User:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User:Rich Farmbrough

Last · Next

[edit] The Belgrave Line

Thanks heaps for the list of stations, and especially for making a start upon them.

But I think it duplicates information on the stations list proper.

It also only shares track after Ringwood, after you change trains to Ringwood, then you go on the Lilydale line.

Did you see Alamein line (the link)? That's pretty much the standard around here. EuropracBHIT 07:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Yep, the Alamein line page is good.

I have to say I'm not knowledgeable about Melbourne, merely trying to create stubs with some value, working off the most needed stub list.

Perhaps best to cut and paste the list of sttions from the staion list?

Alternatively combining the articles once they get tho the level of the Alamein line into a Melbourne Train Lines article, with the appropriate re-directs.

I'm sure there will be errors even in such a simple stub (by the way I mistyped references on Lilydale page as well :).

I see you are invlved in the "To the northwest" project as wel :-) Rich Farmbrough 10:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rich, welcome to Wikipedia. I saw on your user page that you are a generalist, and that you want to write about GCHQ and maths stuff... are you a real life spy? (If I remember rightly "generalist" is the MI5/6 term for a spy... maybe it is at GCHQ too?) Pcb21| Pete 00:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To East etc.

I'm totally baffled by the pages To West, To East, etc. which are currently listed on Votes for Deletion. Before I cast my own vote, I'd like to know why you created the pages and what they're for. It doesn't appear that any pages actually link to them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi, and another belated welcome to you. If no one has pointed it out to you already, check out the useful info at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Brent

Saw the edit on Brent..maybe it needs to be clearer. The Brent oilfield is of course named after the crude, but the crude is named after the goose (many of the Nth Sea fields are named after birds, eg Fulmar, Auk, Cormorant etc --GPoss 10:05, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Now much better, thanks --GPoss 09:33, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] DHSS

IN case anyone is wondering http://search.direct.gov.uk/Search/SearchResults/fs/en?NP=4&PT1=&PO1=M&PI1=W&PT2=department+for+health+and+social+security&PO2=M&PI2=P&PT3=&PO3=C&PI3=W&PT4=&PO4=N&PI4=W&SC=all&SF=A&DD1=&DM1=&DY1=&DD2=&DM2=&DY2=&RO=R&TP=A&SC=all&MR=20&PG=1&HS=F&TB=R

(for) returns 33 hits whereas

http://search.direct.gov.uk/Search/SearchResults/fs/en?NP=4&PT1=&PO1=M&PI1=W&PT2=department+of+health+and+social+security&PO2=M&PI2=P&PT3=&PO3=C&PI3=W&PT4=&PO4=N&PI4=W&SC=all&SF=A&DD1=&DM1=&DY1=&DD2=&DM2=&DY2=&RO=R&TP=A&SC=all&MR=20&PG=1&HS=F&TB=R (of) returns 7074.

[edit] Curry's paradox

Hello. The reason your link to Curry's paradox did not work was your capitalization of the letter P. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Michael Hardy 23:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Graph

... also, you really do need to check your links. You wrote [[graph]], and that turns out to be a disambiguation page. What you needed was [[graph (mathematics)|graph]]. Similarly, some mathematicians writing on Wikipedia about the mathematician Niels Henrik Abel have linked to Abel, but that page is (of course!) about the son of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis who was killed by his brother Cain. So always check your links. Michael Hardy 00:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mmmm so there was an earlier Abel, I might have made the same mistake. So now which one did invent the commutative law for groups? Billlion 14:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit attribution

Hi Rich. Edits from 213.48.182.7 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 02:14, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

[edit] Welchman

Hi! I was thinking about an entry for Gordon Welchman, and stumbled across your conversation with User talk:Pcb21; I've just finished going through The Hut Six Story — perhaps we could knock up a page on him? If you're interested in cryptography topics (even from a generalist perspective!), you might find the Cryptography WikiProject of interest, and I'd welcome any review of Enigma machine, which I've been working on a little recently. — Matt 17:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arda vs Middle-earth.

Rich, I'm putting this here, so that you don't change more articles about Arda/Middle-earth as the name for Tolkien's universe... When we're talking about J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth universe, we're referring to the *fictional* universe he created, where "Middle-earth" is one of the most popular signifiers for it because most of the stories take place in there. If we were to use "Arda" by your argument, that would still be inaccurate since the entirety of the universe created by Iluvatar is "Ea" -- and infact even *that* would be inaccurate since Ea doesn't include the Timeless Halls where Iluvatar dwells.

In short -- yeah the universe described in J.R.R. Tolkien's books is called Ea, and the planet Arda, and only a continent is called "Middle-earth". But the phrase "Universe of Middle-earth" is just a signifier like "Universe of Battlestar Galactica" or "Universe of Babylon 5" We don't mean that the whole fictional universe is physically contained in those locations bearing that name. Aris Katsaris 23:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:StoneFigureonTrinityBridgeCrowland1.JPG

Hi! Did you take this photo yourself? Image:StoneFigureonTrinityBridgeCrowland1.JPG. If so, could you please indicate the license and copyright details on the image description page. If it is GFDL, make a note of that by placing {{GFDL}} in the description. — David Remahl 11:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thnaks for your comment. The picture was by me (as I noted within seconds of uploading). Funnily enough, alhtough I inteded to put a version of that pic up anyway, I was doing it now to confirm the process, in order to help with "tagging" of pix. (Which I had not fully understood, so it was a worthwhile exercise!) Can you point me to the list of tags for licenseing pix? Rgds Rich Farmbrough 12:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Here is a list of the available image licensing tags: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. — David Remahl 12:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for all the great maps! BCorr|Брайен 15:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not my maps: "I wish!". Simply tagged all 3094+ as GFDL. Rich Farmbrough 15:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Eek! Could you slow down, or mark as minor, the image tagging? Recent Changes is getting swamped. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Changed my prefernces to minor Rich Farmbrough some time 20 Sep 2004 (UTC).

[edit] Prophecy and stuff

[edit] Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

(text copied from Talk:Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy)

I have looked briefly at some of these items. Most of those cases the "prophet" would be considered (at the time) a heretic, rather than a member of a mainstream church. I think a little more disclaimer is needed at the top, or a lot of deleteing. :) Also refs to the actual words of the "prophets", where possible. Rich Farmbrough 20:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that these people were heretics at the time and did not necessarily represent the enitre church. If we delete the "heretical" ones we might end up with only four (Armstrong, Miller, Russell and Jo Smith). I'm happy if you want to write a short disclaimer. One Salient Oversight 22:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] William M. Branham

(copied from Talk:William M. Branham)

I found

"that by 1977 all denominations would be consumed by the World Council of Churches under the control   
of the Roman Catholics, that the rapture would take place, and that the world would be destroyed."  
(Burgess and McGee, Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 96)

However this is quite a jump from what the article pages says! It's also the only _source_ I could find. The transcripts of (at least some of) his sermons are online, the one I found (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=1074) mentions WCC in a negative biblical context but that's about it (although I didn't read the whole thing).

I think we need a more authoratiative reference to say that he made the statemnt, and that he claimed it was divinly inspired prophecy.

I have removed this text until we have an authority.

At least one of his prophecies - that all Christian denominations would be controlled by the 
World Council of Churches by 1977 - 
has not come  to fruition.[1]

Rich Farmbrough 19:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rick. Just a query about your changing the William M. Branham article with regards to the prophecy that was not fulfilled. If you go to Google and type in "Branham" + "1977" +"False" you will find a large amount of pages. Considering this large amount of evidence I think it is important to include the phrase in the article. Moreover I am a little concerned that you chose to remove that part of the article when the rest of the article is so very biased and POV towards Branham.

So pretend you're me. You stumble upon the William M. Branham article and discover that the person who wrote it was obviously a big fan of Branham. However there is a cleanup notice on the page and you decide to put it on your long-term "to do" list in your mind. Then in the process of researching other articles, you discover some websites that state that Branham made a prediction that did not come true. Since you have already read a fiercely pro-Branham website that made it clear that Branham believed he was the prophet Elijah, you put two and two together and decide that he must have made a "false prophecy". You include this in one short sentence in the Branham article

Then someone comes along and removes that small sentence with the claim that it can't be verified objectively, while leaving the incredibly POV article untouched. Then you begin to wonder whether that person is a supporter of Branham who does not wish to have anything negative about him written in the article.

Of course I am not making any judgement either way. That's why I'm talking to you. But can you understand my unease at this point? One Salient Oversight 23:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.biblebelievers.org/thus1977.htm Should be of enormous help to our discussion here.

Also, how about this:

Branham proclaimed himself the angel of Revelation 3:14 and 10:7 and prophesied that by 1977 all denominations would be consumed by the World Council of Churches under the control of the Roman Catholics, that the Rapture would take place, and that the world would be destroyed. He died in 1965, but many of his followers expected him to be resurrected, some believing him to be God, others believing him to be virgin-born.

Branham's influence has continued in many churches where his prophecies are considered to be divinely inspired. His teaching on the power of the spoken word has been a characteristic of later revivalists. Kenneth Hagin identifies Branham as a prophet.

Burgess and McGee, editors, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. p.96

This is from http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b05.html

Until either the above quote is proven to not exist, or until Burgess and McGee can be proven wrong, the quote should stand in the Branham article methinks. One Salient Oversight 23:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And more:

There is a reference in each of these sermon transcripts to the year 1977 where he predicts something. In the last transcript he states And at 1906 the Laodicean church age set in, and I don't know when it'll end, but I predict it'll be done by 1977. I predict, not the Lord told me, but I predict it according to a vision that was showed me some years ago, that five of those things has (out of the seven)--has already taken place about.... That bit where he says "not the Lord told me" can't really be made to say anything. In the other three transcripts he makes it pretty clear that he was predicting something. One Salient Oversight 23:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Branham etc.

Yes, I understand how it seemed. It looks like I have stumbled into a controversy (outside Wikipedia) here. I certainly don't think Branham was anything special, I arrived there from the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy page. The quote from Burgess and McGee (which both you and I found) seemed rather to overshadow the WCC thing. The sermon I looked at (and referenced), if anything contradicted it. "Gather the tares into bundles - Lutherian, baptist... are in the WCC" to paraphrase. Which would imply that that was one bundle of several. Cursory (I admit) research seemed to indicate that the "1977" element of his predictions was personal, not prophetic. To err is human (even if Brnham did it (in terms of facts) rather more than most). The references you gave seem to support this.

I have made some more edits to the Branham page, perhaps you could glance at them (some may underestimate his import).

Then I suggest re-inserting the "1977" under the "anomolies" section, as a prediction rather than a prophecy.

I see you are knowledgeable about the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements, can you confirm whether he was a major influence on the three movements mentioned in the article?

Is it possible to identify his seven prophecies and put them in the article? I find the "egg shaped car" rather amusing, but I couldn't (easily) find a definitive list of the prophecies. Rgds Rich Farmbrough 08:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Branham was instrumental in getting the Latter Rain Movement going in the 50s and 60s. It was so strange that the Assemblies of God declared it a heresy. Branham's teachings have been modified somewhat but are still being felt in the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches through things like Manifest Sons of God and Kingdom Now theology - the latter I believe has some major impact on how Christians in the US will vote at the next presidential election.

Thanks for dispelling any concerns I have. I'm fairly happy with the changes you are suggesting.

As far as his seven prophecies - I admit that I don't know a huge amount about the guy except some of the major stuff (including his denial of the Trinity). I suggest you search that South African website with a Google advanced search, looking for "seven prophecies" on that site.

Egg shaped car? I have no idea what this has to do with Branham but if it was received during one of his visions then I am not surprised. It might even make a good entry on the Timeline page if it is a prophecy. One Salient Oversight 10:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] GNU/GFDL

Hi,

You asked if my pics released under GNU are {{GFDL]], and the answer is yes they are, so if you would like to retag them, I'd be much endebted. Thanks

Peregrine981 03:36, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Please check links

On Vickers Vimy you changed a link [[British]] to [[UK|British]]. [[UK]] is in fact a disambiguation page, so your change did not improve the article. You should instead have made your link something like [[United Kingdom|British]]. Please check a link goes to where you think it does. Thanks, —Morven 20:16, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

My mistake. All being fixed now. Rich Farmbrough 15:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

UK and British are not the same thing. At all. The United Kingdom is the entire Union, Britain is the island. For example, Northern Ireland *is* in the UK but is *not* in Britain. Might be advisable to leave links like that as-is Kiand 19:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

British itself is a diasmbiguation page.Rich Farmbrough 12:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] UK/United Kingdom

I see that you keep changing "UK" to "United Kingdom". Is this a standard laid down in the MoS, or just your arbitrary personal decision? -- Jmabel 18:43, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

You've done this on a few pages I wrote or did the edit that put in UK. In each and every case, UK scans a lot better than United Kingdom. I'm chaning them to [[United Kingdom|UK]], as it makes more sense. I'd appreciate if you did this where it scans better. Thanks. Kiand 19:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[[UK]] is a disambiguation page. As Kiand points out [[United Kingdom|UK]] can look better than [[United Kingdom]] in some circumstances, indeed some changes were to that. Please feel free to change any that you wish to what you think looks best. I have disambiguated all references to UK (and they were all to United Kingdom:). Now back to [[British]]... Rich Farmbrough 22:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Kiand on this. And why on earth is UK a disambiguation page? It almost always has one meaning. I'd think that should be a redirect to United Kingdom and the disambiguation page should be UK (disambiguation). Oh, well. -- Jmabel 22:53, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps I should have been bolder and made the redirect. Rich Farmbrough 23:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the redirect; this also concurs with the opinions on Talk:Uk. --Michael Snow 06:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. Rich Farmbrough 08:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:54, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

No wholesale [commercial use|hijacking] of the Wikipedia.
Credit directly or indirectly through wikihistory.
No real restriction on information which has been digested by sentients.

The GFDL (and CC-by-sa) allow commercial use, otherwise one could not sell printed material, but of course one must always allow free copying. Both supply credit. I'm not sure what you mean about "real restrictions on information", but part of the reason I am seeking multi-licensing from users is because your GFDL edits are restricted so that WikiTravel cannot use them because they use a different open/free license. Both licenses claim to be open and free, but the text of the license makes it clear that they can't be interchanged (without of course multi-licensing, which removes this restriction). – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 15:05, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Development and Hubbert's Peak Theory

There is a little storm brewing at Hubbert peak concerning, well, many things. But currently concerning how to organize information concerning future development of energy schemes (phrased as "Oil Alternatives" or "Future energy development" depending on whom you ask). As you might guess, Hubbert Peak is an article that might be expected to draw a lot of public interest and heat; Energy development is not. We could use your input regarding how to proceed. Visit Talk:Hubbert Peak to contribute. Thanks for your consideration. Tom - Talk 21:07, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)