User talk:Fishhead64/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

WikiProject LGBT studies

Hello! I noticed that your userpage mentions that you are interested in LGBT issues. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? The WikiProject's been a bit inactive recently and some of us are trying to get it going again. We'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on the James Wolfe article

Thanks for taking up the challenge, and for doing a good job on a previously incoherent mess. I didn't have a good feel for the subject, so I didn't try doing it myself. Now I'm glad I waited, and the article is better for it. Happy editing! Chris the speller 05:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, man! Fishhead64 06:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:BritishColumbia

Well, i added Dease Lake becuase it's a very remote town, and it is a "full service" town, much like Hearst, Ontario. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


francais

hey there, fish, I too as you may have guessed an from Vancouver, but I'm from the village of Anmore up north of portmoody on top of hertiage mountain. Anyways with reagrds to the french thing, in general, I'm against the useage of french, but now I live in ottawa, I'm very used to having french rammed down my throat, and usually I just take it so whomever's doing it will shut up. So I'll leave the french in just cause I hate fighting with the french, I'd rather just ignore them, (though I have a french exam this friday so ignoring them there could be tough) thanks for your help on the article, I had been waiting for someone to write that piece for almost a year but since noon was doing it I was bold in making a change and did it myself, I'm quite proud of it, but of course it was you guys who made it a coherent and complete article, I would say it's almost done. I will visit your municipality soon, because I come home on the 22nd for christmas. TotallyTempo 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism / Roman Catholic Church

Hi, thanks for politely reverting my bolding of RC Church. I did scan through the Talk page before doing it, but not the archives.

Just to reassure me, I hope you see no possible objection to my current project of examining inbound links to Catholicism and changing them to Roman Catholic Church where I consider that the latter is intended. I am generally leaving Catholicism as the link for all saints, councils and other articles about the church pre-Reformation. RCC should be the link for most articles about Catholicism in Western Europe and most other continents, and recent Catholics in Western countries. I'm leaving Catholicism wherever it might be instructive, e.g. History of England. Does that sound good to you? Regards, Fayenatic london 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile

§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Of course I will take part in COTM. Merry christmas!--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 03:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

BC Social Credit League vs Social Credit Party

I put it that way deliberately; as someone else pointed out somewhere in these pages the name BC Social Credit League was the party's official name until 1973. It was most definitely its name in 1952 and 1953...Skookum1 20:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Bornmann AFD

I'm currently drafting my position (Keep, Restore, Protect) but saw your "delete"....yeah, in the condition the article's in right now it's eminently irrelevant/deletable, and that's what rascalpatrol adn Randy3 have been working towards (rascalpatrol may, in fact, be Bornmann himself). Please read the materials deleted by Randy3 just after I was blocked and re-assess your position on this AFD; there's no need to delete it if the censored materials are restored (all citable, too).Skookum1 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Rider; not all citable, and some opinions/POV language were present, and some errors; but I submit that a bio of Bornmann is needed, same as with Bonner or Gaglardi (sure, he's not elected, but he's a political-party operative and a high-profile political lobbyist deeply involved in provincial politics...in the shadows, anyway).Skookum1 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please see the Erik Bornmann AFD] for my recent posts on it. As you know, it was extended as I had had an unfair block during most of its duration. Please read my posts in full, lengthy as they are, and follow all links/cites and read them, and then please reconsider your position.Skookum1 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Liturgy of the hours

Hi!

Thanks for contributing to Talk:Liturgy of the hours. Did you overlook the survey at Talk:Liturgy_of_the_hours#Survey, or did you not feel ready to commit yourself to a vote? If you're not sure enough to add a vote, you can also add " # '''Comment''' ". Your current contribution at the end of the horribly long discussion will most likely not be seen by the administrator who will decide on this case soon -- admins usually only have time to skim discussions and therefore often give too much value to vote counting. --Espoo 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyrights

I noticed your concern over a bots action in regards to questioning the copyright of certain images. The bot simply goes through and checks to see if an image has a proper copyright tag. If none is found, the image can simply be deleted in the next 7 days. To fix this problem, all you have to do is go through the list of Image copyright tags, and find the appropriate one. Once you have done that, you 'tag' the image, and remove the warnings placed by the bot (bots normally comment out questionable images, so you are going to have to go through each page the bot went though to get the image to show up again). For more information, see Wikipedia:Untagged images and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. I have fixed Image:Archbishcantarms.PNG so look at the page history and my recent contributions to see what I did. Feel free to ask more questions, or just look at a similar properly tagged image to get an idea what a proper image page should look like. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Anne Jeff 555.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Anne Jeff 555.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

re: George Washington and religion

Father, Thank you for your confirmation of my thinking. May I copy your comment to the talk page discussion involved... or better yet, would you add a similar comment to the discussion on the talk page. Blueboar 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for you input. Looking at the article in question, I think it needs to have a brief statement about Anglican practice in the 1700s, to allow readers to put the fact that Washington was not known to take communion, and would leave services before communion into the context of his time. And to do that, I need a reliable source or two to back the such a statement up.
In other words, I need to do some background research. So... can you recommend any good books or websites that discuss such practices? Blueboar 13:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest

Thought you might like to know I just compiled this; intending on expanding role of various vessels in the region; list was drawn from the Akriggs' British Columbia Chronicle and also from the BC Archives visual records collection. Planning another that will be a list of civilian and trading vessels, including HBC-commissioned ones - the Beaver - from the same sources; US military vessels are another possibility, as well as Spanish military and Russian military/commercial ones.Skookum1 09:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion requested - PSAC title

Hi. Please see [1] and [2] re the best/preferred name for an article on Puget's Sound Agricultural Company (that's my own pref).Skookum1 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Legitimacy of the Provisional Government of Oregon"

Hi; I've got this ongoing snarl at Talk:Oregon Country and related stuff on Talk:Oregon boundary dispute and Talk:Oregon Treaty that I'm getting weary of arguing with this User:Aboutmovies guy about; is it just me or are the sophomores taking over the world? Anyway, my fault for not digging through Akriggs, Ormsby and this new Kerr source and making sure the BPOV (British point of view) is present on these pages; but lately this kid - and I'm sure it's a kid, although apparently he has a BA (a kid, in other words...) is adamant about "proving" the legitimacy of the Provisional Government of Oregon, even making it a central theme of the article; British perspectives on the American claims and tactics are absent, and dismissed in discussion, and the Native American perspective omitted entirely; I don't know if you'd care to provide backup but it's really getting to be a waste of time for me; no matter what I say to point out his non sequiturs he wants to keep on "proving" the legitimacy of this provisional government thing the Williamette squatters set up in their own image in 1843, and isn't interested in anything else. There's a certain breed of "Oregon nationalist" that's out there, and there's similar problems on Pacific Northwest regarding what I call the "Cascadia agenda"....."historical imperialism" or "historiographical imperialism" is what I call all this stuff; revising history to justify its iniquities is an old game, of course. I'll fly this by User:KenWalker as well, though he's delightfully non-confrontational/non-committal on most things, but tends to know his early BC/NW history...I've got to do my laundry and go shopping......Skookum1 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

L-G issues

Please see Talk:List of Lieutenant-Governors of British Columbia. Consulting yourself, KenWalker, Bobanny, maybe themightyquill about the issues raised there; my main problem is the inclusion of the colonial governors with the provincial L-Gs, although the earlier thing about the plural form is still somewhat of a concern for me...but then, I am a traditionalist with this sort of thing...which is "part of our distinctiveness" IMO...thinking also of a section on the more prominent/powerful role of the L-Gs in earlier times, especially in the pre-party era.....Skookum1 05:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian stamps

Well, the Johnny Canuck upload to commons was totally incorrect - the attribution tag specifically says "commercial use [...] is permitted", which is not true. Basically fair use for modern Canadian stamps is possible if you include some "critical commentary", which amounts to saying something *about* the stamp, not just treating it as a portrait with unaccountably ragged edges. :-) For instance, Johnny Canuck makes note of the stamp issue, and comments on the appearance. For Bennett, surely there is something to say about the stamp itself - does every BC premier get a stamp, and if not, why him? Where did the photo come from? Are there any notable modifications? One reason to be careful of using stamps as depictions of people is that stamp designers are generally allowed to tinker with the image for artistic (or sometimes political) reasons, so the portrait may not be an accurate representation of Bennett. Stan 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I am wondering if you would like to join my wiki wikireligion. There are a lot of articles that you could make because it is a little over a month old. --James, La gloria è a dio 19:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

Hi there, think you can help us save this article? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from RCC article

I just wanted to stop in and make a comment. I notice that we have a difference of opinion in the RCC article. Sometimes argumentation can mask the greater communion of Anglo-Catholics and the greater Church, and I just want to take the chance to express regret that, as often happens, we end up talking about the rather small areas of disagreement, rather than unity. So I apologise if my style of argumentation can be harsh at times – its something I need to work on. Cheers. Lostcaesar 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

About a year ago, I was in Canterbury cathedral, and I was walking by the place where there was once a shrine to St. Thomas a Becket, but now is only a big empty space with a lit candle. There at the ex-shrine, on their knees, were two chaps praying the rosary. I did know whether they were Catholic or Anglican, and wondered for a moment. Then I realized that it was rather much the point that I did not know. It meant a good deal, really.
My grandmother is Church of England, Episcopal USA. She had wanted to become Catholic, but there was too much pressure against this in the American South where she lived, and so she opted for the Episcopal Church. That is an interesting thing to ponder. On the one hand, it would seem that, at that time, the two churches were such alike that one could identify with one and yet feel a member of both. It is a pleasant thought. But, on the other hand, it points to a real difference, in that one was considered apostate by the Protestant surround, whilst the other was acceptably "Reformed". But this is not really how the story ends, for in more recent years my grandmother has been forced out of the Episcopal Church, quite wrongly, on basically Catholic views. Just an example, one time, during Holy Communion, she noticed that the line she was in lead to a priestess, and thus she elected to cross over to the other line, which lead to a priest. Thereafter, while praying, and with the Eucharist just recently consumed, a fellow told her, "you should be ashamed of yourself." This is one of many such examples, but to the point, she now stays at home on Sundays (she is quite old and sadly alone), but watches the Mass from Notre Dame cathedral on TV.
So I, as a Catholic who lives in England, have a real mixed view of the matter. There are moments of unity that seem unbelievable, considering all the past angst. Yet there are also moments of discord where, frankly, I really wonder just why the Anglicans insist on going where we cannot follow. I'm sure they feel the same concerning us, and I don't expect to see an easy solution. But I do have a great respect for the Church of England and a love for her traditions and saints. Sometimes, when I get in debates, I try to stop and remember that, in a world where Christians have few friends among secularists, and traditional Christians have few friends among reconstructionist groups, its important to remember just how close Catholic and Anglicans are, and to remember that shrine in Canterbury.
Lostcaesar 10:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Anglican realignment

It seems a bit premature to make this the article of the month. This issue is far from decided from what I read on [3]. Or maybe you are thinking the dust will settle after the Primates' mtg. Still, I dont think there will be anything definitive for quite some time. Then again, who knows what the future holds.EastmeetsWest 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Good point you made on my talk page. I had considered adding a note on the history of the REC (19th C.)and continuing Anglican bodies as examples of an ongoing process of spin off bodies (some of which are working toward realignment). However, am not sure I would call Wesleyans realigners. As I understand it, realignment is the act of switching Primatial oversight (which violates the principle of episcopal territoriality). This would apply to the REC and APA if they succeed in achieving alternate primatial oversight with an Anglican primate. Thus, I am not sure I simple apply the term to any break away group. That I would just call a split. What is so fascinating about this development is not the splitting, it's the move to re-attach!EastmeetsWest 05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, I'm a bit concerned by your proposal to place the CC in a category called "Christian denominations and branch." As you must well know, the CC has as much problem with being called a "branch" as with being called a "denomination." Both terms refer to theologies alien to Catholicism. Presuming you are aware of this, I am curious about your intention to advocate for this "solution." I surely hope that it was not an attempt to force Anglican theology. EastmeetsWest 05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere I think I asked if the term applies to Canada and not just the Episcopal Church. You might want to check my most recent changes to the CANA article.--Bhuck 03:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Uniform format proposal

(Ie for articles on the national provinces of the Anglican Communion.) A nice idea in principle but surely the critical elements for each national church are so wildly various that it would in many cases involve squeezing round pegs into square holes and losing or minimising important elements on the one hand and emphasising inconsequential ones on the other hand for the sake of conforming to the template. Even within geographical regions this issue arises: as for example, between Papua New Guinea, where the Anglican Church is numerically insignificant and financially a basket case, and "Melanesia" (ie the southern Solomon Islands -- ie the former BSIP as opposed to Bougainville and Buka -- and Vanuatu) where it is numerically very significant indeed. Masalai 05:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ca-angli.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ca-angli.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).

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 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dom coa.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dom coa.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 14:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Amor de cosmos 2.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Amor de cosmos 2.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. —Remember the dot (t) 05:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the {{PD-Canada}} license tag. But I think we need the United States copyright status of the image in order to host it on the English Wikipedia. This is because the English Wikipedia is hosted on servers in the United States. —Remember the dot (t) 03:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That's like saying we also have to abide by Chinese and German copyright laws; the overlapping issues of American copyright vs Canadian ones I don't think are at play here, as the public domain holdings at question (esp. in de Cosmos' case) are of pictures that have no currency or value in the United States; a few items here and there may be copyrighted under U.S. law, i.e. in private holdings and somehow exempted from the Canadian PD rule; and again in de Cosmos' case any picture is going to be at least 100 years old anyway, so within the US-PD limits as well. But I return to my original point: Canadian images where there are no explicit reserved rights in the US are clearly the business of the laws governing servers in Canada; unless you're suggesting that US laws should be extended outside the boundaries of the US? I realize you're not, but it's like the many pages of content in Wikipedia that are clearly written (and rewritten) from a US perspective, as if the internet existed for Americans and no one else....overlapping copyright tenure/limits is one thing; suggesting that US laws should be the defining arbiter is kind of, um, imperial, in nature. But I realize if the servers were in the People's Republic we'd have to put up with Chinese internet security laws/restrictions, too, wouldn't we? Whatever; the de Cosmos picture has got to be over 100 years old, and/or its photographer is at least a hundred years dead.Skookum1 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)\
And that happens to be one of the most well-known pictures of de Cosmos, very much public domain/consciousness; he's fairly young there so I'd put it in the 1860s, before he became Premier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

(replying to message on my talk page) - What we really need is the name and date of death of the author. Can you provide this information? —Remember the dot (t) 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) - Do you know the approximate year of publication? That would work too. —Remember the dot (t) 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you got this picture off a web site, a link to where you found it would also be helpful. —Remember the dot (t) 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably via http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/ which if it's in their collection they'll have the date and the photographer; but don't be misled by their copyright claims, which are only claims.....(long story).Skookum1 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give me a link to the exact page you're looking at? I can't find this particular image on the BC Archives web site. Also, please read Wikipedia:Public domain#Canadian images: Yousuf Karsh which states that images can be PD in Canada but still be copyrighted in the United States. On top of that, any fair use tag states "hosted on servers in the United States" meaning that where the servers are located determines what laws apply. So, please provide detailed source information so that the copyright status in the United States can be determined. —Remember the dot (t) 19:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, you're right, it's not on the BC Archives site [4] and I wasn't the one who added it; must be a scan. Definitely this picture is from the 1860s; his beard was a lot longer when he became Premier in the '70s.Skookum1 19:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. {{PD-US}} seems appropriate, so I've added that tag as well. —Remember the dot (t) 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Hi Fishhead,

You may remember me (though I'd be surprised) from a long-ago debate on the Passover talk page regarding the introduction of christian practices into the article. Despite our strong disagreement on the issue, I was impressed by your understanding of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. You might be interested in a similar issue that's been taking place for some time between the Judaism and the Messianic Judaism projects regarding the attempts of MJ project members to add links/references/sections describing their group to general Judaism articles.

If you are interested, a good starting off point would be here and here - attempts by both communities to outline their expectations. We could definitely use a few non-MJ christian views on the subject!

Hope to hear from you soon. :) DanielC/T+ 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

terms of Governors of BC

Hi; hm, similar to what happens every time I edit a page with ISBN numbers on it; they disappear; sometimes whole table fomatting does. It has something to do with a glitch in the way my computer interacts with Wikidom; I could take the time to restore those dates, but it would only hold for one edit; the next edit afterwards my "stealth" deletion system, whatever it is, would take them out again. I think it's because I've got this plug-in installed for Firefox, Jajah; I just tried to find out how to uninstall it but no luck so far; in the meantime I'd better stay away from articles with any formatting dates; Jajah is a dialer for a VOIP-sort of thing; all numbers show up as potential dials, so it must do something in terms of number recognition/replacement. Looks like a project for after my coffee (I just got up).Skookum1 18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Uninstalled Jajah so will try re-inserting those numbers; I can put them IN, but on any subsequent edit they disappear; but hopefully uninstalling Jajah will have done the trick. BTW did you see the table conversion on List of ships in British Columbia?Skookum1 19:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglican Church of Canada

I am translating this article for the German Wikipedia and find this sentence problematic:

The denomination is the third largest in Canada, consisting of 800,000 registered members [5] worshipping in 29 dioceses and one grouping of parishes in the Central Interior of British Columbia.

Are there really only 29 dioceses? Somewhere on the ACC website I found the number 30. Do the parishes in the Central Interior have no bishop? That doesn't sound as if they are respecting the Lambeth Quadrilateral's commitment to the historic episcopate.--Bhuck 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Heads up on POV pusher

Hi, you might be interested in this user 129.74.228.121[5] who is heck-bent on making POV changes in the sedate world of Anglicanism :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was coming to you for some arbitration and found my counterpart got here first. Tell me what is wrong with the material I put on TEC. I think a quote from 1998 Lambeth is fair as it is the heart of the issue. Also, there seems to be a hangup about not mentioning homosexual ordination or Anglican realignment in a heading and these are the heart of the current controversy. Please be fair when you look this over. Thanks.129.74.228.121 21:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

YOU DA MAN, FISHEAD64!

summa reg ((:-)) "I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also. They too will listen to My voice, and they shall be one flock with one shepherd." --- John 10:16

Since Vatican 2, the Catholic Church, (of whom I am a member,) holds to the belief that "salvation flows to non Catholics through the Church."

I accept the term "Roman Catholic ",as an alturnate to catholic as it implies the humility Christ calls for. So do at least 90% of my fellow Catholics. The term no longer carries any perjorative .

So do not presume, in your pride, to speak for all Roman Catholics. We are not ignorant of our Faith. Heck, since Galdiator hit the screens I'm pretty happy being called 'Roman' :') & as Christians, don't we have bigger fish to fry?

Opuscalgary 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

aCTUALLY,Ii MISS THE TERM "DOGAN SYNCHOPHANT OF THE SCARLET WHORE OF BABYLON"

WHERE'S JHACK CHICK WHEN WE NEED HIM MOST?

CHEERSOpuscalgary 22:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)