User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 3

• 1
• 2
• Archive 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 10
• 20
• 30

Wriothesley

I agree I should have provided a link to International Phonetic Alphabet, International Phonetic Alphabet for English, or IPA chart for English. I'm not sure if you feel the newbie I bit was the one who asked the question, or you yourself. I don't think I bit the newbie who asked the question at all. If you feel I bit you, I apologize, but I'm tired of seeing the complaint over and over again that IPA is somehow difficult to learn, and especially I'm tired of seeing the argument that because IPA is somehow difficult to learn it should be avoided on Wikipedia. (I know you didn't make that argument, but other people have, many times.) I consider that to be pure anti-intellectualism at its worst. There's nothing elitist about using the IPA, and you don't have to be a "wicked clever linguist" to understand it. A person of average intelligence can learn to recognize IPA symbols in half an hour to an hour, that's really all it takes. (Learning to use them oneself and to make phonetic transcriptions of English admittedly takes longer.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you're not serious about eliminating all instances of "had had" from Wikipedia. The pluperfect is extremely useful when used correctly. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote that I was afraid you were just replacing all instances of "had had" with "had". Now I know you're actually recasting the sentences or finding other verbs to put in the pluperfect. Still it's amazing to me that it bothers you so much you actually spend your time doing it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Photos

Truth is I haven't gone out to a station recently. Since I made that promise, I went out only on 17 Sep to click some photos of Ganpanti celebrations. Those photos are umm... still in my camera. In between I pushed Bhutan to FA, Nepal is on FAC and wrote stubs for articles I've been longing to do since Feb. We've also had a lot of rain this year and I particularly don't like getting wet, last Sunday was out first sunny day in over a month. Ok enough of excuses, I'll try and locate those boys. Anything else? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope, all it needed was a redirect. Thanks for asking anyways. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Proto, What else can be done? [1] [2] Now he's attacking a good educated editor I met [3] Scott 23:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Image

Well, I did go out today. I found one at Churchgate station, but there was a posse of policemen nearby, and I didn't feel confident of "shooting" him. So I went outside and there was another person. Unfortunately he wasn't a "boy", rather around 40+ yrs. Since he was sitting idle, I moved on. I did manage to take out of another person, but the shot is slightly blurry and is of a man again. Bad luck, I'll have to go to another station on another day. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sts students home.jpg

Please note that this image cannot be tagged {{promophoto}}. In this case, User:Pigsonthewing seems to be right: the image has been ripped off the school web site, and it is not a promotional image designed to promote the persons in question. A publicity shot of an actor might be a {{promophoto}}, but not this generic image of some students. Lupo 11:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

doctors handwriting

Residents (or whatever the english equivalent is) are generally pretty non-elite folks. In the US, we sometimes have to remind them to sign their notes with their MD so we can prove a doctor provided the service. You are the right age: go join a group and tell them I told you to settle an argument about how cliquish they are. The solidarity and appearance comes from the fact that (at least here) they are in the middle of a pretty stressful transition from student to professional, and are working harder hours in more stressful conditions for lower pay than most people not in a third world country ever will; that tends to forge a group mentality and lots of jargon. So don't let the stethoscopes put you off-- their handwriting is neater than it ever will be again. Finally, I assure you that bad handwriting is not to "conceal" anything. Go talk to them; they will respect your expertise and you will probably hit it off and not feel so put off by their appearance. Best wishes. alteripse 00:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC) PS, what does the music from Reservoir Dogs sound like?

Image:Chippanfire.jpg

You state "UK government images are free to use for non-profit educational purposes" yet you've marked the image as public domain. Please can you provide more details about the source of the image and pick a copyright tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Edward 21:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner

-- Mamawrites 00:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA Freestylefrappe

Your vote is welcome, either way of course. I have tried, as has Freestylefrappe, to explain that his first admin attempt failed due to low edits. He was only trying to show that there shouldn't be a double standard by notifing voters of another candidates low edit counts. I for one, have a level of time in, and minimal edits level that has to be attained before I vote yea, (not to mention my more important qualifications as far as editing quality) and also pointed out that, according to the vote I showed that you had made on another admin nomination, that you do too. Regardless, the nomination appears to be one that will end up failing and I think for a lot of petty argument over Freestylefrappe's editcountis, which is understandable in light of his first nomination failing for the opposite reason.--MONGO 14:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is well understood and is a fair one. I have to agree that solicitation of votes for or against anyone based on any criteria is not the best thing to do, but it happens more often than not. Anyway, happy editing!--MONGO 14:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for clarification, could you link me to the insult or is obvious on his userpage, because I didn't see it. I asked him about another issue I saw and he said is was about an article he wrote that got deleted and then was rewritten later on, but I didn't see it actually insult anyone.--MONGO 14:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...I myself asked him about that before I nominated himhere and he responded on my talk page]...it is a tongue in cheek joke and that is all.--MONGO 14:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

a heads-up on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Greetings,

Since you voted to keep the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees I thought I would give you a "heads-up". A copyright violation was filed against the article, on October 11th. It was filed by someone who had voted to delete the article on October 5th.

I believe that the copyright violation is entirely bogus. I believe it is bogus because, as explained in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, lists of facts, like lists of names, cannot be copyright. This Feist v. Rural case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which made the possibly counter-intuitive ruling that the amount of effort someone put in to compiling a list plays no role in determining whether that list is eligible for copyright protection.

Even if alphabetic lists of names could be copyright, I believe the wikipedia list would not be violating copyright since the list was compiled from various sources.

Yes, I have considered that this user invoked a bogus copyright violation to achieve a result that failed in the {AfD}. Yes, I asked them to terminate the copyright violation process, in light of Feist v Rural. They declined. The backlog in the administrators dealing with copyright violations seems to be on the order of a month long.

Anyhow, I wanted the people who had shown interest in the article to not freak out, or feel betrayed, by seeing the copyright violation tag. -- Geo Swan 11:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) -- Geo Swan 15:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your responses to GeoSwan's Request

I made the copy tag in good faith. Please see my comments on the copy vio vote page.

What Geo swan forgot to tell you was that I have repeatedly suggested that GeoSwan edit his table to avoid the copyvio problems, but he has refused. Yes, he can use the names, but he has lifted the WHOLE TABLE. It would take less time to rewrite it to avoid the copyvio than all this.

By the way, I would like to add that it is not helpful to be continually accused by Geo Swan and his buddies of being a. a Mexican Bandit, b. a right wing Cuban, c. a Troll, d. one who conspires to block information, or e. one who acts in bad faith. Joaquin Murietta 15:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, Joaquin is referring to the copyright violation he placed on List of Guantanamo Bay detainees - a notice that seems kinda misplaced. I mentioned it looked like it may have been in bad faith, and didn't accues him of being either Mexican, a bandit, right wing, a Cuban, a troll, nor one who conspires to block information. Proto t c 15:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The original Paul Celucci article

I respectfully do not agree with your statement on my talk page. The two articles were very different. I nominated the Paul Celucci article because it was POV, and everything of significance about the Ambassador was already covered in the Paul Cellucci article. After I nominated it, User:GeoSwan self-nominated his version for speedy delete. Joaquin Murietta 15:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Gareth Peirce

Compare Geoswan's version to what is emerging and then please give me your informed opnion on whether I am a right-wing Cuban conspirator and whether it is wrong to edit his toss-offs. Gareth deserves to be more than a prop in his Guatnanamo project. Joaquin Murietta 15:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Clive Stafford Smith

Ditto. Take a look at what emerged after I cite checked yet another of Geo Swan's hundreds of articles. What do you think? Joaquin Murietta 15:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Mohammed Hagi Fiz

Geo Swan asked me to hold off changes unless I talked. So I posted on the talk page, and one of Geo Swan's friends, the one who called me a Cuban and a Mexican Bandit, posted this As above, stop asking meaningless questions. Either set out specifically where your concerns are, and engage in meaningful discussion, or edit the article as you see fit. Joaquin Murietta 15:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Other edits

I am happy to discuss all of them with you. Joaquin Murietta 15:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Abderrahman Ahmad

I just edited Abderrahman Ahmad. I added his date of birth. I deleted some irrelevant stuff and some NPOV outdated links. I added some recent news. Please let me know if this appears to be in bad faith or you want to revert it to the Geo Swan version! Joaquin Murietta 18:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they got the joke...

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#TV_Police Some IP actually posted their question to your joke "Pub Quiz" page. I thought it was funny, they apparently thought you were serious. Just thought I'd let you know in case you missed it.  :) Dismas|^(talk) 21:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiGnome

On the Rfa vote proccess, hahaha, nice joke, yeah I did come off as a gnome hater but in truth they serve their purpose too but i was just pleasantly suprised to see a someone who contribute large portions of text to documents want to be an editor, in the future I'll try and not discriminate against gnomes so much becuase wikigremlins and wikitrolls are always much worse. -- Patman2648|talk 19:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

While Talk discussion on Terri Schiavo are indeed unnecessarily long-winded (41 archives, which is a record as near as I can tell) it seems to me needlessly snide to make your first contribution a sarcastic criticism of other people's discussion. Marskell 12:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Response on Marskells page pointing out that 1) it wasn't anywhere near my first contribution and 2) I know all too well how long-winded (and usually unnecessary) discussions are - the post I made was an example of that. Proto t c 12:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

First contribution to the discussion, to be clear. "'Host', as long as it's linked correctly, is fine, and doesn't need explanation"--then that could have been your post (though it's not needed now as it appears to be settled). I'm sorry, it just seemed to be coming out of nowhere with a cynical comment. Another editor removed it, presumably with the same thought in mind. Marskell 12:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thx. Although now it appears we're going to have to debate whether it has the "form" or the "appearance" of bread. Sigh. Marskell 12:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Photos

Hi Proto, I did a lot of searching around but haven't found a pic of shoeshine boys. Will adult shoeshine guys do? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Holy Communion

The Catholic Church teaches that in this sacrament the bread is no longer bread in substance, but retains the appearance of bread. It is not symbolically the Body of Christ, but is in reality the Body of Christ. If you have been led to believe otherwise, I am sorry for that.

My suggested reading for you is The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth by Scott Hahn ISBN 0385496591 patsw 13:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Proto. I'd just like to comment on your recent post to the Terri Schiavo talk page, in which you said that you're a Catholic, and the use of the word "bread" for the consecrated host doesn't bother you, because it is bread. I don't want to argue with you about whether or not it is bread, as that would be an abuse of Wikipedia server space, and as you probably don't want to hear my arguments, anyway. You think it's bread, and I think it's not bread. One of us must be wrong. Fine. Let's respect each other and move on; the Wikipedia talk pages were not intended for religious debates.

I am concerned, however, that your post might lead people to believe that your belief of what the host is might be in any way representative of Catholic teaching. I can't tell you that you're wrong in your belief that it's bread, since transubstantiation is not something that can be empirically proved. However, I must tell you that you are very much mistaken if you think that that the Catholic Church teaches that it's bread symbolizing Christ in some way. Perhaps you had an uninformed or careless catechism teacher. Perhaps even a priest misled you. I have in front of me the Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Catholic Catechism by Father John Hardon, The Church's Confession of Faith by the German Bishops' Conference, which included Cardinal Ratzinger, Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, the two-volume Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, edited by Norman Tanner, and the authorized translation of the Dogmatic Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, and they all present the Eucharist in a very different way from you. I am quoting from the thirteenth session of Council of Trent,

If anyone denieth that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and sustantially, the Body and Blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith the He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema

If anyone saith that, in the sacred and holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood — the species only of the bread and wine remaining — which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

If anyone saith that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external, of latria . . . let him be anathema.

If anyone saith that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

The writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas are also very clear that the Eucharist is not bread and wine symbolizing Christ, or bread and wine existing together with the Body and Blood of Christ. The bread and wine cease to exist at the consecration; they retain merely the appearance (plus taste, shape, smell, etc.) of bread and wine. Relevant writings from the Summa Theologica can be found in the Third Part, Section 75, Section 76, and Section 77

I realize, of course, that you are probably not remotely interested in what the Council of Trent or the Fourth Lateran Council or Pope Paul VI had to say about the Eucharist. I did not post this to you in the belief that you'd read it with eager interest. Nor is it intended as sarcasm. You have, of course, every right to be unoffended by the use of the term "bread", and to believe it is bread. (Whether or not you are correct in your belief is not for debate on Wikipedia.) My worry is that you might give the impression that your belief is in accordance with Catholic teaching. That is definitely not the case. I'd appreciate if you would clarify that on the Terri Schiavo talk page. Thanks. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chairboy

You asked me on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bushytails to "clarify what aspect of the "dildo stuff" is problematic". For the purposes of being civil, I'll pretend you weren't being sarcastic, and answer your questions.

And as the RFA is now closed, I'll reply to you here. There is no aspect of the "dildo stuff" that is problematic. The issue was whether an editor with just 1,400 edits had a suitable level of maturity, level-headedness and experience, and the fuss being created by Bushytail's extreme anti-censorship stand seemed to suggest that this was not the case.

The list of forbidden subjects can be found at WP:NOT. Enjoy. And it is impossible to avoid an inadvertent transgression - this is why such a transgression is referred to as inadvertent. If you were able to avoid them, they would no longer be inadvertent. Regards, Proto t c 14:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Howdy! It is unnecessary to 'pretend' I wasn't being sarcastic, as this is a good faith question. Second, you wrote that your oppose was "per antidildoism". My question was what aspect of that subject was problematic, and you didn't answer, which of course is your discression. I wasn't clear if you were saying that the candidate was not level-headed because he wrote about dildos, or if you were saying that his handling of an issue related to them was immature. If you could clarify that would be great, as I honestly don't follow. Finally, please clarify which item in WP:NOT he violated, as it seems that those who objected to his writing about dildos are unfamliar with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chairboy. I apologise for not assuming your good faith. As to your questions: 1) I opposed as per the people who said that the user's handling of the issue was not mature. I have no problem with the subject (although I do think it should be kept off the main page, purely on a PR level). 2) I said the candidate was not level-headed because his (her?) handling of the issue was not mature. The subject of the issue is irrelevant, for all it mattered it could have been dildoes or bunny rabbits. 3) I don't recall mentioning he violated any item in WP:NOT. I referred to WP:NOT because you asked me to tell you where the list of forbidden subjects was. That list is on WP:NOT (wikipedia not a travel guide, not a memorial, not a crystal ball, etc etc). I hope this clears things up. Thanks, Proto t c 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for your responses, that answers the questions I posed during the RfA. I wasn't trying to rake mud, I just wanted to understand the basis for the vote (per my concern in the talk page for the RfA) and your response reassures me that it was a legit concern and not a veiled reference to censorship. BTW, the 'list of forbidden subjects' request of mine was in response to another Oppose voter who opposed because Bushytails wrote "gross links", which I'm pretty sure is a censorship issue, but that's a discussion for another day. Thanks again! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I was confused as you'd put it on the same line. I'm not a censorship kind of person. My only personal rule would be not putting anything potentially offensive on the main page, but that's to do with avoiding any kind of fuss / panic / commotion / mass hysteria / complaints. One thing I don't like is people deliberately trying to offend the more sensitive users in order to make a point over Wikipedia not being censored for the protection of minors. But let me emphasise I don't think Bushytails was guilty of this at any point. Take it easy. Proto t c 16:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Roger that! Have a good one! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You recent post at Terri Schiavo talk

Hi, Proto. Thanks for your message. I'm glad you didn't find my long message boring. I'm afraid I have another one for you now! The reason I suggested that you might have "had an uninformed or careless catechism teacher" was that you had stated that you were a Catholic and that the host was bread. If you had said, "I've been brought up Catholic. I know that Benedict XVI teaches that the bread turns into the Body of Christ so that there's actually no bread left; but I believe he's wrong", I probably wouldn't have left a message for you at all. I was not trying to tell you that you were wrong in your understanding of the Eucharist, simply that you were wrong if you thought that your belief about the Eucharist matched the teaching of the Church. Let me assure you that there are plenty of examples of qualified religion teachers in Catholic schools teaching their students things that completely contradict the official teaching of the Church. It wouldn't be so bad if they said straight out, "The Popes and Saints and Ecumenical Councils and Fathers of the Church and Doctors of the Church taught that Jesus really and truly rose physically from the dead, but I have a Master's degree in theology, and I'm telling you that they were all wrong – what really happened is that He lived on in the hearts of His believers." If they said that, at least the students would know that what they had been taught was not the teaching of the Church; they would then have the choice of taking the trouble to find out what the Church did teach, and deciding whether they agreed with the teacher or with the Church. This watering down of Church teaching is a very serious problem today, and has been addressed by the Vatican. I don't know whether you thought I was patronizing you – poor Proto wasn't bright enough to realize that his teachers were contradicting Church teaching, but I'm sure he did his best – or your teachers – the poor things, they probably didn't know any better – but it was not my intention to do either.

That you found my suggestion that even a priest might have misled you to be "insulting" is even more strange, in my view. Again, it was not at all my intention, and I would appreciate some feedback as to what exactly was insulting about that. If you mean that there was an implication that you were stupid in being fooled by a dissenting priest, I know dozens of highly intelligent people who have been misled by priests on questions of Church doctrine and discipline. Some people might think it's insulting to suggest that a priest would mislead people. (I know some elderly ladies who can't cope with the idea that Father might be misleading them when he tells them that they're allowed to help distribute Holy Communion at Mass even when there are plenty of priests available. They don't read Vatican documents, and their distress is based on their huge reverence for priests. It's generally kinder to leave such people alone.) Your posts to the Terri Schiavo talk page don't suggest that you have a high opinion of priests. And in recent years, the nine o' clock news has given more than enough information about wrongdoing by priests. So I don't think that can't be why you found it insulting.

If you found it insulting because I was claiming that I was right and you were wrong, please understand that I was making abolutely no claims regarding which of us is correct about whether or not transubstantiation takes place. I was pointing out that your interpretation of the Eucharist was not the official interpretation. I felt that it was important to point it out, because you had made a post on the Terri Schiavo talk page in which you had identified yourself as a Catholic and had proceeded to say that calling the host "bread" didn't bother you and that it IS bread. If you had said, "I was brought up Catholic, but I'm lapsed, and I don't believe in transubstantiation, therefore calling it 'bread' doesn't bother me", there would have been no need to clarify anything. Actually, I never met a lapsed Catholic who did believe in transubstantiation. People who really believe in it aren't satisfied with receiving once a week: they want to receive every day. Anyway, I make no claim that you're wrong in your interpretation of the Eucharist. I do, however, claim that you are mistaken if you believe that this interpretation matches the interpretation of the Catholic Church. I'm sorry if you find that insulting. I cannot think of any better way of saying it. Do you think, having read the quotations from the Council of Trent and St Thomas Aquinas, that there is the slightest possibility that official Church teaching says that it's bread, but that what matters is what the bread symbolizes?

There is a lot of bad feeling on the Terri Schiavo talk page, and as a result, I generally use the "preview" button very carefully either when responding either on that page or on the talk page of someone who has contributed to it. I read my original draft, and then remove things that might help to fuel the flames still more. For that reason, I made no reference to this or this when I posted to you. I'd very much like to know why it was "insulting" to say that even a priest might have misled you.

Finally, you wrote, "Religion is a very thorny subject - I don't think there are any two people in the world with exactly the same beliefs!" Actually, all orthodox Catholics do have exactly the same beliefs about central doctrines, and transubstantiation is a central doctrine. Catholicism is not based on reading the Bible and deciding what it means for you. Dissenting Catholics, of course, do differ; but a dissenting Catholic is like a feminist who's against women voting, or a vegetarian who eats meat. He or she cannot be counted as representing the official teaching. We're permitted to disagree on whether or not the souls in Purgatory can pray for us, whether or not the Limbo of Children exists, whether or not Mary actually died before the Assumption. Those matters have not been defined. The Second Vatican Council said – and I think they were quoting Augustine – In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Thank you for your efforts to support a wording that didn't contradict (or affirm) Catholic teaching. Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I concurr with what Ann said right above. I also want to ask your pardon for deleting your comment. I won't do it again. I was in a bit of a volatile mood and thought you were just poking fun. I agree that this whole discussion is quite superfluous, but FW wills it. Regards, Str1977 12:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Proto pleas

answer pleas

Proto when Was it is saw you at t heea PumpkiN Patch inn ohio

you Said ;on intenets name is PRoto. Am Sorry for English, i am from armenia - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.202 (talk • contribs)

I think it must have been another Proto. I live in Europe so am nowhere near Ohio. Proto t c 09:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour, transubstantiation, had had, and been being

Bonjour, Proto. Oui, ça va très bien, merci. I'll add that the kindest person I ever met is a priest who has very occasionally told me things that don't match the teaching of the Church. It's quite possible that he spends more time praying and helping others than reading Vatican documents, but it still makes me sad, because I feel we should be able to rely on priests to clarify Church teaching about things we don't have time to read up on ourselves. By the way, transubstantiation would belong to "In essentials, unity"; the ability or powerlessness of the souls in Purgatory to intercede for us would belong to "In non-essentials, liberty". Saint Thomas Aquinas thought they couldn't; Saint John Vianney thought they could. The Church is leaving it open, possibly because she doesn't know. Similarly, when Pope Pius XII was defining the dogma of the Assumption in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS,

. . . by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

he deliberately chose wording that left open the question as to whether she was taken up to heaven without dying (an opinion which some people held on account of her sinlessness) or whether she died first (an opinion held by some, as she would conform more to her Son, who was also sinless).

So, if I discover that Str1977 or Patsw thinks that she went to heaven without dying, while I think she did die, I won't think that either of them is going against the Church. But, all those anathema sits in the Council of Trent extracts that I quoted earlier would show that the Real Presence is one of the "essentials" requiring unity.

When Kimberly Hahn – that red link is going to turn blue in the next few days if I have time – was a Presbyterian wondering about Catholicism, she went into a Catholic Church with her husband, and saw people kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament. She thought, if that's really Jesus, then kneeling is the only appropriate response, so is it safe not to kneel? But supposing they're wrong, if that's not Jesus, then what these people are doing is gross idolatory. So is is safe to kneel? (By "safe" she didn't mean that she was thinking she'd be damned if she did the wrong thing, just that since Jesus is worthy of all honour, it would be terrible to deny it to Him, or to give it to a piece of holy bread.) She realized then that "the Catholic Church is not just another denomination – it's either true or diabolical."

Sometimes people think that infallibility means the pope can tell us anything he likes (in doctrine). All it means, really, is that he'll be prevented from teaching officially things that aren't true. He doesn't automatically know what's true. (In fact, it's theoretically possible that a pope could believe something heretical, and intend to define it ex cathedra, and would fall down the stairs and break his neck before he got round to doing so!) That's one reason why we have so many non-essentials, but transubstantiation isn't one of them.

By the way, I notice from your user page that you don't like "had had". You probably don't like "been being" either. I was never aware of having heard it, until I studied Halliday in some linguistics courses at the Open University. Halliday, as far as I remember, said that people use that construction on average twice a week in spoken English (not in written), and that when you tell them that they said it, they deny not only that they did say it but that they ever could say it. (The house has been being painted for the last two weeks. My cat had just been being sick.) Once I became aware of it, I began to listen for it, and while I wouldn't agree with the "twice a week" claim, it's certainly not uncommon. I've even heard it on Sky News.

Salut! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 12:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoe polish

Yeah, I got the image, but its not as good as I wanted. I took it out from a moving train, but the resolution is large enough to crop it if needed. I still have some objections. 1. Too many small paragraphs, should be merged. 2. Text in parenthesis should be removed and made to flow with the text. 3. Country specific info should be removed "(such as with the controversial Blackfaces in Minstrel Shows)" Although the use of shoe polish is declining, it is still widely used. Nearly 80 per cent of all corporate executives believe that well-cared for shoes are very important to a person's success. This is not needed. Please remove all quotes/slogans and move it to wikiquote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Had difficulty in obtaining it. Photos of stations are prohibited. Each time I went to a station there were a lot of policemen, today too there was, just about managed to take one because I was inside a train. I hope its ok. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks fine at the size it is in the article. The boot polishing guy himself seemed to be giving you a particularly dirty look, though ... :) Proto t c 13:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if all my concerns are taken care of, I usually support. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sumatran Orangutan

Please don't create redirects like this. It makes it harder to tell what articles have yet to be written. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoe Polish FAC

Hi Bunchofgrapes (Bunch? BOG? :) )Thanks for your comments on the FAC for shoe polish, and for the copyediting, as I'm no good with all those mdashes and nbsps. Please take another look as I have rejigged as per your comments (and if you have any suggesiton for the image status, please help, I'm stuck). If you feel you can now change your vote, that would rock my world. Thanks! Proto t c 11:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Proto, (I've seen "Grapes" or "'grapes" a lot; I guess they beat "bunch"...)

I'm another one of those non-camera-owning people, I'm afraid. I'm looking at the image status of the images you do have, and wondering about your statement for kiwi_shoe_polish.jpg that says "Obtained from http://www.design-technology.org/kiwi.htm - the site specifically states that text is copyrighted but images are not." If that were true, we could retag the image, but I can't find that statement on the website; I've only seen "The narrative text on this website is copyright. This means that any school which copies the site for local use onto a school cache is in breach of copyright", which doesn't say anything about the images, leaving them in their default copyrighted state.

The Jeanbartpolish.jpg probably is a copyright violation with a very weak fair-use justification in most jurisdictions (I am not a lawyer so of course I'm guessing). I'd say remove that one from the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh. I need to explain things like this better. The site specifically states 'The Design Technology Department has been created in order to provide free educational materials', but then cautions narrative text remains copyright. I see that as allowing use of the image ... wrong? And as for the other photo, I think promotional posters are fair use. I will check. Proto t c 16:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Without explicit revokation of copyright, it's a very difficult argument to make. I took their vague statement to mean, more generally, "we want you to look at these web pages for free, but not to copy them." It's also possible that they stayed away from mentioning he images on the site because they were "borrowing" the images themselves from different sources (or making their own fair-use claims for them); if that's the case, they aren't the copyright holders on the images anyway. All speculation, of course. But the main point stands; without very explicit release, everything is under copyright.

Promotional photographs are fair use for works dealing with the event or topic being promoted... <epiphany> which I guess this might be. Write up a cogent fair-use justification on the inage page along those lines and I think I'm good on the Bart image. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your concerns about the Hugo Chavez article

Thank you for vote and helpful comments. I put a copy of my response to them below for your convenience. Take care. Saravask 17:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I just removed the text justification and unfloated the TOC. I have also converted reference 57 into the standard ref/cite footnote format. I will look to see how the sections you mentioned can be further shortened (they had already undergone a round of extensive shortenings before). As for your comment about wikification of years upon their first appearance, that practice is not endorsed by the Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):

"If the date doesn't contain a day and a month, then date preferences won't work, and square brackets won't respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there's no need to link it."

"What should not be linked:

• Plain English words.
• Years, decades or centuries, unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic."

Thus, years need only be wikified when they appear with day and month, a practice which was followed in this article. Otherwise, thank you for the kind and detailed comments. Saravask 16:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Replying to your comments on systemic bias

On the whole we seem to be agreeing. "Systemic bias" doesn't mean that the individual authors are biased. It means that the system is biased. In this case, the nature of how we are building Wikipedia biases us (collectively) toward some subjects and away from others. Given that the avowed purpose of the project is to create an encyclopedia, that will be available to everyone, everywhere in the world, in their own language, that is a problem.

Geekiness? Absolutely. Also, though, I would add a sometimes hostile atmosphere. Again, though, given our overall goal, we need to work out how to get around some of this. And, no, my comments are not just based on the English Wikipedia, I read several languages, I've been heavily involved in translation work, and while I don't read Japanese or Chinese, I can tell you that the problems are worse in Spanish, Catalan, Romanian, and Italian; of the ones I've worked in, only German is better, and French is comparable. Yes, mass translation drives are doubtless part of the solution, but there aren't a lot of good translators out there working between Asian and European languages, nor am I aware of even a single good translation software tool between Asian and European languages.

"The scarcity of non-Western authors may be something to do with the prevalence of computers and regular, stable internet access in the West when compared to Africa and Asia." Absolutely. But that doesn't fully explain the paucity of (for example) African American or Native American contributors.

Yes, I think that active contact to liiving people mentioned in articles might be part of a solution. I personally have been more focused on (1) simply writing about relatively neglected subject matter areas (2) recruiting and retaining African Americans, with some success (3) recruiting Native Americans, so far with no success, and I'm not sure exactly why not: several Native American people in my acquaintance who I've approached seemed interested, and think the project is cool, but they haven't taken the plunge. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the German Wikipeidia better in that its articles in the areas that English tends to neglect are simply deeper, better researched, more scholarly. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware, but there are so many requests for translations from German that we gave those a page of their own separate from other requests for translation. Of the languages I can read, the German Wikipedia is the pick of the crop: not as large as the English, of course, but—in all other respects that I can think of—setting a standard we would do well to aspire to. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish

Any excuse to take pictures :) Great work on the article, which mundane household item is next on the list?--nixie 12:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoe Polish

I really admire your efforts at the shoe polish article. It is close to FA class so even if its FAC is not successful this time I'm sure it can be successful next time. I may even poke my nose in and elaborate on some of the research (after the FAC and a long-weekend wiki break). Anyways, these are some sources that peaked my interest: Cherry Blossom Shoe Polish's history, this Chinese factory that sells empty shoe polish tins, possibly free images, The 2003-2008 World Outlook for Shoe Polish & the 2001 Report on Shoe Polish reports that costs $800 to read, this company that claims to have been in business since 1907 (I confirmed that they have 14 employees), and shoe polish fraud! --maclean25 12:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I altered some sentences and wordings in the article, made some lists parallel and removed some of the perhaps unhelpful ext. links. Feel free to revert anything you don't agree with. While I still believe deeper research would help, especially in the post-war history section, I'm leaning on the support side because it really is a good, solid article. Perhaps a factory tour would help. --maclean25 20:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:SCH

Your input would be appreciated at the re-emerging WP:SCH debate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish

I was bold (not too bold I hope) and I removed Image:KiwiExpress.jpg from the article: it was an unnecessary fair use image. (And questionable, since Kiwi Express wasn't mentioned in the article.) With that, I'm switching to a support vote for the FAC. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Open black Kiwi.JPG, Image:Brown Kiwi polish.jpg and Image:Dubbin Open.jpg, enjoy.--nixie 00:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Habitababble

How does Habitable planets in fiction sound to address your concern? Planetary habitability could link to it in See also or in one of the notes. I can start it as a stub or you might if you have something in mind. I don't think Planet Hab. should be overloaded with fiction cruft to be honest, and as for a dividing schema used scientifically, I don't know of one beyond the basic distinctions (terrestrial-ice giant-gas giant, for example). Thanks for your general comments and you'll note I've addressed some of your more minor concerns if you'd like to cross them out. Expanding the intro slightly seems the last major point. Oh, and great work on Shoe polish! I think I'll note a support on the FAC. I was looking at my shoes today thinking "damn, you should polish those." Marskell 17:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

Hi, Proto! Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 16:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoe polish bounty

I'd be happy to include shoe polish on the bounty, and I've amended the bounty to mention it. I've done some copyediting, and left some comments on the Talk page. I was only able to get through the first parts of the article; I hope I'll have time later tonight to finish. Let me know if there's anything in specific you'd like me to look at, or if you want to talk about any of my comments -- Creidieki 15:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)