User talk:Christopherparham~enwiki/Archive01

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form. New additions to this page are unlikely to be seen; please direct all comments to my latest talk page at User_talk:Christopherparham. Thanks!

Welcome to my talk page. I will respond to comments made here on your talk page, so no need to watch.

Welcome message[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Christopherparham~enwiki/Archive01, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 05:27, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar FAC[edit]

Thanks for your comment regarding objections without reasoning. I'd also encourage you to have a vote on this FAC if you have an opinion. Thanks. Harro5 23:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I've responded to your comments on the FAC. Please have another look at the article and reassess your vote. Thanks. Harro5 00:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Currier House[edit]

Sorry — I compared the current version with the one that had been deleted as a copyvio, and they were substantially the same, so I deleted the new version. I've recreated the non-copyvio version that you created.

One thing that I've encountered in a number of articles: the term "upperclass man" or "upperclassman". I think that I know roughly what it means, but most non-Americans will either have no idea or will read it as having to do with social class. I've added a link, but there's no article. Any chance of wriitng one? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 2 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

Wheel of Time[edit]

Thank you so much for expanding The Great Hunt! It's really nice to see someone else working on expanding these Wheel of Time book articles who writes using good English and wikisyntax. —Lowellian (talk) 05:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Would you be interested in joining in a WikiProject_WheelOfTime if such a beast were to arise? You can answer here or on my talk page... nae'blis _(talk) 18:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'm mulling this over (more for organizational issues than actual need-for-articles) and will keep you in mind if I attempt something like this, possibly over the winter. nae'blis _(talk) 18:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note; if such a project were to start after I get over my current Star wars obsession, I would be interested in joining. --Maru (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket on VfD[edit]

Hiya. You previously voted 'keep' on the VfD for Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005 and other subarticles of 2005 English cricket season. I just wanted to let you know that these pages have promptly been put back up for deletion, this time at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005. Those of us who have worked on these articles would value your continued support. Thanks and best wishes. --Ngb 19:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bible verses[edit]

I added another section for "verse-by-verse Biblical analysis should be transwikied to a WikiBible instead of left on Wikipedia with the possible exception of "notable" verses" as something that could take votes *in addition* to votes for other section, so if you support that idea go check it out. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Underground[edit]

Thanks for pitching in at the Democratic Underground article. This anon shows up from time to time, incessantly reverting to try insert his/her POV into the article; after being met with uniform resistance, s/he goes away for a while. "Given enough eyeballs, all thugs are callow." I think the article is generally balanced, but it tends to attract more editors who agree with DU's politics. If you, as a conservative, see a bias, please call us on it. JamesMLane 03:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal[edit]

Excellent work on Blaise Pascal. He's one of my favorite historical figures. David Bergan 05:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added some suggestions on the Pascal talk page. Certainly this is on its way to "feature" status. Want to tag-team some other articles? David Bergan 18:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I saw Blaise on the main page today! David Bergan 14:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

consensus[edit]

The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were

Delete - 21 (58%)
Keep - 11 (31%)
Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to add a vote there?

You voted to merge at the original VFD, but the article has already been merged, and merge does not appear to be a result which would anyway obtain consensus. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for and against drug prohibition[edit]

Hi! I noticed your edits on the Arguments for and against drug prohibition page. Please visit that page's discussion page and comment on it. I believe that the original page is a lost cause and we should be discussing alternatives. You're the first person who's shown any interest in a while. Any input you have would be appreciated! Ravenswood 07:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam War[edit]

What to do about this article? If today is any indication of his behavior it is not at likely that this is the last we shall hear from him. He has a strong POV and is more than determined to see fit that it is inserted. I briefly attempted to salvage the differences but it was impossible; the very structure of the introduction he made, beyond being redundant beside material in the body, is set up specifically to lodge the "colonialist" view. You seem to have past experience on the article and talk, though, perhaps you have ideas. --TJive 03:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I knew your name sounded familiar. How's Harvard (or am I mistaken/a bit late)? --TJive 03:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I sent you an email (through whatever address given here, of course). --TJive 03:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Missing signature[edit]

Hi Christopher— just wanted to drop you a line that your signature got cut off for your vote on Duveneck School. [1] —RaD Man (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moving crap around[edit]

It's confusing. I'll go comment. Tomer ^TALK 04:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I know. :-) If you'd dug through the history before it was moved back, you'd have seen what happened. I moved it to the /Archive_1 because the discussion is moribund, the voting a shambles, and the whole thing an utter mess. Nobody's doing anything because nobody really knows what's going on there anymore. So, I'd come up with a different approach, which I put in the article space instead of the redirect which had been there. Bcat pointed out that technically I should have at least waited until the voting term was ended, August 22. I agreed, so I reverted it to the redirect. I couldn't move the project article back to its original name, tho, since I'm not an admin, and the contents of the redirect page had been altered. all I could do was leave the redirect there until an admin could roll back my move. If you're interested in seeing what was there before the rollback, before I reverted to the redirect, bleh--whatever, I've preserved it at User:TShilo12/Bible verses. Depending on what happens at Wikipedia:Bible verses in the next two weeks, don't be surprised to see it there again. :-) Tomer ^TALK 04:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if you're interested in helping me formulate this new go at it, feel free to chime in. :-) Tomer ^TALK 04:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait a couple days, and probably contact SimonP at the very least before doing so. I acted kind of hastily last time, and don't want to do so again if I can avoid it. I think it's an issue that still needs resolving, and think that if it takes a year of work with a thousand editors hashing it out, it will be time well-spent. The Bible is, without question, the most pivotally influential book in the history of the Western world, and arguably, the entire world, even to those who have never read a word of it, nor care to. I just hope that my efforts to encourage dialogue, rather than yet another round of pointless voting, will produce more fruit than the recriminations and animosity the previous "attempts" to resolve the issue have. All the best, and look for it to show up, in some form, in the next couple days... I'll let you know once I've posted it. Tomer ^TALK 04:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wario[edit]

It's been improved since you objected. Could you consider adjusting your vote, even to Weak Oppose? I'd like to know what still can be fixed. -- A Link to the Past 19:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

There WERE references, but I spread them out and put the link after the statements. -- A Link to the Past 20:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Section readded. -- A Link to the Past 20:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Jacoplane, problem solved. -- A Link to the Past 21:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Federalist No. 10[edit]

Hi. I just wanted to compliment you on your fantastic work in creating the Federalist No. 10 article. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 15:52, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I was looking at those redlinks and thinking I might pop out a few articles there. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the Vietnam War page[edit]

Thank you for informing me of the article's existence. I'll get around to adding a link to the it soon.--HistoricalPisces 17:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scimitar's RfA[edit]

Hey, thanks for the support on my adminship request. I admit I was a little surprised to see it, given that we've had diverging opinions at VfD a couple of times, but please just let me know if you have any issues with any actions I take, as an editor, or as an admin if it goes through. Thanks again.--Scimitar ^parley 14:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratship[edit]

Hi, Christopherparham. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I appreciate your feedback and I will try my best to keep your criticisms and suggestions in mind in the future. Andre (talk) 05:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Rl 12:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most cited Federalist Papers[edit]

Thought you might be interested to know:

Ira C. Lupu, "The Most-Cited Federalist Papers." 15 Constitutional Commentary 403-410 (1998)

A survey measuring frequency of US Supreme Court citations of the Federalist Papers in judicial opinions lists five most cited as follows:

No. 42 (Madison, range of fed. powers)
No. 78 (Hamilton, judicial review)
No. 81 (Hamilton, power of fed. judiciary)
No. 51 (Madison, checks and balances)
No. 32 (Hamilton, state taxation)

Source: Ira C. Lupu, "The Most-Cited Federalist Papers." 15 Constitutional Commentary 403-410 (1998)

Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 04:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CP, I've been thinking, we should put down cookie-cutter stubs for all the Federalist Papers - a basic format with the number, title, date, author (and his image), stub tag, and a Wikisource link. That way, if people come along and decide to create the as-yet uncreated ones, they won't start out with a completely different look and feel. What say you, sir? -- BD2412 ^talk 03:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's quite a run you made! -- BD2412 ^talk 15:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've finished them up - now they just need to be filled out! Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 16:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bmicomp's RfA[edit]

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of VfU[edit]

Considering the Harry Potter trolling VfU discussion and several recent ones, it's time we revived the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU and dealt with the question directly. Whilst you weren't involved in the original discussion, your remarks on this VfU suggested you might nevertheless want to chip in, so I thought I'd let you know. -Splash 21:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARedwolf24&diff=23172558&oldid=23167116 for harry potter trolling. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks awfully[edit]

Ta for supporting my RfA, much appreciated. I'll endeavour to contribute more to those necessary tasks and hope to bring the benefit of years of experience of tactfully sorting out recalcitrant contractors to bear in the gentler arena of wikipedia....dave souza 18:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka's RfA[edit]

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Nandesuka 00:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote.[edit]

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to expectations. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An odd joke[edit]

Hey Christopher, do you like it when in the French War Books the horse goes "NEIIGHH" after a cannon is shot at it?

Thanks![edit]

Hello, just wanted to say thanks for catching that Ashida Kim vandalism on my User Page- I assume he spammed everyone who voted to keep the article? Feel free to drop me a line, Sean 22:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up the Ashida Kim vandalism on my page. FYI, this was the first I heard of him, so I guess he's just going after admins randomly now (just my bad luck to pick a username near the beginning of the alphabet...) --Arcadian 23:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caning[edit]

I've re-removed a link from this page that you'd added back, so I thought I'd drop a courtesy note here, in case you weren't watching the page.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged "nonsense" in Wee Willy Rivers Pitt article[edit]

Okay, it's up to you to prove that it is nonsense.

1) I can provide links that prove that Pitt has posted while high on drugs. I can provide links to prove Pitt is, in fact, "a whacked out, drugged up, Leftist sissy boy". I can provide links that prove Pitt traced "the beginning of the Third American Empire" back to the 1980 Olympic games. Heck, I can even provide links that prove Pitt is a lying oppurtunist. If these weren't true, you'd have a case for NPOV or something like that. The fact is that article does nothing but gush over this loser as it is.

2) For someone with a "right wing" point of view, you sure have something invested in Pitt, moving in for a revert in less than a minute.

Yeah, right, "encyclopaedic language"? What's unencyclopaedic about calling a spade a spade?

Me RfA[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I'm glad you feel I deserve to be an admin, and now that I am one I hope I continue to deserve it your trust. -R. fiend 17:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thanks for the Vandal Revert on my homepage, that guy is such a jerk. Karmafist 21:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

format fixup[edit]

Thanks for your fixup on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in governance; In hindsight, those votes weren't exactly clear after my changes. --fvw * 05:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage vandal[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my user page. — Phil Welch 19:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with the vandal[edit]

I've listed 207.166.19.36 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) on WP:AIV...hopefully he'll be blocked soon. Kurt Weber 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up.--Doc (?) 18:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

I added the category "Wikipedians in Pennsylvania" to your user page; I did not mean it to be vandalism and hope you aren't offended...just trying to help. KHM03 20:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist's RFA[edit]

I want to thank you very much for your vote on my RFA. Greatly apperciated, I owe you one!

PS: Ive changed my sig. Is it any better :)? Journalist | huh? 24 April 2024

Revert of my userpage[edit]

Thank you for reverting my user page. I hardly involve myself in AFD matters, so I'm a bit confused why the vandal picked my page. --AllyUnion (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spam Court[edit]

I didn't feel i was making a point. Anyway, it *really* bugs me when people can't say any more then "del nn". That's biting the newcomers (most deletables are from newcomers!), who are very unlilkely to have any idea what "del nn" means. Also, I see it's been renominated, and with a reason now. That's a good thing. --Phroziac^(talk) 13:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thank you[edit]

Thanks for the revert of the vandalism on my user page. I personally appreciate it, and I'm sure the community appreciates your vigilance in protecting the community. - Scooter 21:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxl's RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting me on my RfA! Rob e rt 15:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rogerd RfA[edit]

I wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. Unfortunately, it did not reach the required level of support and failed. Apparently, some didn't feel that I had participated enough outside the article namespace. I may try again in a few months. Thanks again. --Rogerd 21:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Your vote helped my RfA succeed. Thank you. --Maru (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:RfA[edit]

Sorry, but the new policy explicitly states that new nominations without the acceptance or the questions answers will be removed. The intent of the policy is for the candidate to note his/her acceptance on the RfA subpage and then answer the questions, before any votes can be cast. If a nomination is missing either an acceptance on the subpage or the answers to the questions, it may be removed. If you want to look at the discussion about the policy, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review[edit]

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics of Deletion Review[edit]

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. -Splash^talk 02:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrofrog RfA[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for your vote of support in my request for adminship! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfA[edit]

There was a consensus on the talk page to change the policy, and I did so. I've done some minor rewording to make the policy more clear and added some comments on the RfA page that should help clear some of the confusion. Right now, since not all people may be aware of the policy, I'll notify the candidate whenever his/her RfA is removed from the page. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support[edit]

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 15:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA. Your trust in me is well appreciated. Owen× ☎ 21:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Dear Christopher: Thank you so much for your support on my RfA. I am most honoured by the trust that has been placed in me by yourself and other members of the Wikipedia community. I promise to only use my administrative privileges to assist the community in doing good work, and also to be calm, considerate and careful in working to make Wikipedia a better place. I have been especially privileged to have been admitted to adminship outside of the usual criteria, and it has been an exceptionally pleasant surprise to find the body of support for my candidacy as I have received. I look forward to working with you in the future here on the Wiki! Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 02:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Federated Department Stores[edit]

The information I removed was either duplicated somewhere else in the article, or was all about the May Department Stores company. This article is meant to be about Federated, not the companies that they have acquired or merged with in the past. I'm actually making an effort to cleanup the article to a desirable state, quite the opposite of what it is now. What I'm going to do is place that information into a new article about May Department Stores, instead of May Department stores simply being a redirect to the Federated article. — Wackymacs 22:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For Your Support On My RfA![edit]

Thanks For The Support!

If I abuse my admin powers, please feel free to throw that little flower at me :-) Karmafist 21:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer about CFD[edit]

You were right - I need to make some change there to make the stupid template work :) Thanks so much for your answers, at least somebody cares and I don't have to set my computer on fire :D Renata3 16:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American[edit]

Hi: we just agreed at [[2]] and i was . . . . . . . . . .. ..... to discover that you admit to being right wing. I am NOT, so it is good that we agrre. Don't you agree?? Carptrash 06:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix and Cleopatra edit[edit]

hi,

I saw that you moved to the previous version of the Asterix and Cleopatra synopsis saying that it has a greater encyclopaedic feel. That might be true for some parts of it. But on the whole it is riddled with punctuation errors and weak sentence formation. I changed that to get the plot summary from the back of the book, which I think is funnier and leaves out some of the details that the current version unnecessarily delves into. If you are unwilling to revert to what I put in, could you at least correct the sentence formation in this particular synopsis?

Thanks Gnikhil

Re: Asterix and Cleopatra[edit]

I guess I should read the copyright guidelines. But how is a synopsis from the back of the book a copyright violation, when that is the stuff they put on the back of the book to entice you to buy it and read? What if you were to explicitly state - Plot Summary (from the back-page of the book) or something like that?

Nikhil

Yikes![edit]

I had no idea that you had to resubmit entries to peer review. Well I'm certainly sorry and I will check the guidelines next time. Thanks for the two cents! --Winnermario 01:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Thanks for the support. :) freestylefrappe 02:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarian_dictators[edit]

Hi. Just curious why you chose to create this as a redirect. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. That makes sense, sorry that I hadn't looked on the talk page. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]