mentions the geographic descriptive term "Roman", instead of saying "the Church in union with me (the Pope)". However, this in turn created other problems because one must ask as occurs with Non-Cathlics did he mean a church simply called the "Roman Church" in the same like as to a Greek or Anglican Church, etc. or as in the Latin rite only which you TSP point out. Those erroneous interpretations are clarified as we read the entire document in context. You see, usage of this term is not utilized by the Church when it speaks in the general sense. It is used referring to the particular Latin Rite section of the Church or when specifically speaking to others which do not recognize the Church's authority. This is exemplified in Humani Generis. In that very same encyclical, Pope Puis does not attempts to limit the confines of his church to simply a "Roman" Church audience but to the entire/universal body of Christians. Because, except for that one instance where he is speaking directly of those outside the Petrine authority, he refers to that religious institution not as the "Roman Church" , but simply as "The Church" none-the-less than 46 times to 1. (including "the true Church" in that very same paragraph)

Whereas,

1) the Church's, by far, most utilized title is "Catholic Church" (officially simply "The Church"),
2) this article is not a religious or eccumenical document,
3) the added prefix only creates more confusion as it may relate to the Western Rite (not the Church at large) and/or those in union may be Catholic, but not Roman (Latin) Catholic by title.
4) the usage of the term "Roman..",outside the church historically and in many ways even today, is used in a derogatory sense. [1] [2]

I reiterate the need to change the title of this article to simply the "Catholic Church" not only because it truly IS the lone institution that goes by such a title, but because those that do not recognize it as such already have their non-Catholic point of view - a neutral POV does not exist- based articles well represented in Wikipedia. ( see Catholic, or Catholicism). Micael 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

TSP, please use good faith on WP on Talk:Roman Catholic Church and please do not 'bully' Catholic contributors as an Anglican bishop's son. Ghfj007 16:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-fusc?

This didn't ought to be redirecting to Oxfrog AD, did it? Only I'm not quite feeling confident enough to re-redirect it, so I thought I should check with you? --JennyRad 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fleeting googling and examination of the Academic_dress@yahoogroups archives suggest it's used more generically, even if the technical meaning is Oxford-specific. I'd have thought a redirect just to Academic Dress made more sense. But I don't have the confidence to actually try it ...--JennyRad 17:43, 1 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 22:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSDornot subpages

I've moved them to less specific names, and requested the leftover redirects be deleted. It was nowhere near the top of the Google hits unless someone is googling bill gates fornicate, which seems a stretch, but still probably better safe than sorry. Niteowlneils 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge

This idea of merging Catholic and Catholicism has been debated over and over again. The result is always the same — no. Please don't bring up this debate yet again. Apart from anything else, they are not the same. The latter refers to a religion. The former has a number of meanings, including a religion. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What seems to happen is that every so often someone deletes stuff unique to each article. Then someone undeletes it. It gets deleted again. And so the saga goes. The problem with WP is that one individual can sneak through an edit that removes something important and if no-one notices it in time, and others innocently edit the page further, its absence is only noticed when someone who read the page months earlier glances at it and spots that something important has been lost along the way. (Sorry if I sound grouchy about it. There are certain issues; abortion, religion (specicially Catholicism), Irish republicanism, George Bush, conspiracy theories, etc, that run into this problem all the time. I have given up being the 'clean-up guy' on them. I'll let others do that in future. :) Slán FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting anons

Please issue warnings to anons who make tendentious edits, we can't beat them with the cluebat until they've been warned. Thanks, Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palatinate

Hi Tim, I've just left a comment on Template talk:Shades of violet, following on from a previous remark on Talk:Palatinate (colour), regarding the thorny question of what hue of purple palatinate really is. The UoD has different shades all over the place, and I've never seen the coat it's supposed to derive from. I'm not convinced that the colour on [3] is anywhere near true; it seems much too dark to me. Have you ever seen a true copy of the shade? Do you know if the rumours are true that Ede and Ravenscroft have the coat, to then ask them for a copy of the colour? You're the only person I can think of who would know without researching it myself... :-) DWaterson 20:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what do you use?

Hi, I appreciate your help in making one of my photography look better but what do you use (program) to reduce the noise and making the image look better? Thanks. Arad 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And please give us your vote for Arge Bam on FPC. Thank you. Arad 19:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again m8. Useful information. It'll probably help me in the future. And thanks again for fixing my photo. Arad 01:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That FBI guy

One day that page will be a disambiguation page, I hope. ;) The Wednesday Island 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, can you do me a favor again?

Sorry to bother you, but can you check the new photo (Baghe Eram Shiraz) at the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates page and see if it needs downsampling? Thanks a lot. Arad 12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durham college arms

Hi TSP, Thanks for bringing the copyright issue to light, i think after reading the policy, that all bar Hatfield's and Castle's crest would be deemed copyrighted due to the issue of non-geometric shapes and therefore creating enough originality, although i dont think that castle's and hatfield's would be copyrighted as it is just the shield as set out by the blazon and a motto which again is perscribed and so can not be deemed original. So it might be best to remove the others and place the free licence ones in their place. Once again thanks for bringing it too light =) AlexD 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ECUSA arms.svg

Great work!
Great work!

Thanks for creating and uploading this nice vector graphic in response to my request. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Durham - Collingwood arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham - Collingwood arms.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Durham - George Stephenson arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham - George Stephenson arms.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Durham - Grey arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham - Grey arms.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 18:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Durham - Hatfield arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham - Hatfield arms.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Years Honours' list...well mine anyway!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For your academic shield contributions. Timrollpickering 17:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop of Durham

TSP, I have a personal interest in Anglican realignment and believe I recall reading your bishop' strong response to the covenant for the Church of England. If you have any interest in the subject, you might want to check the article. I started it back in December. Though I am Ukrainian Catholic, I used to attend one of the churches that recently realigned in Virginia. It would be good to get some Anglican eyes on the matter. Thanks. EastmeetsWest 16:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Tom

Thanks for the delete of the Cartlon Banks photo ... I must have been adding the comment on the talk page when you did it, because I was Really Shocked to find that it had been reverted already ... Good Call on the "fair use", BTW ... you've obviously had some experience with this kind of WikiTroll. Dennette 01:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] commons:User:TSP

I assert that I am the same user as commons:User:TSP. TSP 04:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pork pie hat

The image most certainly is of a pork pie hat. A pork pie hat is a round hat (no indentations) with a short brim, generally with a ridge around the top (sort of like a traditional pork pie has). The hat is most certainly a pork pie. I have another pork pie that I could perhaps photograph and put up that you might be more pleased with, but I assure you, the hat is a pork pie by any definition of the term. You might have contacted the uploader (me) instead of adding the "citation needed" tag. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is just the angle. I'll see what I can do about taking another picture (and probably of my other, newer, pork pie as well). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/s/p/User_talk%7ETSP_79f8.html"