User talk:Wine Guy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wine Guy's talk page!

•If you post a message here, I will respond here unless you ask me to do otherwise.
•Please add new messages at the bottom, or just click here to start a new section.
Have a _______ day! (insert your preferred type of day)

[edit] Maps of dioceses

I like your new articles on the Episcopal provinces. Some include maps, showing the dioceses. I think it would be useful to have a map showing all the dioceses. If it were possible, one could then make a particular diocese red, like the county maps showing the position of various counties within states. Also we could use a map on the Anglicanism WikiProject to show which dioceses have articles and which don't. But I have no idea how the graphic stuff works.--Bhuck 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Bhuck. That's an interesting suggestion about trying to highlight the maps. I'm not great with graphics myself, but maybe it's something I can figure out. The maps on Provinces 4-6 (and 7-9 when I get to them, tonight maybe), are actually the older style logos which are printed on letterhead and what not. Provinces 1-3 have newer websites, and "fancy" new logos. P-1 retains the map concept, but 2 and 3 do not. I might be able to find them, though. They are kind of useful aren't they? I'll see what I can do. --Wine Guy Talk 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you putting the graphics files just on :en-Wiki or also on Commons? I often try to incorporate graphic references when I translate articles into German for the :de-Wikipedia, but if they aren't on Commons, the links don't work right. (See, for example de:Diskussion:Presiding Bishop) Also, I notice that the map in Province 7 labels the diocese including most of New Mexico and the area around El Paso, Texas as the "Diocese of Rio Grand" (no "e"), while the (red) link in the list in the article is to the "Diocese of Rio Grande"--but the map text could be in error.--Bhuck 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now the files are just on en.WP since they're fair use. I've started trying to create some maps that would be free licensed, but since I'm no CG expert, I'm still trying to figure out how to do what I want. I know the maps are not that important, but this gives me an excuse to learn more about image and graphic stuff. When I get something usable, I'll upload to Commons per your suggestion. Oh, and the Rio Grande is definately with an e, it's an error on the map/logo (which I hadn't even noticed.) --Wine Guy Talk 23:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheng Kung Hui

After a prelimary search of Sheng Kung Hui in Google, nearly all pages is with respective to Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (Hong Kong Anglican Church (Espiscopal)), which manage dioceses in Hong Kong and Macau. On the other hand, Taiwan Sheng Kung Hui (臺灣聖公會) yields only 2 entry in Japanese and it shows another name The Episcopal Church of Taiwan also.　臺灣聖公會 is an overseas dioceses of Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The English name of the churchi in the official website is Taiwan Episopal Church. [1] Historically there was Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui (中華聖公會), namely Anglican Church in China. As communist took over the China in 1949, it is hard for churches to survive and the Anglican was no long active in China. Many Chinese fled to Hong Kong, Taiwan and overseas. Part of them re-established the church in Taiwan with help of Episcopal Church in the United States of America, but name it as 臺灣聖公會 in Chinese.

I'm also confused with Anglican and Espiscopal churches in the name of Hong Kong Anglican Church (Espiscopal). For more information, you might visit http://www.hkskh.org . The meaning of 聖公會 in Chinese is more closed to Episcopal but it is Anglican in history and nature. It is more commonly translating 聖公會 to Anglican Church. In the article Espiscopal, it say many Anglican churches named Espiscopal. In fact Episcopal Church in the United States of America is an Anglican Church too.

Sheng Kung Hui in English is rarely referred outside the context of Hong Kong Sheng Kui Hui in past decades. There is no need to move the articles. — HenryLi (Talk) 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

— HenryLi (Talk) 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For Episcopal Diocese of Taiwan, there is an Chinese wikipedia article zh:臺灣聖公會. While their website http://www.episcopalchurch.org.tw/ is Chinese, which is not intelligible for you, I found a short introduction [2]. For your information, the diocese is independent of ECUSA as described in its website and it is under the name of ECUSA for histoical reasons. (Also Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui ceased to exist in reality.) — HenryLi (Talk) 08:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Music samples is now a guideline

Wikipedia:Music samples is now a guideline. Thank you for your active participation in the discussion. The guideline will always be open for new proposals and amendments. As for now I invite you to join to the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal for Music Samples to adopt a new samples-related CSD criterion. CG 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What vandalism are you talking about?

I didn't vandalise anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinRamos92 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken and have reverted back to your version. Please understand that replacing a German flag with a Nazi flag is common act of vandalism, but your edit was absolutly correct; I should have looked more closely. Please forgive the misunderstanding. --Wine Guy Talk 08:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude I didn't even touch your page. Lawmanmt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears that you are on AOL, so if you have been blocked, or seen notes on a talk page it may or may not be directed at you. To avoid having problems in the future, I would recommend creating an account. Also have a look at this page for more help. --Wine Guy Talk 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your WP:ARV is broken

might want to look into that--Dalek Cab 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean ARV or WP:AIV, but yes I noticed that the .js did something odd, I'll keep an eye on it.--Wine Guy Talk 02:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note for Lightdarkness about the bug. I'm sure he'll get around to fixing it. --Wine Guy Talk 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 210.8.215.219

This user recently vandalised the Dune (novel) page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dune_%28novel%29&diff=63541587&oldid=62880763

I saw your warning on his talk page so I thought I should inform you so you can ban and/or warn him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Konman72 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for the note. I've looked up the IP and it appears we have some new vandals from Belwyn High School in Aussieland. If there's any more vandalism from that IP, I'll drop an email to the school's network admin. --Wine Guy Talk 06:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Province X

VIII of IX provinces done. And now the Anglican Communion Network comes and tries to start a Province X--that promises to be the most interesting article of all, given that only some people will consider it to exist, while others point out its uncanonical status. Will be hard to map, too, I suppose... :-) --Bhuck 12:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I have all sorts of thoughts on the subject (read-I could easily start ranting). However, I dare not utter them even on my own talk page for fear of violating all sorts of WP ideals...;-) --Wine Guy Talk 08:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of Vandalism

I am sorry but I am having a hard time understanding the basis of your accusations of vandalism. I have also discussed this on my talk page but am hoping to expand the dialogue by addressing you directly and not just editing and adding commments on my talk page. I find the label of vandal offensive. Worst case was I was careless in my addition of one word in brackets to your comment on the Giffords page. This was done with no intent to change the meaning of what you wrote but just too highlight that she is not a current senator--and that is not something I think that is negative. I am the one who created the Giffords article to begin with--in fact without looking I don't even know if you voted to keep or get rid of it. I am sorry that this small edit offended you, however, to label me a vandal is extreme and unwarranted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Utahredrock (talk • contribs) 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not that worried about the edits which you made here to my comment, as well as as two other editors. You say this is a "small edit", however, as I've tried to explain, other editors do not take kindly to someone else editing thier remarks. Official Wikipedia policy does not take kindly to it either. I (and others) are more concerned about this edit when you deleted the nomination for deletion and replaced it with your own comments. As much as we may try, it is very difficult to assume good faith in this situation. It was that edit which led JChap2007 to tag your user page with a vandal warning. Please note- I was not the first to warn you about your actions. I have tried to help you understand where and how your edits strayed from accecpted policy and guidelines. Just to refresh your memory, I posted the following on your talk page not long ago:

When you participate in a discussion and wish to clarify something, you are welcome to add your own, new comment in reply to what someone else has said. You are not welcome to change the wording of other user's comments, that is vandalism. Since you apparently have not read it yet, below is the section of WP:VANDAL to which I am refering; it is under the heading Types of vandalism-

Changing people's comments

Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user)

While you did not change my vote, you did add a word to comment which changed the meaning. Please be aware that Wikipedia editors tend to be very protective of their own comments in discussions; some get upset if someone else does something as simple as correct a spelling error in a talk comment. Because of this, the following template exists-

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment at [[at [[{{{1}}}]]]] for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks,

Please note, this is an example of sentiment regarding etiquette; your edits crossed the line into vandalism. That is not my opinion, that is a fact based on policy. On another issue of policy, user's are generally prohibited from removing vandalism warnings from their own talk pages, as you have done here. Since you had already been warned about vandalism, you could be blocked, but I assume good faith and understand that perhaps you were not aware of this policy. Now, you are aware. So, I will replace the warning originally placed by User:JChap2007 [3], and add a formal warning not to remove it. Once again, I hope you will look through the WP policies and guidelines so that you don't have difficulties in the future.

You have since removed that comment, and accused me of a personal attack, which is something I do not take lightly. I'd be interested to know what in the above comment you interpret as a personal attack. I have not said anything about you personally. I have pointed out why your actions are considered vandalism, and have cited my reasoning per WP policy. I have done this in an (increasingly futile) attempt to help you understand what the problems were so that you could avoid them in the future. Perhaps you would prefer not to avoid problems, and to that I can only say good luck, be well, and good night. --Wine Guy Talk 10:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As you don't appreciated being called a personal attacker, I don't appreciate being called a vandal. In the plain language of the vandal policy it is clear that I did not commit vandalism and being labeled a vandal seems like a personal attack. Somebody edits something by innocently adding a work and they are a vandal? That's not an attack? The word didn't change the meaning of anything and was added in such a way that it was clear that it was added--in other words it wasn't an edit of what you wrote just another word in an attempt to add clarity.--Utahredrock 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are we arguing about?

Now I am really confused. I see that we agree regarding the Giffords article. I also see that the word former is still in your comment, though apparently not the way I wrote it. What exactly did I put in that you consider vandalism?--Utahredrock 07:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that "former" is still there, I'll remove it presently. In my opinion, it makes no difference whether she is a current or former state senator. I'm capable of wording my comments as I see fit. If you disagree with my comment (or anyone else's), feel free to reply with your own comment. Please, do not edit other peoples comments on any discussion page.

And BTW, we are not arguing. I've stated my opinions, and quoted directly from WP policies. If you choose to respond in an argumentative fashion, well, that's your choice. --Wine Guy Talk 10:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was quoting from Wiki policy too. I agree that whether she is a current or former senator makes no difference--I just added the word "former" because someone else commented on it. I was attempting to clarify the point--admittedly a non-important point. I did not add it to edit your comments and still do not see how it was perceived that way. It is so refreshing to know you/we are not arguing. I do wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt when I added that word--which you now don't seem to be concerned with. As I stated elsewhere, what's the point of this discussion other than you strange insistence that I edited your comments? Clearly to state so is a huge stretch.--Utahredrock 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Utahredock's talk page

I have restored your comments on Utahredrock's talk page. Personal attack? Not even close. I'm trying to WP:AGF with this editor, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. JChap (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Alexander Stefan

Delete all per excellent nomination. Nice work Netsnipe. --Wine Guy Talk 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'm always happy to give kudos to the deserving! On a different note, it looks like your browser clipped some text here when you added your comment. Probably that Google toolbar/Firefox bug I've heard about. It's no big deal (I restored the clipped text), but I thought you might want to know about the bug so that you can keep an eye out for it. Cheers! --Wine Guy Talk 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WABC (AM) article reversion

Someone with the same IP as mine (at that time, anyway, as AOL IPs are not static, due to the proxy servers) vandalized the WABC page six hours after I had made major revisions to the article. Because of the one line of vandalism, and then your reversion, four hours of my work was lost. Please revert to the version posted at 00:23 on 26 July, as I believe it was a significant improvement to the original. I cannot revert the article, as I'm obviously an AOL anon user without an account - yet. By the way, I am not the AOL anon user some have complained about on that page, but rather a 30-year radio industry veteran and broadcast professional attempting to make a meaningful contribution to the article. Thanks. 64.12.116.131 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that another editor has restored the last correct version per your request on the WABC (AM) talk page. Thanks for your contributions, they are most welcome, valued, and will never be lost to vandalism or ham-handed reversions (mea culpa). As I think you already know every version of every page is stored in the history, and can be very easily restored. In order to help avoid annoyances like this in the future, I strongly suggest that you create an account. All you need to do is create a new username and password, email address optional; it should take less than thirty seconds. Also have a look at the page Advice to AOL users for hints on how to avoid most of the myriad problems caused by AOL proxies. Hope that helps; happy editing! --Wine Guy Talk 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and the tips. You are right, nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia (unless the server permanently crashes, I suppose). I'm fairly new to this, but will sign up for an account shortly; the range of AOL IPs is blocked so often, it makes it hard to get anything done! Best wishes - 152.163.100.139 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMiA & ECUSA

I realize AMiA is not a part of ECUSA; however, I believe a mention of the AMiA is appropriate in the ECUSA article. The dispute and a compare/contrast of the two organizations seems valid to me. Following your logic, one could say a brief discussion of the Confederacy does not belong in an article on U.S. history. What do you think? Propol 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I do agree that a mention of the AMiA may be merited in the ECUSA article. However, given Archbishop Carey's condemnations of those involved in the creation of AMiA, the mention as writ seemed, at best, misleading. I fully intended to write a note on the ECUSA talk page regarding my edit, and...well...I forgot. I will take this discussion over to the ECUSA talk first thing tomorrow. I'm sorry I forgot to do that in the first place, and thanks again for bringing it back to my attention. --Wine Guy Talk 06:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : LinkCentre AfD

Done. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worklist

Yes, that list looks fine to me, and the layout looks nice. I like your summary style showing the meaning of the assessment levels! I also like the idea of listing the key articles first, that shows people which articles need the most attention. Will you also cover cathedrals, or do you prefer to emphasise that the church is "the people not the building"? How about the bishoprics such as Bishop of Durham? (BTW, I attended an Anglican church in Whitley Bay for many years - in the US I'm a member of a Presbyterian church). One comment on the list, did you mean to list the American Episcopal Church at that level, it doesn't seem to match with its Scottish counterpart?

Looks like a very good start to me. If you choose to use the bot to generate the list for you, please let me know. Meanwhile I will also shamelessly steal from your list and nominate Anglicanism for Version 0.5! Thanks, Walkerma 03:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Rom

I wanted to clarify / add an other comment, but because the discussion was closed I will do it here.

You are correct, of course, when there is no source, or no source can be found. But just because some previous contributer failed to mention their sources doesn't mean it can't be verified per se. I found a source to verify at least a part of the information, making your argument for deletion invalid. I'm sorry if I sound a bit incoherent.

I agree the article is still not exactly an example for other articles to follow, to put it lightly, but that is a different discussion. --SevenMass 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merimbula

A question, not a criticism, Wineguy why did you revert the changes made to the Merimbula, NSW, Australia page. Most were pretty good! --como006

Reply is here.--Wine Guy Talk 18:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to join WP:Wine

Howdy! I don't know if you were aware by there is a Wikipedia Wine Project that I would like to you invite you to consider joining. Your experience as a sommelier would be of immense benefit in improving the quality of Wikipedia's wine articles. Plus, with a user name like Wine Guy, we just wouldn't be complete without you. As a personal note, one of the articles that we are trying to improve to FA status is Riesling which has a section on Riesling with food. It could certainly use an expert's set of eyes. Agne 04:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female bishops

Thank you for adding to the "Female bishops" category which I created earlier this year. I appreciate your assistance in making this category more useful. Ringbark 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that someone has proposed this category for deletion. Please go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_26#Category:Female_bishops and vote. Ringbark 11:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Katherine Jefferts Schori.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Katherine Jefferts Schori.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. 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 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. —An gr 06:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism COTM

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Reformation

I notce that you are of the opinion that the above article is close to being a good article. I also notice the descriptors used for its present classification. I am not aware of any significant omissions. On the contrary, I think that the material on Henry VIII may be too detailed. I am happy to consider suggestions for inclusion of more material but would appreciate some suggestions. Roger Arguile 15:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Browning2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Browning2.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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/User_talk%7EWine_Guy_c683.html"