User talk:InkQuill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is InkQuill's talk page. Fighting for truth, accuracy and the First Amendment.

[edit] Welcome!

Hello InkQuill! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!  Netsnipe  ►  07:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article Perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Orange Metro North Station

you are right to want to work it out, but it is best for all here or on the article's talk page. That way others can learn/participate. I will continue to respond here or there. You can also use my talk page (you write on my talk page, I'll answer on yours).

Briefly, for now, I am originally from the area, but the only "axe" I have is against plans that are not reality. If they build it (the Orange station) I would use it as an alternate to driving to Woodmont (from New York). I like the idea. It would be good for me. But plans in transportation often get a lot of talk, without anything getting built. Look at Route 34. Or the extension of commuter rail to Hartford.

One of the quickest ways we can decide that the section should stay is to find out exactly what the initial money was appropriated for. We should establish that this is more than planning money, and that there is a real timetable, etc, which may not be so easy. Has there even been an EIS?

After that, the question of "why Orange" comes up. And this part is much tougher. We are not allowed to guess why Orange gets a station, and claim that it is fact. We are not allowed to "figure it out" That is called Original Research on Wikipedia, and also not allowed. We'd need someone in authority, or a Reliable Source to say, explicitly, Orange will have a station because we want every town to have a station, or that this is an official policy, or something like that. Otherwise, couldn't this just be a convenient spot between the long gap from Milford Center to West Haven? Jd2718 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate questions: 1)Will these things be built? and 2) Are these two towns getting stations because they don't have them?

Second question first. If we have a sentence that says there are plans for stations in West Haven and Orange, followed by the fact that these are the only two towns on the New Haven line without stations, we are implying cause and effect. And we are not allowed to make a claim of cause and effect if we do not have a Reliable Source that says so.

Will they be built? It sounds like a debate, not a done deal. If it is this time an active debate (the proposal for at least a West Haven station has been floated many times in the past), then we should source it, and indicate what stage the discussion is in. If it is a done deal, that should be sourced and indicated.

Transportation plans are floated all the time, and die all the time. If there is a budget issue, they see the first cuts. It is not a good idea to include plans that are not yet definite.

Finally, I regret that I tried to rebut transportation details. However, while not directly relevant to the article, the questions have been opened up.

Do Marsh Hill Road and Lambert Road function as a single roadway? Do they have the same physical characteristics? No. Do they carry similar traffic volumes? No. Does most of the traffic on Lambert continue on to Marsh Hill? No. Vice versa? No. (From a layman's point of view, when giving directions it would be necessary to tell someone not to turn off)

Who would the Orange Station serve? There are simply many many more times as many people in proximity to that location who live in West Haven and Milford than who live in Orange.

Is Marsh Hill Road a major road? Of course! You misquoted me on the article's talk page. That was wrong. Marsh Hill Road functions as a major access from the Post Road to 95. It is a sort of hybrid between an on-ramp and a street. You called Marsh Hill a major north south road serving Orange. That would be different. We have several streets that do that (all carrying considerably more traffic than Lambert)

You wrote "the only road that Orange residents can use to get to I-95" which is just wrong. The other entrances may not be in Orange, but there is no town loyalty in selecting highway access. (40,42, Merritt to the Connector, even via Route 8)

Finally, it is town centers, in general, that have stations. Walking distance to the Green clearly counts. The quick comparison (all other towns have one) is in this sense misleading. Jd2718 14:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't mean to offend you. Polaron is providing source on the legislation. Didn't realize I needed to say ok. The latest rewrite though is better. As better sources are located, the paragraph will continue to improve (which might be expanding it, shrinking it, or modifying it). If you are going to keep editing, it might be worthwhile to assume that your fellow editors are intelligent and are acting on good faith. This did not start out well. Your sources did not say what you said they did. You implied that you had unique local knowledge that made only you qualified to describe the street network, you responded with several factually inaccurate statements.

But starting out on the wrong foot doesn't condemn one to stay there. The section is better-sourced and more accurately written now. Other editors have become involved. And finally, local knowledge is invaluable. It just can't be used as a cudgel in disputes. Jd2718 02:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but not too fond of Sloppy Jose's. You saw what Polaron found? We'll reword to reflect that information. Jd2718 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toni Morrison

The categories were removed because they were deleted by the consensus of the Wikipedians through the process of Category for Discussion. CFD (I think you meant this) is the process of proposing the deletion, merge or rename of a category. For more details, see the link above. Anyway, you did an error when you say "Using CFB". It was "per CFD using AWB". AWB is a semiautomated wikipedia editing program. It allows you to quickly change hundreds of pages. I use it to remove deleted categories and substitute renamed ones. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk) on 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States

Thanks for your additions and corrections! Bit by bit we're getting this article looking presentable!

b. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bpmullins (talk • contribs) 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC). (The bot beat me to the signature - sorry! - Bpmullins | Talk

Aaargh. I may need to fix my displayed name -- b and p are my first and middle initials -- I'd never even thought that somebody might mistake it for "Bp." (!) Go right ahead with your work on the individual dioceses - those contributions are appreciated. I'd offer one warning (which I already have on the Talk page) - you don't start counting (and adding roman numerals) for the bishops until they actually become a diocesan. Check the numbers for the Bishops of Hawaii for an example - they've just elected their fifth, but Ed Browning is shown as VIII Hawaii. A previous editor took that from another site which didn't understand the rules. Thanks again for the help. -- Bpmullins | Talk 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at your copy of the Red Book and count from the first English bishop (and omit the suffragan) you get eight for Browning. There are other dioceses in the west that have similar things - they were missionary dioceses for part of their history. As far as the talk, I guess it's just the way the software works... b. Bpmullins | Talk 06:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi - would you doublecheck my last edit to make sure I didn't wipe out anything of yours? You accidentally overwrote some of mine; I reverted but I want to make sure that I didn't lose anything. -- BPMullins | Talk 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I notice that you changed my entry for Starkey from Northern New Jersey to Newark. My choice there was deliberate: when he was consecrated the diocese was indeed called Northern NJ. I've been attempting to track the various changes in the names of the dioceses in the table. In my sources, he was identified as NNJ. There are many other changes as well; Northern California and Northern Michigan were known by those names when they were missionary districts but General Convention imposed the see city's name (Sacramento and Marquette) when they became dioceses. Both later reverted to their original names. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to Hartford

I recently changed some of the Hartford, CT article, which you deleted. These changes involved adding some photos of Hartford landmarks (standard practice for wikipedia articles). If you had problems with the formatting, thats one thing. But you completely got rid of some very helpful photographs, and reverted back to the old version, which has, in my opinion too many skyline photographs (1 is enough, and there is far more to show about hartford). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.222.210.165 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tweed Airport

I added my reply to the discussion you started on Tweed Airport. -chris^_^ 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I provided the link that I already provided. -chris^_^ 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I placed my answer. And why don't you read the discussion page on the link I provided twice. -chris^_^ 02:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ecunet Logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Ecunet Logo.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Blue Ecunet Logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Blue Ecunet Logo.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld article

pls check the article now...i've left some notes on talk page about improving the article. pls leave ur feedback on the talk page....thanx...Gprince007 (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps next week, when I'm on vacation I'll spend some time with it. I'm glad we're on a track to make this a good Wiki article. I haven't had time lately (not that I ever really do) because my father-in-law died. Today was the funeral. So I don't have energy right now.

Let me ask a question, though, while I'm here. I have this secret desire to create a Seinfeld index. It would be something like:

"Get out!" ... The Pushpin, The Molecular Disease

Uncle Leo ... The Bookstore

You get the idea. It would make it easy to cross-reference things that are in one episode and referenced in another. I'll never do it, because I don't have the time. But is this sort of thing ever done on Wikipedia? I don't think I've ever seen anything like that. InkQuill (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Sorry, but as I've posted on my talk page, "Comments will be deleted once issues are resolved." I did not think that you expected a response from your comments and went ahead and removed them. RabidWolf (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld WikiProject

Thankyou for joining the Seinfeld WikiProject. Here are a few things you can do:

• Recruit more members. (Try inviting frequent editors to articles to do with Seinfeld; check article history pages).
• Add this template to all Seinfeld-related articles and this template to their talk pages. (A bot may be able to do this).
• Assess articles related Seinfeld for class and importance.
• Or just start improving articles!

It's up to you what you choose to do as a member of the project. Anyway, thanks again for joining. Joelster (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community you say.

Since you read my talk page than here's a proposal. I'll stop with my problems if you have anymore ideas on moving forward. I know my comments and I'm straight forward with my comments. If we are a community than really share the ideas. How hard is that be? I like that you show me that you can make a table but shouldn't really disagree about anything else. If you want me to be a good editor, then put your idea on the Seinfeld talk page and be more human with the way you reply to me because I'll never go away. I'll end it if you have ideas for the community. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do. I am trying to talk about issues, but every edit doesn't require a vote. We had a discussion about editing here. Note that it was not only me who objected to your approach and disagreed with your belief that we were being too "encyclopedic." — InkQuill 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's enough already. I don't wanna talk about this anymore. You're referencing to my past so many times I think it's about time to let it go ok? If you continue to reference my past with the things that I ad-libbed through the Seinfeld history then you better work on your approach that I am not "encyclopedic". That everything has to be perfect. This better be a deal. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me not to talk about it anymore. I didn't start complaining about you to others. I was just trying to point out that your anger with me is misplaced. I'm just editing the article the way I believe Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. That's all, really. — InkQuill 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your conflict with User:Johnnyauau2000

Well i guess u know the story here...Johny asked me for help regarding ur edits and i posted reply on his talk page. As u r the more experienced editor i am requesting u to display some statesmanship and stay cool and not destroy the article by bickering over who did what in the article. your suggestions on seinfeld talk page seem ok...i'll go thru it later and reply to it but for now i suggest u read WP:COOL to cool down a bit. The article lacks in many areas and its sad to see u guys bickering over trivial matters. The article lacks citation and sources...i suggest we resolve those issues first and then get to other matters.....Gprince007 (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess my comments show more emotion than I'm feeling. I haven't been engaging in any editing wars or anything and haven't engaged in any ad hominem attacks. The changes I made were because I thought the article needed them. I agree with you that it's not helpful to bicker and I'll try not to engage in it. Thanks for trying to help. Now about "bombastic" ... — InkQuill 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to know that i helped in cooling down the heat here !!!....when u said "little boxes on my user page" i guess u were talking about userboxes. Well u also have userboxes on ur page so i guess u know abt them....episode pages are pretty ok i guess...u can keep adding wikiproject seinfeld tag to the episode article talk pages....The individual episodes articles look ok to me....i've seen them and barring maybe a few, all others are in reasonably good shape. Maybe a little copyedit might help.....Well "Bombastic" might be a common word in daily usage but i certainly dont think it is "encyclopeadic" enough...but then maybe its a case of american english Vs commonwealth english or the british english(which i guess is the one spoken by johny and me)....anyways i feel bombastic doesnt sound good...maybe some other synonym may be used which sounds better and more "encyclopaedic"....Gprince007 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the episode pages need a lot of work. There is trivia on a lot of them that needs to be incorporated or removed, just for starters. — InkQuill 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LoCE

Hi InkQuill, I wasn't sure you'd see my reply to your query at the LoCE talk page, and I was hoping to recruit you. Here's what I said: "The basic guide for style is the Wikipedia Manual of Style (WP:MOS), and it differs to some degree from the Associated Press style or the Chicago Manual and others. I always refer to it when I'm unsure about a style question, and this typically happens several times a day. The MOS doesn't answer every question clearly, but with your level of experience, you'll be able to sort out the reasonable from the unreasonable and the logical from the illogical in most cases. Not everyone editing Wikipedia is familiar with the style manual, and that accounts for much of the inconsistency that you are seeing. That inconsistency, among other things, is why the encyclopedia needs us. The basic punctuation guidelines can be quickly reached via the shortcut WP:PUNC. The main guideline on the use of quotation marks is found under the subhead, "Inside or outside". It says, "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation (this system is referred to as logical quotation)." This is the opposite of AP style and seems wrong at first to someone who has been doing it the other way. The main punctuation guideline isn't related to an article's nationality, if we can speak of such a thing, but other style questions sometimes are, such as the spelling of words such as center in U.S.-related articles and centre if the article is UK-related. Most of the exceptions to the main guidelines can be found in the MOS or other sub-guidelines attached to it. The MOS, like the rest of the encyclopedia, is somewhat flexible and is subject to periodic revision, and sometimes heated disagreements occur among editors about particular points. Someone with your experience would be a valuable "catch" for the League, and I hope you will join us. Please let me know here or on my user talk page if I can be of any assistance." Finetooth (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Presiding bishops

Hi. Generally an article shouldn't belong both in a category and in that category's parent. All presiding bishops of ECUSA are necessarily bishops of ECUSA, so ++Katherine's article can't be in both. The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, which was brought up here. Roundhouse0 was sympathetic to my point of view, and you said "generally," so let me tell you why I think they should be both. I see categories as an index. It seems less than helpful, if I want to see the list of all articles on U.S. Episcopal bishops, that I have to look in the category and then each subcategory. One is a subset of the other, so to my mind the presiding bishops should be in both. I don't see anything negative to doing that. In any case, you should be consistent. There are 26 PB's, most of them with both categories. How come no one wants to remove William White from the bishop category? How about the PBs that no one ever heard of? They're not going to find them if they look in the bishops category. I hope I've persuaded you to put +Katharine back in bishops. Otherwise, have fun removing the category from the other PBs!  ~ InkQuill  02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not the end-user nor the "raison d'etre" of Wikipedia. It's the researchers and students that increasingly rely on it as a source of information. From their point of view, in order to make it easier for them to use, PB's should appear on both lists. All PB's are B's, but not all B's are PB's. I agree with InkQuill.Pr4ever (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My stub template for bishops. Edit if there is basic info you think should be here.

The Right Reverend xx xx (November 30, 1729 – February 25, 1796), was the first bishop of Connecticut in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

==Biography-- xx xx was born in Groton, Connecticut on October 5, 1729. His father, ...

xx graduated from Yale in 1748; was ordained deacon by the bishop of Lincoln and priest by the bishop of Carlisle in 1753; was rector of Christ Church, New Brunswick, New Jersey from 1754 to 1757, rector in Jamaica, New York from 1757 to 1766, and of St Peter's, Westchester (now annexed to The Bronx) from 1766 to 1775. xx was elected bishop on March 25, 1783. He was consecrated at X Cathedral on November 14, 1784. He died in New London on February 25, 1796, and is buried at St. James Church.

====Consecrators----

• The Most Reverend Katharine Jefforts Schori, 26th presiding bishop
• The Right Reverend Arthur Petrie, 37th bishop of Ohio
• The Right Reverend John Skinner, bishop of of Iowa

xx xx was the 1st bishop consecrated for the Episcopal Church.

==See also--

• List of Bishop Succession in the Episcopal Church

(only PB):* List of Presiding Bishops in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America

==References--

• The Episcopal Church Annual. Morehouse Publishing: New York, NY (2005).

==External links--

• Web site of the Episcopal Church
• Web site of the Diocese of Connecticut
• Anglican Prayer Chaplet of Samuel Seabury

{{Anglican-bishop-stub {{US-bishop-stub {{AfricanAmerican-stub {{Florida-bio-stub {{Oregon-bio-stub {{Texas-bio-stub {{Utah-bio-stub

Category:1729 births Category:1796 deaths Category:People from Connecticut Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America Category:Presiding Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America

[edit] Re Nathaniel Bowen

I meant to add the anglican bishop template but forgot, have now added that. I do apologize. With regard to the template above. If this is for Bishops of the Episcopal church the US-Christian-clergy, Christian-bio, reli-bio, US-bio, Anglican and bio are all redundent and anglican-bishop-stub should be used. Waacstats (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I got your reply about Mickey Abbot.

I don't how to put this but why do you want to merge minor characters like Mickey into the Minor Character section? I'd agree with you but we still need to discuss it with Gprince007 and to make it work. Remember you put it in the Seinfeld talk page? Anyway, should you want to delete it or redirect it, consider the consequences from other editors who put their hard work on it. Well, I can't stop you but please respond to my question soon. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to interrupt here but lets stop arguing. First and foremost, InkQuill doesn't need to get advance permission from other editors from the Seinfeld WikiProject if he (sorry for presuming your gender) wants to edit an article within the project scope. Wikipedia encourages boldness and no one editor has authority over an article. Secondly, we can reach a happy medium if we all respect each other's views and don't resort to personal attacks (which it almost has). Let's also keep in mind the etiquette policy. The project will be better off if we all do. Joelster (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Joelster (and yes, I'm a he). I'd just like to say that I posted a Merger proposal on January 26. Three persons commented and I took into account their comments. I've been merging articles ever since with no objection until now. I'm not arguing, just pointing out that I believe I've followed the etiquette policy. Thanks again for the support.  ~ InkQuill  03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay sorry about the etiquette policy thing. I wasn't specifically referring to anyone, but you certainly have followed it thus far. Good work! Joelster (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Next time, if you have anything else in mind, put it in the Seinfeld talk, Gprince007 and me so that I don't end up thinking "What's happening?" and "Why it's happening?" Excuse my sarcasm but hey! Anyway, thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Johnny, that's what I did in January. Please read the talk page.  ~ InkQuill  15:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Didnt know that their was a conflict brewing on here....but glad that the issue has been resolved amicably !!!!....i guess its irrelevant now but still u can see my response here.Gprince007 (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for you!

Gee, thanks! I'm honored.  ~ InkQuill  22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanx for the Barnstar

Thanx for the "Barnstar of Peace"....glad to know that i can contribute to a peaceful dispute-resolution process...I can see that u also have been awarded a barnstar for contribution to Seinfeld wikiproject....Congrats to u too !!! Gprince007 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  :)

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

Sorry for the misunderstanding - Joelster (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you - Diocese of Dallas, Bishop Suffragan

I didn't even think of editing the page! And I was at the cathedral during convention! I'm glad somebody thought of it! Sarum blue (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. My little contribution.  ~ InkQuill  01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop succession page moved

Did you see this one? There appears to have been a discussion over at a WikiProject Lists and they decided to move the article. They don't appear to have consulted any of the regular editors on the article, though. I think they missed the point about the article - it's more than just a list since the important content is the succession. What do you think? -- BPMullins | Talk 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

- Tinucherian (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)