User talk:Chelseaboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[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:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. 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)


[edit] Temple Church

I have changed the bit about the title of the Master; the Middle Temple website says that he's called the Reverend and Valiant and Griffith-Jones has used the title in interviews about his new book, so I think that's enough to justify it being there. I thought I'd mention that I'd changed it as you were the last one to edit that bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Throwawayhack (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Chelsea's 1960ies Badge

Hey there! I just found that image you uploaded to the english wikipedia of chelsea's badge in the 1960ies [1]. Would you mind uploading it to the wikimedia commons so I could use it in the german wikipedia article? Thanks a lot in advance! TheBlues

[edit] Anglican collaboration of the month

The current Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month is
Essays and Reviews
The next collaboration will be selected on 30 April 2008. (Vote here)

Wassupwestcoast 03:22, 6 October 2007 (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! Wassupwestcoast 03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Who's Who 2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Who's Who 2007.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Who's Who 2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Who's Who 2007.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landed gentry

I just thought I'd say that I agree with your (rather old) comment that the landed gentry article has veered off course. It still is off course. Raskado (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Griffin and minor canon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Griffin and minor canon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Chelsea's old badge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chelsea's old badge.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)