User talk:Student7

…

Email me.

"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER[1]

Hello, Student7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdumelle13 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne, FL

I put the section back in, mainly because although a bit gaudy it was all true, and all seemed to be valid articles.

Perhaps get rid of the arrows, move to the back?

The Georgia Page

Actually, now that I think about it, I went to the Georgia page and went through the links of the major cities. When I went to each cities page I checked out there metro status and Macon came in third behind Atlanta and Augusta.

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:11 7 August 2007 (GMT).

Catholic Churches

You offered some comments last week about a proposed deletion of Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California). You correctly noted that the article was rough, as it had just been started. I have been preparing articles on some of the significant parishes in Los Angeles and wondered if you'd have a few minutes to take a look and make suggestions on format, content, info boxes, etc. One of your notes indicated that the number of members was key data, and I agree, but do you know of any verifiable source to determine membership for Catholic parishes? Examples of the parishes I have so far created articles for are: St. Andrew's Catholic Church, Pasadena, St. Robert Bellarmine Catholic Church, St. Charles Borromeo Church (North Hollywood), and St. Finbar Catholic Church and School (Burbank, California).

Brandywine

Brandywine is a general disambiguation page (which Brandywine Creek and Brandywine River) point to.

I went through all the Brandywine references and updated them to point to the appropriate articles. There were and are many pages referring to either "Brandywine Creek" or "Brandywine River" and not necessarily pointing to the correct one.

"Brandywine River" can refer to: "Brandywine Creek (Christina River)" or "Brandywine Creek (Cuyahoga River)". or the fictional (Hobbit/Rings Trilogy) Middle Earth river.

"Brandywine Creek" refers to at least 25 different ones in the U.S.

(5) Brandywine in British Columbia, (2) Brandywine in Nova Scotia, and more outside of North America ...

Rivers are officially disambiguated by their downstream_parent, for instance Brandywine (Christina River), only when that fails, then a reasonable civil sub-division. See WikiProject Rivers for more details.

If you undo my updates, you are on your own...

Charles Adams

I am not particularly familiar with Vermont but I try to edit pages with correct links, sources, etc. Adams' page says the town so it has been fixed to that. Any correction to my corrections can be made. Thanks for the thanks!

Florida template

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Causes of the us housing bubble

Thank you for your recommendation. I will work on it this weekend.

Causes of the us housing bubble

Thank you for your recommendation. I will work on it this weekend. Sguffanti

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Dkriegls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

message

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at VictorianMutant's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vandalism of articles

Please make a point of editing articles only when you are knowledgeable of the subject matter and exercise restraint in deleting relevant and valuable substantive content that has been contributed to articles by other editors who have donated their time and expertise to the expansion of knowledge through Wikipedia.

(from a newbie who never, ever, signs his posts! And who overwhelmed an article with a gallery of pictures despite having been told by two editors about WP:NOTIMAGE. Ah, well. )

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption in the United States.
Message added 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Feezo's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at Feezo's talk page.

The School System

I actually attend one of the middle schools, so that is why. User:Atum World/Toast

Pavlovsk

One of the purposes of the set index articles on Russian inhabited localities is to list the entities for which an article is not yet created but should be. Having those links makes the sets complete, generates the backlinks which help prioritize the articles to be created, points out to the correct title under which the article needs to be created, and, by aggregating all links in one place, prevents the proliferation of countless useless stubs which are basically one line repeating the description in the set index. Furthermore, there is nothing confusing about a red link. Please continue on that set's talk page if you still disagree. The only real problem with that page is that it is currently unreferenced; I will have that fixed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2012; 14:22 (UTC)

Richard Hatch

Have you seen the page on Richard Hatch, especially the POV section on Tax Evasion written by his lawyers? Very interesting! Richard_Hatch_(Survivor_contestant)

Nomination of Persecution by Muslims for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Persecution by Muslims is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution by Muslims until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello I was wondering..

Since you made comments about the East West schism. I wonder what you think of the role that Western Christianity played in the loss of protection for the Eastern Christians in the Ottomon Empire after the Crimean War. In specific how one would address the effects of say the Crimean War on people like Gavrilo Princip (and the Black Hand (Serbia) of course) and also the Pontic Greeks genocide or the Armenian Genocide and the Assyrian Genocide. All of these groups had been protected and or under the protection of the Czar of Russia but after the defeat of the Russians during the Crimean War (and later the Soviet revolution) there was no protection for them including the Serbs and the Romanians. Also how this plays historically into places like Jasenovac concentration camp and people like Father Miroslav Filipović. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Government of New Hampshire

Well, I thank you for assuming good faith, but disapprove of being reverted. The year of adoption of New Hampshire's constitution is not notable; the fact that it has not been recodified every half-century, as is the case in many U.S. states, is the real reason for leading with this aspect of the state constitution. So I favor the word "still," though not enough to start an edit war. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

30

Do 30 state constitutions prohibit same-sex marriage? (First note that not allowing it or not recognizing it is different from making it "illegal". It's not a crime to call yourself married in a same-sex relationship. It's a question of validity.) You'll find some constitutions say nothing on the subject. At least 2: Rhode Island and New Mexico, I believe. There may be another. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

Illinois? And of course Minnesota! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And Delaware. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Making the sentence run-on doesn't make anything better. Teammm ^talk
_email 03:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the current article seems to read correctly. It is not legal in 37 or so states, or explicitly limited by statute or constitution. Student7 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 20:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for the edits to the Education in Haiti page. I appreciate it! If you have any suggestions on how to make the page better please let me know! Kdumelle13 (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Chian diaspora

Thank you for your edit to the Chian diaspora article. I accept both the data and the sentiment. I am now thinking about how to reconcile it with the claim here that "We calculate that the heart of the Chian and Phanariot community in England never numbered much more than about 600-700 at any one time with perhaps another 500 or so throughout the rest of Europe." My guess is that when Long writes of "the heart of the .. community" he is counting only the rich shipowners and their families, and ignoring all those of whom we have no record. Or maybe the other 19,000 or so exiles remained in the Ottoman Empire, free or as slaves. What are your views? Maproom (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you also for your response. The answer (obvious in hindsight, particularly now that I have read the tiger quotation at the top of this page) must be to quote what the sources say, and let the readers worry about how to reconcile the figures. Maproom (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with your edit but I would also like to read your argument on the liberation (from occupation of course, like Paris) of the city. It would be good to add your opinion to the TP. Thanks and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East–West Schism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Cyril (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Roman bishops"

By "Roman bishops" Romanides did not mean bishops of Rome. He painted a racial (I won't say racist) picture of what happened in the West, with the abominable Franks enslaving the previous inhabitants (the "Romans"), and replacing bishops drawn from the previous population ("Roman bishops") with bishops of their own race. Esoglou (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right. The unpleasantness of papal succession was a few years after the Frankish papacy. Thanks.Student7 (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The archbasilica of St John Lateran is in Rome, not in Lyon, where the 1272 council was held. For a picture of the Lyon Saint John church, as it is today, see Lyon Cathedral. Esoglou (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my previous remark into account. Another unfounded statement is that the schism (or rather the first signs of its coming) "may have started as early as ... the Rebaptism controversy at the time of Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage in the middle of the third century". That was a disagreement within the West, not between West and East. Esoglou (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your moving the Council of Nicaea (325) to immediately after the founding of Constantinople (330) not only violates chronology, but also breaks up the thread of the expansion of the power of that bishopric from the position of suffragan to Heraclea to having Heraclea as its own suffragan and having authority over the whole of Thrace (formerly under Heraclea), to having rank (whatever about authority) next after Rome, to having direct authority not only over Thrace but also over Pontus (formerly under Caesarea in Cappadocia) and Asia (formerly under Ephesus ) to ... I doubt too that your more recent move of the 6th-century assumption of the title of Ecumenical Patriarch to a position that makes it an appendix to the Empire's political hold over the city of Rome until the 8th century is illuminating. Esoglou (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed rebaptism controversy. I wonder how it got into article in the first place. Anyway..

For some reason, it never dawned on me that the council was held before the founding of Constantinople. I have moved it. Still some stranded paragraphs.

I don't know what to do about the 6th century century assumption of title. It did seem to me that when Constantinople started calling the tune for Rome, that it would seem reasonable that in light of Canon 28 or whatever, the Patriarch of Constantinople would step up to the plate, as it were. Student7 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, for a start you could give a single heading to the two sections "Establishment of Constantinople, the New Rome" and "Growth in power of the see of Constantinople". The first is explanatory with regard to the second. I think it would be more logical to have "Growth in power of the see of Constantinople" as the main heading with "Transfer of the empire's capital", "First Council of Constantinople", "Council of Chalcedon" as subsections: these were all steps in the growth of the power in question; no other aspects of the work of these two councils is dwelt upon, nor indeed are those other aspects relevant to this article on the East-West Schism and what led to it. The assumption of the title "Ecumenical Council" would also fit under the same main heading. As things stand, the Council of Chalcedon is dealt with also under the heading of the First Council of Constantinople, and indeed even under the First Council of Nicaea: the tome of Leo (who wasn't born for some seventy years after the Nicene Council) obviously played no part in that council! The assumption of the claim to be patriarch of the oikoumene, whether that meant the whole inhabited world (the literal meaning) or only the empire (an accepted meaning of the phrase at that time), was objectively - whatever about the subjective intention - a claim to have authority even over Rome, which was then part not only of the inhabited world but also of the Constantinople-ruled empire. No wonder Pope Gregory responded by pointing to the title he himself preferred to use: "servant of the servants of God"! The move of the mention of the claim to the new position also makes nonsense of the following phrase, "Along with it, the political unity of what had been the Roman Empire fell", since "it" now refers to the title of Ecumenical Patriarch. The logical unity of the section on the growth of the power of the bishop of Constantinople, as it was before the general revision was begun, has been lost through the removal from it of pertinent matter and, to a lesser extent, the insertion into it of what has little relation to it. Esoglou (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

On the three Petrine sees, see these reliable sources. Esoglou (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe something got truncated on the Petrine sees link. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I don't know how that happened. Esoglou (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with that. I picked one off the list which seems reliable, though it is Catholic, and someone may wish to replace it for that reason. Still, the assertion is that "The pope claimed that..." What better cite than one which is Catholic? Student7 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope your removal of the "in use" tag does not mean that you are withdrawing. I much prefer not to touch the article myself and so not provide a pretext for an outburst of activity by another editor. Leaving editing to someone who is reasonable and neutral is much better. -- I wrote this before you gave your explanation on the article's talk page. It is still my thought Esoglou (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur... even if the History section is not actually shortened, your efforts to rationalize it, remove redundancies and otherwise improve the text have been much appreciated. Also, it's been refreshing just to have an editor that doesn't stir up inflammatory comments on the Talk Page. If you're done, I'll take another look at the History section and see if there's anything that can be shortened. But please stay engaged on the article. Your participation is much appreciated. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Did I discourage you by pointing out that you still have material on the Council of Chalcedon inserted under other councils? That was certainly not my intention. The last sentence in the "First Council of Constantinople" section, "Eastern Orthodox state that ...", obviously belongs to the section on the Council of Chalcedon. In that same section on the First Council of Constantinople you could also, for instance, start a new section at "In 382 a synod in Rome ..." and give it a heading such as "Claims of the see of Rome", since only the first sentence in it is related to the 381 council. In the earlier "Council of Nicaea (325)" section, the one-sentence paragraph "In 342 Pope Julius I ..." also probably belongs under "Claims of the see of Rome", while the last paragraph, about the Tome of Leo, is unrelated to the Nicene Council and concerns only the Council of Chalcedon, which was "the ecumenical council" that the paragraph mentions. Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will find that, after all, this is far from being too complicated. Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to implement these suggestions. Student7 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. It would be better to readjust a change you made, under "Council of Chalcedon", from "The Tome of Leo of Rome was highly regarded, and formed the basis for the ecumenical council's formulation" to "The Romes's Tome of Leo (449) was highly regarded, and formed the basis for the Second Council of Ephesus' formulation." The "tome of Leo" (i.e., the dogmatic letter written by Pope Leo I to Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople) formed the basis of the formulation of the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. The Second Council of Ephesus, which is not recognized as an ecumenical council, refused even to let the document be read.

I prefer not to intervene myself as long as LoveMonkey does not edit the article substantially - more than with his slight edit of today. Any edit by me would provoke a flood of edits by him. There are many things that I see as needing correction, and doubtless some day I will have to edit them, but as long as there is both peace and hope I am letting them be, though I may from time to time draw your attention to one or another, leaving it to you to judge whether they should be fixed.

Corrected the council. Student7 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As you know, from the outset I had doubts about the possibility of presenting the East-West Schism without explanations of what led to it. I am not the best person to ask about eliminating "trivial" councils. I would say that the section "Filioque and Primacy issues (867-879", with its reference to three or more councils/synods, would be better replaced by an explicit reference to the Photian Schism. But that is only a very short section and I think that LoveMonkey, who inserted it, would react to its removal by restoring and amplifying it. I do think there are elements in the article that could be omitted. The political division of the Roman Empire by Diocletian, when Christianity was still illegal, has at most a very indirect connection with the schism. I would even say that it has only a "far-fetched" connection and certainly ought to be omitted. But I suppose that not everyone would agree. Sorry for not being able to help. Esoglou (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC) It probably is best if you ignore this comment, which I placed here under the mistaken impression (it was late in the day for me) that an enquiry on my talk page came from you. Esoglou (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East–West Schism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auvergne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Delaware zone map

The same editor has added similar maps to the Rhapidophyllum hystrix and Sabal minor articles (and perhaps elsewhere). The source of information for these apparently self-made maps is unidentified and thus completely unverifiable and they are clearly identified as original research in years-old comments on the talk pages for those articles so I removed them. It's amazing they've lasted this long. 98.218.23.114 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. Johns River Water Management District, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Black Creek and Trout River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenal F.C. supporters (2nd nomination)|AFC supporters AfD]

Don't know if you have the article on your watch list or not, but I think one or two are asking you some questions! I've had my word on the article too. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Book of Ezekiel

Hi Wikitiki89, Til Eulenspiegel and Student7 - Grace and Peace! Might I invite you to the discussion topic I've started on the Book of Ezekiel talk page regarding the use of 'God' vs 'YHWH' in this article. You all clearly have knowledge of and passion for the subject and I would really appreciate seeing that harnessed into a new section. Wikipedia covers well the 'Yahwist'/'Elohist' source ideas that arise in higher criticism, but there is little on how the use of different references to the Deity has been interpreted through succeeding generations of Rabbinic and Christian interpretation. The Book of Ezekiel has its own emphasis here, particularly in the use of 'Lord GOD', so it's as good a place to start as any, and your collective enthusiasm makes you the ideal team! ;) For what it's worth, I come from a conservative Christian position, well-read but formally untaught in Theology. Blessings of Hannukah just past and Christmas about to come!John M Brear (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I wish you would read the references

I remember a long time ago you moderated the comment about the Chamber of Commerce in the Right-to-work law article by removing the word "powerful" (you changed "powerful business interests led by the Chamber of Commerce" to "business interests led by the Chamber of Commerce") and yet the scholarly references provided make it quite clear that it was "powerful business interests led by the Chamber of Commerce" and use that exact language. Now you moderate it even further in a misguided effort to sound non-biased but the reality is that you are injecting your own view without even reading the source material. MoodyGroove (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)MoodyGroove