User talk:Sarum blue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A welcome from Sputnik

Hi, Sarum blue, Welcome to Wikipedia!

- СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 04:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

If you want to add a picture that you took, click the upload file link, and follow the insurctions. Where it says "Licensing" there is a scroll down menu. Pick the one that says GFDL (self made) if you are releasing the pictures into the public domain. If you forget to, just edit the page, and add "GFDL-self" with two curly brackets around either side like this: {{GFDL-self} } (without the space). I did it for you on Image:Sanctum bells. Have fun contributing, and hope to see you around! (Don't hesitate to ask if you have any more questions...) Do svedanya! СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 04:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, you probably want the PD-self license. I have just always used the GFDL, don't ask me why, but you're probably better off with the PD. Just add the {{PD-self}} to all your photos and you're all set to go. Have fun! СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome for the help; no problem! Care for the stranger, as you were once strangers in the land of Egypt... We all were newbies once... As for the language, its a Hebrew note left to me by an anonymous user; don't worry about it. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be bold

I happened to notice your comment on Sputnikcccp's page as I was writing him a comment. You wrote, in part: "I very much wish to contribute, but don't want to mess things up." Don't worry. Be bold in editing pages, in uploading photos with a License-unknown tag, whatever. You won't hurt things at all. In the case of unknown-license photos, either someone will contact you to help you get proper licensing for the photos, or the photos will be removed. A lot of what Wikipedia is today is thanks to people having been bold in the past. :-) --unforgettableid | talk to me 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy back at you!

... I find this site so very interesting - just amazing. And many times when I've searched for a definition of something, Wikipedia is the first thing to pop up, and has always had the most useful language.

Thanks for the compliment, but why say it to me instead of at Wikipedia:Village pump? It applies to all the dedicated Wikipedians out there. :-) --unforgettableid | talk to me 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taizé

I'm not sure if I am answering to your question, but I'll try. When I looked at the Taizé article, I found out it was already a disambiguation page, except that there seems to be an article going on at the bottom of the page. A disambiguation page on Wikipedia is used to provide links to several articles of the same name, but not necessarily the same nature. You could make a separate article for the Taizé service by using the information at the bottom of the page and adding a link to the newly created article on the Taizé disambiguation page. You can take for example the disambiguation page Bush to know how a disambiguation page is commonly organized. If I didn't answer correctly or if s0ome information is missing, you can still contact me.--DarkEvil 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing, Wikipedia is hard to understand sometimes, even I do not master everything here. I learned much of the things by myself with a little help sometime. If you ever need any kind of help, I'll be glad to give you a hand.--DarkEvil 04:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Very kind! Sarum blue 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Userpage

Hi!
Thanks for reviewing my userpage! I would ideally like for that design to by my personal one, but if you really want to, could you at least change the color scheme to something else? Blue I think would suit you ;-)! Anyway, thanks again! --Fir0002 21:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Article

Absolutely! That's what I did with Conchology - I took the Entomology article, copied and pasted, and just changed all the information. You are more than welcome to do that with your articles - just beware of notability. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sputnik. OK I did that part, and have a few questions which I posted on your site.

Awesome! If you feel your article is ready for the wiki, just go to the page, click create article, paste it in and save! You don't need to ask permission unless the information is copyrighted or otherwise under their jurisdiction; you may, however, wish to let them know, as they might have comments or additional information. For example, I was working on an article on my school and told my teachers, and they added some information about the history which I hadn't known. As for categories, you might want to look at other similar church articles and see what categories they are in, follow the links, and go from there. You could also start with Category:Churches, and then Category:Churches by country, Category:Churches by denomination, etc... I might drop by and check it out. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 18:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I reviewed the article, and have made some changes; mainly formatting and such; I don't know very much about churches and Christianity in general, so I wouldn't catch any errors of that sort, but even to an uneducated reader who knows nothing of the subject, such as me, you seem to have done a phenomenal job; you have a lot of information about your church. Very intersting - great job! СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 22:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

HOORAY! THANK YOU, СПУТНИК!

Hi, yes the article is great, possibly the formatting could be tidied up, as the pictures fall off the bottom, but overall great, particularly for a new editor. Martin 22:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Great job on your first article! I hope to see many more in the future. :-) Gflores ^Talk 00:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Matthew's article

Sarum Blue (great Anglican name, BTW), first, welcome to Wikipedia. Glad to have you here.

To address your points:

• 1. The Dioceses of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and Episcopal Church in the United States of America article pretty much address the provinces and Anglican Communion stuff.

• 2. The process of calling a new dean or rector (my own parish just began an interim, BTW), is a rather complex topic and does vary somewhat among dioceses. The church polity section of the ECUSA page addresses a little of this sort of thing (the difference between a rector, dean, vicar, etc.), but it may need to be saved for a future article about ECUSA church polity.

• 3. The rather awkwardly named category "Episcopal cathedrals in the United States" is a subcategory of both "Anglican cathedrals" and "Cathedrals in the United States". They both still indirectly lead to the St. Mattthew's article. Usually an article is placed in the most specific category possible.

• 4. Please start an Episcopal Diocese of Dallas article. Texas and Fort Worth already have them. I look forward to seeing it.

Rockhopper10r 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC) PS A very happy Shrove Tuesday to you. I hope you get to enjoy some pancakes.

[edit] NRHP listing for Cathedral Church of Saint Matthew

First off, great job with the article! I noticed that you added the Cathedral to the list of Registerd Historic Places in Texas, but I don't see the Cathedral listed in the National Register. I searched both the THC Atlas site (for NR listings) and at http://www.nr.nps.gov/. Was it recently approved? Or were you thinking of its Texas Historic Landmark status? Deh 02:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually noticed the list rather than the category, but I suppose the same thing applies: the list links to the National Register of Historic Places & the category is itself categorized as Category::National_Register_of_Historic_Places. One possibility would be to change the list to a table that included columns for national, state, and local status; but that isn't what editors of e.g. California have done: there appear to be separate categories/lists for California Historical Landmarks and (nationally) Registered Historic places. The THC's term is technically "recorded" rather than "registered", but that seems like a pretty subtle distinction & I agree that the list & category articles should be modified to make this more clear. I'm willing to construct & populate a list of Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks from the THC Atlas, but I don't have time to do that for a while.

It seems opinions vary on categorization. A common notion I've seen is the claim that articles should be placed in the most specific categories possible, particularly when those categories are themselves members of the larger category you're considering. For example, Category:Episcopal cathedrals of the United States is already in the categories Cathedrals in the United States, Episcopal churches in the United States, and Anglican cathedrals, so if it were me, I wouldn't add them directly.

Just my opinions. Keep up the great work — I hope you're inspired to add more in-depth content! Deh 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Question at the Help Desk

Hi Sarum, welcome to Wikipedia. I have replied to your question here. Please write back there or on my talk page if you need further assistance. Happy editing, Johntex\^talk 17:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• You are very welcome. Your plan sounds great. I took a look at the page history of Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, and it has only been edited about 6 times, ever. It doesn't look article that is hotly defended by someone that things there version is correct and that no one else is worthy of making changes. Just in case, I put it on my "Watchlist" so if any "edit war" breaks out, I can try to help counsel the parties.

BTW, great job on Episcopal Diocese of Dallas. That is really good work for a new article by a newbie! I have listed it at Template talk:Did you know. This is where new articles (less than 5 days old) are selected for a mention in the "Did You Know..." section of the Main Page. So, if no one objects, your work may be featured on the Main Page soon. This action usually draws a few people to help improve the new article you have written, as well.

Again, please let me know if I can help with anything. Best, Johntex\^talk 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 :)

• • Wow, the cathedral article is really awesome. You do great work! Unfortunately, it is already more than 5 days since that article was created, so it is not elligible.

Episcopal Diocese of Dallas should probably make it though. I see no reason why not. I have not made a lot of nominations before, so I am still learning about that.  ::There are usually lots of articles nominated, so they usually get featured for just a few hours before they get rotated out to make space for a new article to have the honor. Because the list of nominees is so long, the article usually makes it up near the end of its 5 day elligibility, so that would imply around Tue or Wed of next week. Your picture may get chosen to be beside the article as well. It depends on whether others listed also have pictures, how good the picture is etc. Also, on the weekend, we don't run "Did you know", we run "Picture of the Day", so that tends to create a back-log of potential "Did you know" articles over the weekend.

I mentioned being on the main page usually brings some help in improving the article. I should have mentioned that it usually brings some vandals as well. Administrators and other experienced users know this, so they tend to watch over these articles to immediately undo the vandalism. You may want to keep a watch yourself if you have time.

Good luck, Johntex\^talk 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! I put the diocesan house on my watch list!

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Episcopal Diocese of Dallas, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 15:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Very cool! It really is a very nice new article. Keep up the great work, Johntex\^talk 20:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boat boy

First off, Sarum Blue, please sign your posts using this sign: ~~~~ which the system automatically converts into your name and the date and time of your post. Then I can respond directly to you, instead of having to check histories and such to see who you are.

In response to questions:

• Yes, they're looking for a book, journal, or weblink verifying the accuracy of the article. Be bold and add it in. Be sure to check Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to do it wiki-style.
• As long as the picture is legal and you have permission, sure, you can post a picture. Be sure to indicate the license under which it is released for use on Wikipedia (minimum: GFDL). Pictures of children are no problem unless, of course, they are illegal for reasons that Episcopalians don't speak of O:-)

just re-read your comment! lol!

• Don't be too timid! Judging from your user page and your contributions, while you may be "new" in chronological terms you are quite wiki-skilled. I didn't get Main Page recognition for a long time, and my user page isn't that pretty, though i have well over a thousand edits. Like I said, be bold!. Good luck and God bless! Alba 13:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant to sign your page - sorry! Sarum blue 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

OK, I went ahead and substituted the pictures - the or-fu-re tag stands for orphaned image, fair use, replaced. What it means is: to replace image A with image B, you replace every place where A is used in an article with B. Then A is an "orphaned image", because it's not used anywhere. So you add the or-fu-re tag, which will delete imagw A, and image B will have replaced it. Sorry I didn't do it sooner, but it's been Passover for the past few days and I haven't been able to use the computer. I replaced the pictures, but you can do it in the future now! Hope you have a good Easter! СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 13:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heya

Glad you're appreciating my sporadic attempts at removing preteen school essay language. I don't know why, but a lot us go through this period where we've Suddenly Discovered Adverbs, and must preface every sentence with one. So I do not expurgate with anger; but rather, with compassion and awareness that those editors, too, will someday look back upon such phrasing with embarassment. (Well, not really. I do it mostly with scorn and vague annoyance.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism COTM

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Thomas, New York

The only credit I can take for that article is for adding "New York" to its name. It was originally "St. Thomas Episcopal Church", which I thought made it sound like it was the only church with that name. It is a very good article, but I can't take any real credit for it.

Merry Christmas!Rockhopper10r 15:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican Prayer Beads article fixed

SB, I just went to an earlier version of the article and edited from it.Rockhopper10r 06:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican realignment

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. While many parishes and dioceses of the Anglican Communion Network have not as yet sought alternative oversight expressly, the organization itself IS dedicated to realignment. There is a lot of info on the web about the movement. The best blog on the subject is titusonenine with almost hourly updates on Anglican newsitems. I hope this is helpful.EastmeetsWest 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral Church of Saint Matthew

Regards: Could you tell me why you marked it B and low importance?

Class: as per Anglicanism project assessment - the article hasn't been peer reviewed and needs referencing per WP:CITE, therefore must be rated as B-Class.

Importance: Diocesean cathedrals would generally be low to medium priority for WP:Anglicanism (this isn't to say they wouldn't be higher on other WikiProjects) - obviously some ( e.g. Canterbury Cathedral) are rated higher as they have a larger role in the history of Anglicanism. — PMJ 22:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Regards: How does one get peers to review?

If you go to this page here: WP:PR and follow the instructions then that should get the ball rolling! You may also want to post a request for people to eyeball the article on the Anglicanism project talk page. Good luck! — PMJ 16:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)