User talk:Lyricmac/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit to Javier Solís

Hola Lyrimac! Hablas muy bien español. But I will write this in English for everybody to understand. The music links I simply copied from the Spanish version in wikipedia. Thank you for encouraging me to write more about him. I will try to find some time and translate it from the Spanish site, maybe also into German. It is too bad that one cannot copy the picture from the English site to the others as it is not in the coomons. Hermann Luyken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermann Luyken (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Javier solis

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Lyricmac! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 09:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Javier Solís

First names are almost never used in an encyclopedia article unless the person goes exclusively by that name. Please see Bob Hope as an example. Please revert. Ronbo76 06:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily-have seen it done even in one so sacrosanct as Britannica where one is referring to a minor, which Siria was basically until his breakthrough. However, the Siria surname will also serve until introduction of Solís in third PP.

License tagging for Image:Javier2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Javier2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagen Santa Ana de Chinarras

Hola Lyricmac, me permiti subir la imagen de la que eres autor de la imagen de Santa Ana de Chinarras a Commons para poder utilizarla en la Wikipedia en español, por supuesto respetanto tu autoría y licencia, espero no hay problema con ello, saludos! --Battroid 02:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutamente no tengo ningun problema, como necesitas. Saludos.

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Lyricmac/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! --Thw1309 07:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cathedral of Chihuahua

You added the project catholicism template to the article. I want to thank you for doing so, but I have to inform you, that this was the wrong place. The template is to be added on top of tht talk page (discussion) because the rating of our project is not part of the enceclopedic information. Happy editing. --Thw1309 07:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, feel free to ask whatever you want. There are certain rules at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment but there still is an element of luck. If you rate 20 articles, the first 19 are B class and the last one is a border case between stub and start, then this article will be rated stub, if the first 19 have been stubs of the lowest kind, it will be rated start. If you do not like the rating, ask the guy, who made it.--Thw1309 09:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My system works that way:
St. Peter's Basilica is known by almost everyone worldwide and the most important church of catholicism - top (although someone else rated it high)
Basilica of St. John Lateran many people around the world know it and as the church of the bishop of Rome it is important - high
The Chapel of the Miraculous Image Altötting The place of pilgrimage in Germany. Not like Lourdes but not much less. In Germany alsmost everyone knows about Altötting, even people, who are not religious or catholic. Outside of Germany, nobody knows- mid
The dome of Trier (see:Seamless robe of Jesus) Naturally every catholic knows, the diocese of Trier has to have a dome, but there is only local knowledge about this church, which is a cathedreal as there are hundreds around the world (ok, perhaps a bit uglier). - low If I´m not sure, I leave it for someone else.

There are small differences but the systems of the others seem to work quite the same way.--Thw1309 10:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

dome of Trier

The dome of Trier has one problem. Every style from romanesque to absolute modern is represented. While the parts themselves are well done, they do not not to jell as a group. These old catholic churches are not simply decoration. Every part has it´s correct place to form a whole. The solid horizontal structure of a romanesque church symbolizes the castle of god. There you can not add a whole part in it´s light vertical style, which represents the greatness of heaven, or baroque, the style of counter-reformation with it´s meshing parts, which represent the union of the church, because each of these styles has a philosophy of it´s own. Your only have to look for excample at the baroque part of the dome with it´s stucco work at the entrance, which looks, like it does not have anything to do with the main part of the dome. For the seven towers of Limburg: how can the castle of god, the highest of all liege lord have less towers than those of a prince, but you are right, you will not find a romanesque dome in the original historical state. There are three types. Totally changed to another style like Worms, which is totally decorated in baroque style, almost empty, because the later decortations were removed like at Speyer or Trier, which shows something of every style. It´s a matter of taste, which you prefer. --Thw1309 07:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the beauty of those churches only shall help us to reach god by showing us not simple decoration but a theological idea, but I have to confess, that I have a problem with these "big" churches. It is easier for me to talk to god in a small church or chappel. No place brought me closer to god than the simple grotto of Lourdes at midnight, when the turmoil was over for some time. My favorite church is the Sainte-ChapelleFor me that´s belief transformed to stone. The whole church is a prayer of the glory of god. --Thw1309 21:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cathedral Church of Saint Patrick in El Paso

I think it´s the beginning of a good artikle, which makes me want to know more. You should only avoild to use words as fine or excellent, because these are no description but valuations. Instead, you could discribe the windows to show their beauty.--Thw1309 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better. I think this box is nonsense. A cathedral is notable. Generally you decide. You can remove this box, but as the polite editor, you are, and to prevent an edit war, you should inform the editor, that you expanded the article and because the box is unreasonable now, you will remove it, if he does not complain. --Thw1309 06:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could discuss about one or two of the pictures but I like them. Good work. I would use all of them. Perhaps you could give a more detailed description of the architecture of the church. Then I would include pictures in the context of this text. Happy editing. --Thw1309 05:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

By the wy, I have added an infobox. If you do not like it, just remove or change it. --Thw1309 06:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:208.108.223.182

I wasn't online when you notified me of the vandalism; you would have gotten a swifter response had you reported the user at admins' board instead. Anyway, I have now blocked the address. - Mike Rosoft 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your pictures

Please could you upload your photos at Commons instead of wikipedia. This is the central Wikipedia project for pictures and photos. They can be uses in English Wikipedia the same way as photos, which are uploaded there, but Commons has the advantage, that the pictures can be used in the other Wikipedia projects too. --Thw1309 06:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Palacio de Gobierno

Gracias por los comentarios, ahora subí el Palacio Municipal y pienso seguir agregando los principales edificios de la ciudad de Chihuahua, agradezco que me ayudes con el spelling porque no tengo un inglés perfecto, si gustas agregar fotos al nuevo artículo te lo agradecería, por cierto yo estudio en el Tec de Monterrey, también tengo pensado subir un artículo sobre el Campus Chihuahua, saludos Lefairh 15:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye

And I will give you that one good sir. But why do you want it to have a dashed border? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 22:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, one some operating systems, your header is surrounded by a dashed border, which is why I put the semi-colons in place. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sello Mexicano de Lola la Grande.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sello Mexicano de Lola la Grande.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Lyricmac. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. β^_command 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Vicente_Fernandez_11JMAB.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vicente_Fernandez_11JMAB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the discussion page.--Lyricmac 17:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration

This is a reminder to go vote for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration. Current nominations:

3AD

Lyric: "Matthewdkaufman" here. Can't find your "talk" page - please cut/paste this wherever it should go: In reference to the 3rd AD page, I was in the 2/3FA, 1st BDE 3AD from 85-88 and never heard the unofficial motto, nor really ever heard "3rd Herd" used much (I can count on one hand the # of times I recall hearing it. This might be because up at the Rock we didn't see much of the rest of the Division. We called the Division "3rd AD" , if we every referred to it, or more likely as, "The F***ing 3rd AD". Referring to the Division as "Third Herd" almost every singly time in the Gulf War section doesn't make much sense to me, given that its NOT referred to in that way anywhere else. "Third Herd" used a couple of times is fine, but over and over? I'll bet you that the 3rd ID has the same internal nickname. No need to use it in the article as synonym for the Division, I think. --199.68.81.105 (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets take a look at the article. I'll write you on your talk page.--Lyricmac (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lyric: Replying to your message on my talk page - Why two accounts? The IP address is simply the IP addressed I used when I visited the site and I was too lazy to log in (and maybe lose the page). Since you replied on my Talk page, I'll reply back to you there - thanks, please take a look.--Matthewdkaufman (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Leading and trailing wheels

Trailing truck seems to be relatively common nomenclature. I've never heard the term "engine truck" before. That's not to say that it wasn't a widely used term; I simply haven't encountered it before. Hellbus (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Lyricmac! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Newport News

Thanks for the contributions to NN articles. Please consider joining us in WikiProject Virginia. And if you want a "talk box" for your talk page (free) check out mine at my talk page, and let me know and I'll install one for you. (It helps with clutter) . Yours, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chihuahua

The diocese stuff has been moved to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chihuahua. I appreciate what you were trying to do, the trouble is that the disparity should serve as a drive to expand the Archdiocese article. I thought I had linked the two to each other, I know I did in the Archdiocese of Chihuahua article. Apologies. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Church articles

The reason for tagging the various articles about churches which have "changed hands" are as follows. Whether they're good reasons isn't up to me to decide.

• (1) Part of the purpose of tagging, as I see it, is to ensure that, if anyone does have a question regarding the article, they can know which relevant group or groups to contact. This could be for either inclusion on a list, questions about whether someone ever worked there, an event there, or whatever. Certainly, there could be a list of churches taken over by the Anglicans from the Catholics, and this one might qualify for inclusion on that basis. Also, at some point, someone might have a question about the church relating to something which might have happened before the English Reformation, which the Catholicism project would probably be both more capable and more interested in dealing with. This is not to say that the project as a project will necessarily be placing any of these articles on a high priority to the project, but just, as it were, announcing that it's avaiable for help. The same holds for a few Anglican churches which currently allow Eastern Orthodox to hold services there. The EO project would be better able to supply information about significant EO priests or significant events working there for that church than the Anglicanism project would, if they were interested enough in doing so. I may well, much to my own personal distate, wind up tagging saints recognized by the Catholics, EO, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans for those projects as well.
• (2) Some of these articles about churches which were taken over may well have been important enough in their own right before they changed hands to merit attention from the Catholicism project, although it's hard to tell on a case by case basis.
• (3) Also, honestly, the more articles of GA status or better any project has, the better its chances of getting its portal up to Featured Portal status. Granted, I can't imagine that the Catholicism project has any shortage of such articles, but it's also impossible to know in advance which ones might get to that level in the future and which won't, so there's no real need to exclude them.
• Also, such tagging of all relevant articles seems to be the norm for some of the most successful projects, like WP:MILHIST, possibly because it draws more editors who write such articles into working with the project. The only clear costs to tagging are having the assessment bot run a second or two longer per article per update, which isn't that much of a factor. If the articles are clearly revelant to the project, and churches that were Catholic are, then there's no real reason not to tag them, if for no other reason than to possibly draw in editors interested in working on the article to the project and to provide some assistance on an as-needed basis.

Regarding adding it to the todo list. I'm basically placing all the articles with existing content tags on the todo lists of all the projects which have their banners on the articles. Not all of them will necessarily be particularly important to any particular project, but it could well be that one project acts faster than another. There are probably going to be several others added later. I'm going to try to address at least some myself, but, in general, the more articles that get cleaned up one way or the other, the better for everybody. John Carter (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Diocese of

Um, I think I may have phrased things poorly up front. I personally agree with the idea of including the "RC" in the diocese names, as some churches, like the American Orthodox Catholic Church - Western Rite Mission, Diocese of New York, Old Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Chicago, and others use the word "Diocese" or "Archdiocese" as well, beyond the usage of the Anglicans and others. If we have to use the "RC" in any of them, it would make most sense to include it in all of them, so that people aren't confused by the variant namings. As a RC myself, I wish we didn't have to use the additional words, but it seems to me the easiest way to ensure that no one gets confused. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking through our articles, the Chaldean Catholic Church uses Eparchy and Archdiocese, although the latter seemingly only as part of "Metropolitan Archdiocese", the Syro-Malabar Church uses diocese and archdiocese, although those articles consistenly use the title "Syro-Malabar Catholic Diocese of (X)", the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and Byzantine Catholics use "Eparchy", the Maronites use diocese, but we've only got one article on a diocese, the Maronite Diocese of St. Maroun, and the Melkites seem to use Eparchy as well. So the only real problems would be with the Old Catholics, Anglicans, and maybe a few other Protestants. Some of them do overlap with other RC diocese though, so for the sake of uniformity it would probably be best to consistently use RC Diocese of (X) as the titles. John Carter (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1