User talk:Tb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 4, Issue 23 — 2008-06-02

Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Contents

[edit] Things to watch

Special:Contributions/68.62.217.75

[edit] Sockpuppet

It's user:Pionier, not Pioneer (no contribs) - User:Tvarkytojas. (It was Pionier but has become Pioneer after several reverts.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Tb (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have responded in my talk page. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, when he comes back - let me know and I will block him. Can you please go over his contributions from the multiple accounts and sort out / fix whatever he messed up. Thanks, Renata (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've cleaned up what I found. Tb (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tvarkytojas

Some tools:

User:Tvarkytojas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

P.S. "Block user" won't work for you because you're not an admin. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it should be "{{user5|Tvarkytojas}}" (without "User:"):
Tvarkytojas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oh, and "deleted contribs" also only work for administrators. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psalm forms

Apologies for deleting one of the psalm classifications just now. I'm no scholar (just have a lifelong interest in the psalms). A quick "Google" for "Historical Litanies" and "Pilgrim Liturgies" didn't reveal anything significant (to my untrained eye) other than things resembling Wikipedian-clones and a handful of devotional sites. So thanks for tempering my over-enthusiasm.

The whole article has a worrying lack of citations. But I'm not sufficiently resourced or expert to make any significant headway in addressing it. The Talk page suggests the article is B-Class. Is it? It would be good to get this higher.

(Oh, yes, and it was me, a few months ago, who provided the formal citation for the Brueggmann source. I hope at least I got that bit right!)

Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's B class. I don't have the energy to fix it all up unless we really want to make a solid go for it to be much better. Tb (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lazarus

Hi Tb, I think Stargate SG-1 Episode Cold Lazarus is a fact and should be included in the list of " In modern culture" section of "Lazarus" entry. I see no reason for a requirement pertaining removal of a less-important one to include these few words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barayef (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK Tb, I read your comment but I have some reservations on the approach mentioned by you. I think in an environment where no paper or ink shortage is present, and where you can always start a specific search on a specific word, it would be convenient to mention as many relevant data as possible as long as they are facts classified under the appropriate title. Moreover, I know many entries in wiki which allow numerous modern culture references of a given word. I think neither it would cause any harm to the purpose of the article nor expand the bulk of the entry in an unacceptable way as long as it is mentioned under the "in modern culture" subtitle, on the contrary, it would provide uptodate information which constitutes one of the characteristics and advantages of wikipedia.

My purpose is not to argue here but just to express my opinion that I don't find your argument in sync with Wikipedia spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barayef (talk • contribs) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that ideal place for this discussion is Talk:Lazarus. I am new in wiki editing and didn't know it. I will try to explain my point there. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.193.198 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfD

I'm sympathetic and cynical. I have no interest in pointless pseudo-litigation of the make-believe variety. There is no way to 'win'. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun hobby. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geosign

I found some additional referencees for Geosign. Could you please take another look at the article? --Eastmain (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would you check this out for me?

I appreciate your wisdom. Would you check this out for me? User_talk:Johnparkw#An_Observation John Park (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tb/British Isles

I will comment when the RfC is finally over (I am not trying to hurry you on). Can you remind me? Crispness (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On the 'further idea' point, IMHO its a non-starter. Crispness (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
'suspend' not 'close', whilst requiring a WPwide moratorium on everyone, EVEN wherever its use is plainly wrong (such as in 9 out 11 cases in the evidential record)? Come on. Gimme a break. Crispness (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I can't speak for him. You need to ask him directly. But personally I don't see the need for a moratorium anyhow. I seems to me to go against the whole WP ethos. Crispness (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not deal with this just now. Crispness (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic Judaism

Excuse me, but I fully know the three revert rule. If you carefully examine all the edits, you'll see that I am trying to put something back in the header that keeps being edited out by another zealous editor, and on the other hand that same zealous editor refuses to allow a small edit (with reference) that is misleading and inaccurate from an encyclopedic standpoint. You'll also notice that I have gone to the talk page for discussion. A Sniper 21:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So where is the other editor's warning on his/her talk page? A Sniper 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, buddy

No, no, no excuse me Sorry about that. *fixes. Thanks so much for the notice. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

You recently asked a question of me as to my lack of contributions on the RfC regarding Bardcom. Our schools are on holiday and I've been away for a few days so my lack of response was not due to rudeness. I studiously avoid editing or commenting on Wikipedia simply because I've seen what happens: lots of people become needlessly upset (often about minor issues) and spend hours fighting, thus losing sight of the point. It becomes a case of ego rather than truth or knowledge. The matter of the term 'British Isles' was brought to my attention by my neighbour who is an absolute Wikiholic; she asked my opinion because I teach her son Geography. Anyway, this led to me breaking my rule and making a comment - and lo, some people became upset. Case proven. However, I do think that the matter of the term would be best left to those who live in Ireland or the UK as they much better understand the volatility of the expression - especially for the Irish. I read your proposal on guidelines for its use, and (whilst rather verbose for me) it's obvious that you have spent a great deal of time and energy on this matter, so I hope it will be resolved amiably.

Some years ago I was involved in a very heated newspaper discussion and was told by a colleague much wiser than I that before sending in my 'perfect' and 'devastating' final response perhaps I should consider whether or not it would bring the other person (or me) closer to God. Immediately, I knew the answer and the letter was never posted. As for Wikipedia I shall now return to my practice of reading and watching (and, I do confess, being occasionally amused). Again, my apologies for taking a while to respond. iktae —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iktae (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tb, I find it admirable that you should try to sort out the usage of the term "British Isles", it could be a very daunting undertaking. I say this because most of the editors so far involved have obviously taken one side or the other. Then there are some editors involving themselves who either haven't read the proposal, or just don't understand the issues involved. To me it's just a matter of the correct usage of the term. I also think that the term should be avoided unless it has to be used. And there the problem lies. It will never be fixed if only "British Nationalists", and "Irish Nationalists" have a major say, which seems to be the case. Anyone trying to maintain middle ground is just left "running about the place", making pleas for compromise on both sides, a bit like war. I hope to add my little bit in the next couple of days, and my response about the Irish Sea was a little bit of "levity" on my part. Otherwise good luck. 78.19.164.54 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a British national but certainly not a nationalist; as you probably know, the two are not the same and I find nationalism to be abhorrent in any form. Thanks. User:iktae

Yeah, I agree with you, it's a different issue, and a non-issue. There is no-one calling for a rename of the BI article. I'm very middle of the road, I understand both "points of view". I hope you sort something workable out. 78.19.164.54 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd add, that I agree with anon IP 78 above. It's editors like Tb that are ideally suited to working out the compromise. It will be daunting, but hopefully these efforts will be supported. Don't get discouraged if things look like they are moving slowly ... they will move though. Bardcom (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your curt response; I'm replying only because it would be impolite to not to do so. I was unaware that only people who are active writers should contribute to discussions and I regret that you've taken my comments so personally rather than in the objective manner intended. This little experience has served to confirm my belief of what I wrote earlier. Again, good luck and be at peace. User:iktae —Preceding comment was added at 07:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ECUSA

Hi Tb, can you cast your eye over the section entitled "First Four Episcopal bishops" please and see if in your opinion it merits an edit along the same lines. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lord's My Shepherd

Hi Tb, I am not convinced by your argument to redirect The Lord's my shepherd to Psalm 23. The reason is simple. Dealing with any number of funerals over the year, "The Lord's my shepherd" is generally the most sought after hymn. People want access to the words and the music in order to get the funeral service right. The Hymn is highly notable as any poll of vicars (funeral directors) will inform you. The Psalm 23 page does not provide a clear path to the information people need, nor the words nor the music. I am convinced that a link from the page to the hymn would be of benefit of all and not detract from Wikipedia. Lord Dunvegan - The universe is the harmony of creation 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are entirely right that "The Lord's my shepherd" needs to exist on Wikipedia so that people can find it, but having a link is not the point. It isn't notable. It's very common perhaps in your area, or your country, but that's not the way notability is established. Wikipedia is not a place for all facts whatsoever. However there is a concern you express which I agree with: that in this case, Psalm 23 has a couple particularly common verse paraphrases, and mention should be made of that. But Wikipedia is not a funeral planner, it's an encyclopedia! Mention of the use of Psalm 23, and those paraphrases, surely could be added to Psalm 23. Be careful though, claims that it is "the most sought after hymn" are the kinds of things which WP:V is there to address. You must provide a reference for a claim like that, and a proper geographical limitation. (Is it the most sought after hymn in Egypt? India? Bangkok? Moscow? Dallas?) Tb (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tb it is a strange world we live in. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which by definition should be "a reference work containing information on every branch of knowledge" Chambers Dictionary. I am quite happy to update Psalm 23 to include the lyrics, but this would not necessarily make the information clearer for people who are specificially looking for the hymn. You consider the hymn not to be notable, possibly in the world context it is not and I have specifically given the context of my knowledge as Scotland and England. I would suggest there is a lot of information here that is less notable. What is the cost of giving people a clear route to the information they want, rather than hiding it. Most people I know would not understand the reference to Psalm 23, but a good majority of the 60 million people on these islands would recognise both the words and the music. What is the cost to you, or WP to exclude it? How many references do you need to make it notable - I am sure I can find them? The list on the Psalm 23 page shows how notable it is. People in the UK know the hymn by the first line, not the Psalm reference number. This may be a cultural difference between our countries? Having its own listing makes the information clear and concise and does not detract from Psalm 23 in any way. Kind regards Lord Dunvegan - The universe is the harmony of creation 20:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorddunvegan (talk • contribs)
People in the UK know the hymn by the first line, not the Psalm reference number. Oh, of that I have no doubt! That's why having a redirect link is still absolutely essential. I agree that people will look it up under the first line, and that such a lookup must get them to what they seek. But the redirect doesn't change that. Wikipedia does not work by splitting out little tiny details of information, each with its own page. Many people may say "C of E", but that's not a separate page; likewise, "Miserere" is a redirect to Psalm 51 and "De profundis" is a redirect to Psalm 130. The point is that people who look up "The Lord's my shepherd" (thinking, "oh, isn't that a lovely thought, let's have that at dad's funeral") will get to Psalm 23 and ideally would find the information they want. Because Psalm 23 has become such a staple of funeral liturgies in the English speaking world (though interestingly, only in the 20th century did it become associated with funerals!) it would be a perfectly good idea to add a section on "use in funerals" to Psalm 23. Heck, I'll go do that now. Tb (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Tb

What is good faith about deleting something from an article for no good reason? There was no justification given by Carlaude for doing what he did on Thought of Aquinas. And there were not three reversions, but only one. And since you have suggested it, why don't these people make a comment on the discussion page before deleting things, willy nilly? I am very open to any suggestion one might make about changing the article. But "gang deleting" over and over of something from an article, without justiification is vandalism, no matter what you may choose to call it. A E Francis (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tb

Concerning Thought of Aquinas: your conclusion that these are not important subjects is an opinion. I suppose if you feel strongly enough about it, then just delete the whole thing. Then Wikipedia will have important articles like "Paris Hilton" and "Where Playboy Bunnies were Born". There are numerous subjects one could write about Aquinas and his opinions. These were the ones I chose. But to be honest, I am getting very weary of battling people like you and your opinions. So, if this article bothers you so much as to not be relevant, delete it. A E Francis (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tb

Concerning Aquinas and the sacraments: if you are so inclined, delete it. Your tags are wrong: There are references. There is no original research. A E Francis (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tb

I tried writing on the Aquinas and the Sacraments article, but it is locked up. I am open to any and all suggestions. I don't know how to write an article about Aquinas's justification of the sacraments based on scriptural interpretation, without quoting his scriptural interpretation. This article has been contentious since it went up, over a year ago. My life would be a lot simpler if it were to be deleted. But I am open to any suggestions. A E Francis (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Thought of Aquinas: forced baptism was an important issue, since some theologians like John Duns Scotus recommended it. I picked the topics because they were of interest ot me. Probably they are not of great interest. But they are to some people, because several have added or rewritten the topics. Of course, your ideas about Aquinas would make an excellent addition to the article, or perhpas a second article. To be honest, I am through writing about any religious subject on Wikipedia. Life is too short. A E Francis (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thérèse de Lisieux

The first edition of this article (10 October 2003) has "canonised". I find in it no other spelling that is specific to either the US or the other style. (It also has "canonized", but this spelling is accepted in both styles.) Am I right in thinking that the Wikipedia rule is that the non-US spelling is the one to use in this article? Lima (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The rule I had in mind is: "In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." If this rule has been violated, then the violation must be undone - or so I think. Lima (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Maybe you are right. I have therefore copied your comment to Talk:Baptism, where I had used the same argument in favour of applying US spelling to that article. Lima (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do you care to comment on Mary

Do you care to comment on this, "Please Talk about a Move"? --Carlaude (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to post an opinion to the straw poll/vote? --Carlaude (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of Pronouns

Hi Tb, thanks for pointing out this policy to me! I just thought I'd let you know as a courtesy that I'm going to restore my changes less my capitalization as I also fixed some inconsistencies in the translation (you vs. thou, that sort of thing) and an incorrectly used archaic conjugation. Anyway, cheers! --Liempt (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tb, I more or less agree with you. I've always wondered why Englishmen use the familiar address to refer to God rather than the formal address. In any event, the only reason I standardized it with the archaic pronouns is because precedent had been set in the first translation (With the source of which I'm unfamiliar). In any event, if you feel it necessary to standardize without the archaic pronouns go ahead. Cheers! --Liempt (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you! Your opinion about whether there should there be a policy guideline?

Hi Tb,
Reason why I was wrong is a long story that doesn't bear repeating here. I was wrong, and now know better - thank you!

As for a policy guideline, "The last thing we need is another one-size-fits-all policy on something that should be a matter of editorial discretion and common sense", wrote User:ObiterDicta in the Village Pump discussion I'm guessing you've read - words much more wiser than any of mine could be.
Nevertheless, my suggestion for a policy guideline might be would be:
"When quoting the Christian Bible in English,

  • outside of articles explicitly about a version,
  • outside of articles comparing versions,
  • outside articles about faiths that adhere to different versions of the Christian Bible in English

- an article should quote the generally accepted scholarly version of the Bible in English.
- if an article quotes another version, the version should be quoted consistently throughout the article
- failing any or all of the above, any version used should be quoted consistently throughout the article"

As adverted to in the discussion, there are all manner problems with that kind of policy. Not the least is a western bias, eliding the English versions (both scholarly and liturgical, I guess) of Orthodox Christianity. There is also the problem of the Wikipedia preference (more honoured in the breach than in the observance, both as Shakespeare meant it and as it is popularly understood) for, broadly, internal quotations to come from sources out of copyright.
Frankly, I'm far too shy to even think of suggesting any or all of the above.Your opinion?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, many versions are of high quality and no one version is nor can be shown to be "the generally accepted scholarly version of the Bible in English"--Carlaude (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I said, "Scholars generally use the NRSV as a reference." But indeed, what scholars do is not rely on any version, and instead simply take a look at the actual text. Tb (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link in Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

We created the taxrebatecalculator.com and added the first link for the economic stimulus calculator - there was not one there before - we kept contacting the IRS to help make the calc back in feb and where the 1st, when they were too lazy to do it them selves. Ppl emailed us and requested we add a link to wiki The calc link was our contribution, it never went to the irs site - please dont change again and give excuse about ads - all free sites need ads for sponsorship. Im am sure you would not want your contribution altered either. No matter what you search for in wiki it will lead to a commercial site with ads - even actors, car companies are all commmercial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random9 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tb, thank you for your AIV report. Another admin blocked the latest IP; based on the persistent spamming at Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, I have protected that page for three days. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral

Could you please refers the changes I made after I'm finished in the future? The current gallery is a is a laugh. It is composed of the least important cathedrals with the worst images available on Wikipedia. Yes, the cathedrals I was inserting at the moment are all European, but as I said I wasn't finished. I was planning on putting cathedrals in the gallery from Africa, Oceania, Asia and the Americas as well as Russian Orthodox Cathedral, Lutheran Cathedrals, etc. I also rearranged the article on Synagogues. That turned out to be a big improvement.

P.S. Saint Peter's Basilica is a cathedral. A holy men is buried there, so that's why it is a basilica in addition to being a cathedral. Or isn't it also a church. The article about the basilica also states that it is a cathedral. Massimo Catarinella (talk)

I'm well aware of the fact, that the cathedral of the Diocese of Rome is St. John Lateran. What I'm unaware of is why you are telling me this, since this wasn't a point of discussion. Anyway, I will present you the list tomorrow. Then you can decide whether it was a good move to make or not. Massimo Catarinella (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You can now view the new gallery under Cathedral Talk.Massimo Catarinella (talk)

[edit] Gallery

Hello Tb, I made some final changes to the "new" gallery. I hope you will like it and can use it in the article. Kind regards, Massimo Massimo Catarinella (talk)

[edit] a good laugh

Hello. I was just browsing through a user's talk page archive when I noticed this. Your comment made me laugh so hard, I nearly peed my pants.  ;) Thanks for the chuckle and a late congratulations on becoming an Archbishop. Even if it was only temporary.  ;) Rockfang (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ECUSA/PECUSA

My addition was for a simple reason: the link concerned is to the EB which provides two official names for the US Anglican Church in communion with Canterbury; both terms are acceptable, and both are used in the US. Your desire to select only one of these to the exlcusion of the other which uses the term "Protestant Episcopal Church" is purely your preference. While most may use the term ECUSA, many (particularly in the rising evangelical wing of that church) insist on employing the other title. By way of example, here are 2 links found on a 10 second google search http://www.stpeterschurchalbany.org/ and http://www.pecf.org/

Again, I have no issue with the use of the term ECUSA, but there are two official names - not one - and this fact is accurately mentioned in the EB link. In the interests of fairness, and because Wiki seeks to be an enclyclopedia, do you not think that both should be mentioned as the link to EB itself does? albanman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanman (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)