User talk:OLP1999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Jimmy 3 breaking of the 3RR 4 NPA 5 Re: Thief 6 Eschewal?? 6.1 "Eschewal" is a bad joke at best 7 Moves in general 8 Christmas 9 Holiday is here 10 Thanks for your support 11 Secularization vs. Avoidance 12 Ernie Boch Jr. 13 Your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter holiday season(2) 14 Christmas controversies 15 Image:AngelsLosing.jpg 16 Possibly unfree Image:NavyXmas.JPG 17 Common Era

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, OLP1999, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
  
  

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

— Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 22:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Jimmy

Jimbo has said a couple of times that his birthname is "Jimmy". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's actually in the article talk page, if you're interested. Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 1#"James"?: "I'm from Alabama. My real name is Jimmy. Strange, perhaps, but true.--Jimbo Wales 09:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)" Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] breaking of the 3RR

I am notifying you that you have broken the three revert rule of Wikipedia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not. Funny how you link to the WP:3RR article but apparently failed to read it.— OLP 1999 07:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Tawker 08:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit on Rory096's RFA was out of line CIVL wise. Please watch it in the future -- Tawker 08:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies.— OLP 1999 08:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thief

Actually, that is not true at all. There is a naming convention, and it is strictly followed. Take a look at WP:NC#Album_titles_and_band_names. Album and song titles should be disambiguated by artist, not year. This is common practice at Wikipedia. --musicpvm 05:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eschewal??

Please stop making edits which place obscure and rarely-used like "eschewal"[sic] in an unnecessarily prominent position... AnonMoos 15:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really not about whether or not "eschewal" is more correct than "secularization". Our naming conventions relate to common usage, and unless you can provide some citations showing the phrase "eschewal of Christmas" being used, it's really not going to stick. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with GT. If you want to move it you need to get a consensus on the talk page first. JoshuaZ 05:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There are zero google hits for the phrase "eschewal of Christmas". Not to say that the Google test is definitive, but it is suggestive... -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Eschewal" is a bad joke at best

The word "eschew" is such a semi-obscure William F. Buckley type of word that it has been used as part of the self-contradictory jocular mock-advice "Eschew obfuscation!". "Eschewal"[sic] goes one degree beyond that... AnonMoos 07:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Eschew obfuscation even has its own Wikipedia article! AnonMoos 07:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article itself says that eschew means "to avoid". It is not your choice to decide whether a word is inappropriate or not. I thought eschew was more fitting than secularization, but admit I didn't get consensus. Revert my changes, but the word "eschew" is not the issue.— OLP 1999 07:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Avoidance" is not correct, either. I thought the article was talking about recognition of Christmas (December 25, anyway) as a secular holiday. I don't see how "eschewal" / "avoidance" is relevant. But, if you will agree not to move the page against concensus (regardless of whether the move is "correct"), I'll unprotect the page.— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moves in general

I've noticed that you've made many moves. I strongly suggest you only make moves when you have consensus on the talk page of the article to do so. JoshuaZ 06:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I've commented on the moves you made about Prince Edward Island highways in the appropriate wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Prince Edward Island Roads#Step 0. I assume that project members are monitoring the project page, but I don't know if you are. (I wrote this before, but I don't know what happened to it.)— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas

Your most recent edit to Christmas, which clarified a very awkward sentence, was really excellent. Little details like that have a big effect on the article's readability. I just wanted to let you know that while we may not always agree on some subjects, I appreciate your good work and ongoing contributions to wikipedia. Happy editing! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, "touchy subject", yes. But you're right, we do have the same goals. I recently added cites to a couple of the, um,...disputed tidbits, and I've got to admit that the Anon who is editing made me learn some new things. I think that we've also helped with the "tidy" and "neutral", but more of your good editing would certainly improve things. I know that we'd all like to whip this into shape before the holiday season is fully upon us. Let me know, on my Talkpage or the article's, if you think there are any specific issues that need to be addressed. Once we're all satisfied with our work, I'd like to consider submitting this "new and improved" version for either Peer Review or Rating. Thanks again. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

HI, I'm continuing here instead of adding a new section. I think (but I'm not certain) that we are perhaps a bit closer to consensus about the article than we were a couple of weeks ago. It would certainly be nice to resolve the last few points in a timely fashion; I'm hoping that once we are in agreement we can all work together to protect the article from the inevitable vandalsim that will soon inundate it. I'd be more than willing to file a joint RfC requesting outside comments if you think that would help, but RfC's can be slow, and sometimes attract the attention of trolls (the very last thing we need!). If you are happy with talkpages efforts to discuss things, I am too; more than anything, I want to make sure you don't feel that you and your opinions are being ignored. Doc Tropics 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, I'm in complete agreement about making small (non-controversial) edits while awaiting more talkpage comments. Regarding "33% of the world is Christian": if you wish to include that, I wouldn't object, but I would request that you include 2 independent refs from verifiable & reliable sources, as it is an extremely controversial point. The good news is, I am a staunch defender of well-sourced material; if you can find the refs, and make it clear that the point is relevant to the article, then I would support you completely on that and protect your material as vigorously as I do my own (not that either one of us "owns" anything here, I just couldn't find a better way to express it). Doc Tropics 18:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday is here

Hi, I noticed you've been making some edits to the Secularization of Christmas article. I'm curious about the Old Navy graphic, which you uploaded. Is that from an in-store display, or an advertising insert, or... where exactly is that from? I think it would be good to indicate in the caption where the image comes from, more specifically than just "Old Navy". Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and you definitely found a better wording than I did for that caption. The image does give the impression that some connective words have gone missing ("The Winter Holiday is here"? "Yet Another Holiday is here"?), kind of like when one or two ornaments from a set become lost over the years, and we're left with only two wise men, and no myrrh. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Thanks,OLP1999 for your support on the Steve Irwin talk page about his belief in God.It was nice that you backed me up.Serenaacw 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secularization vs. Avoidance

Hi. I've been thinking about your comments on the Christmas controversies article. I'm having trouble understanding the distinction between secularization of Christmas and avoidance of it. If a store goes ahead and puts up decorations in December, and has "holiday" sales and all that, then aren't they participating in the Christmas season, just not calling it anything "Christ"-like? I mean, when I hear "avoidance of Christmas", that suggests to me that people are refraining from celebrating anything during the season, as if a store just carried on business as usual in December. It seems that the stores in question are still celebrating the holiday, but without the religious aspects. Isn't that what "secularization" means? I hope my question makes sense; thanks in advance for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernie Boch Jr.

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Ernie Boch Jr.. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --MCB 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter holiday season(2)

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter holiday season(2) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas controversies

I've been watching your edits with interest, but have been rather busy and have put off commenting on them. You seem to be improving the article, for which, thank you.

I'm leaving this message in response to your edit summary, to let you know that someone does, in fact, give a ****. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AngelsLosing.jpg

I've been curious about this image for a while, but didn't bother saying anything until now. The file info says that you created it. Meaning, you made the image and uploaded it to Wikipedia as if it were an official single cover? Or did you just select the wrong copyright when uploading it by accident? --Nikki4982 22:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:NavyXmas.JPG

[edit] Common Era

Take a quick look at the article's Talk page to see "who the Hell took this out." I'm sure you'll be able to discuss it there and reach a consensus.
Regards,
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)