User talk:LinuxDude/Archive 2Nov06

This is an archive of past discussions with User:LinuxDude. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, LinuxDude/Archive 2Nov06, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karma fist 04:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. LinuxDude 05:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Karma fist 05:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, just putting Template:Protection on an article doesn't protect it, and it's somewhat deceptive. I've removed the template you put on Caractacus. Only administrators can protect articles from editing. You can request protection for a page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks, FreplySpang (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The same for Claudia Rufina. Also, I've moved the archive you created at Caractacus Archive 1 to the proper location at Talk:Caractacus/Archive 1. Thanks for archiving - if you want to do it again, instructions can be found at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. FreplySpang (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.LinuxDude 05:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Ill check it out. LinuxDude 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I created a new userbox for Western

I thought you might be interested. It's here Template:User UWO Slowmover 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Well done. Looks nice. I'm using it. LinuxDude 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

anti pope

Hi.

You might be aware that there has been some contention around the use of userboxes. There has also been a new speedy deletion criterion added with regard to templates.

A box you are using, Template:User Antipope was recently tagged as such. I've removed the tag, but would ask that you {{subst:}} the template. You may also wish to contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes if you are not already.

brenneman ^{T}^{L} 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, this has resolved itself and I didn't have to do a thing. Guess I can still identify myself as the legitmate successor to St. Peter and not fear reprisal. Isn't Wikipedia great? LinuxDude 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas

Hi Linux

Thanks for adding the "Gnosticism" box into the GoB page. However, I note that you have not yet justified this in the talk page. Do you think this text is Gnostic? It is not usually considered in that category; not the least because "Gnostic Islam" is probably a contradiction in terms. TomHennell 00:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tom,

Many of the non-canonized pseudepigraphical Gospels are considered "Gnostic", though the Gnostic community themselves are having a hard time defining what Gnosticism is exactly, as you can tell from the Gnosticism article. You are right, I probably should justify this in the Gospel of Barnabas talk page, and I will (hopefully without generating too much of a debate). This Gospel in particular, is problematic because its origin is so late, nonetheless, there are some who argue it was based upon earlier text and treat it as 'secrect knowledge' though I personally accept its origin as having been inspired by Islam. I guess we'll have to see what others say about it.

LinuxDude 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My worry is that Christian controversialists routinely seek to rubbish the Qur'an on the basis that its treatment of Jesus is asserted as deriving from "Gnostic" gospel materials (e.g. on the infancy miracles). Hence, if you were to stick a "Gnostic" box on the Qur'an page, Muslims would quite rightly object, as it is a loaded term in this discouse. Just because a text is asserted as incorporating textual elements from Gnostic sources, does not make it a Gnostic work. Now if you were to stick the box on the Scientology or Mormanism pages (late though those religions traditions are) I personally would not demur. TomHennell 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnosticism

Thanks for your kind words about my edits to the Gnosticism template. Rillian 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Baronius with hand.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Baronius with hand.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stan 04:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The pictures were taken by me. I've added a PD-link license to them. Hopefully that should suffice.

LinuxDude 16:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you did the right thing, thanks! (You checked on all your other uploads too?) FYI, {{PD-link}} doesn't take any arguments, so not much reason to have the date args - anybody interested in date of addition would look at page history. Stan 17:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:15-01-06_2058.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:15-01-06_2058.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The pictures were taken by me. I've added a PD-link license to them. Hopefully that should suffice.

LinuxDude 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello sir

Hello fellow Westerner (Westernite?). Read your bio, thought you might appeciate one of my bookmarks: [1] Lucidish 01:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Caratacus

In Talk:Caratacus you rightfully noted that User:Nicknack009,User:Panairjdde and other were using ad hominem attacks against my contributions, by portraying George Jowett as the originator of this identification. It seems that this is subtly happening again. I did some grad work to trace early Celts in Rome, which is how I came across the idea. Would you take a look at it please?

BTW I was WikiRat, but forgot my password, so have been using WikiRat1 instead. WikiRat1 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard from you regarding my request above, but my disagreement with User:Nicknack009 has gone to abitration, and Third Option. If you do decided to make comments, please make them there? WikiRat1 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a lot of incentive for me to get involved. The only reason I came to your defense previously was because I am familiar with Baronius, who is the source of many of your arguments, and my local library had Jowett's book so I could check his references. I likely wouldn't have weighed in before, if this hadn't been true.

Having said that, I will look at your request, and possibly make a comment in the upcoming week. Don't expect my support necessarily.

Superficially I have to add:

Nicknack009 is a well respected contributor to Wikipedia (and appears to have contributed much more than you have), not that this will sway my views.

Going to mediation over something as petty as a word strikes me as rather silly since it is clear Nicknack009 is far from being a troll, and you don't have to worry about Panairjdde for he was a sockpuppet. It seems to me that this whole business does Wikipedia more damage than good, and it is arguable if resolving this issue actually improves the quality of the article in question. I think you are both being dogmatic.

Secondly, I happen to agree with Nicknack009 that it doesn't help that many British Israelites cite the same references you do. Nonetheless I do recognize that so far you have been careful not to associate yourself with them, and that most of your arguments don't originate with them. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not.

However, I also agree with your assertion he is likely using the British Israel connection to discredit your contributions, and I do have an interest in countering system bias. I cannot speak directly to the translation of Chieftain or Christian because my Latin is better than my Greek but I will review it for bias.

-- LinuxDude 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that if this argument were about a single word it would be doing more harm than good, but its not. Fundamentally, I believe we disagree upon the implications. I believe that Christianity came to Britain early and he doesn't. Also, he isn't making any effort to be objective with my edits, and he engages in ad-hominem attacks. I do appreciate you reviewing this. WikiRat1 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If thats true, create an article called "Christianity in the British isles before 410" citing references of course, and let it stand on its own, rather than going to mediation over a single word. The Caratacus article currently, seems NPOV, and well written.

-- LinuxDude 13:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Split personality

WikiRat1 and LinuxDude appear to be the same individual.

I welcome your point of view, your evidence and your criticism. I do ask, however, that you sign your name properly rather than anonymously: Report and Report2. LinuxDude 17:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)