User talk:CarolusJosephus/Archive

Welcome

Hello, CarolusJosephus/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theology Faculty of the University of Oxford

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Theology Faculty of the University of Oxford, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Theology Faculty of the University of Oxford. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pruneau^T 13:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to reply here... Thanks for your message. The regulations only state "ordained", which would include Deacons. In any case, as you point out, the appointments are now open to laymen and non-Anglicans (eg Henry Mayr-Harting, who is a Catholic). The section should probably be edited to include that as well! Hackloon (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy

Thanks for adding the interesting page about Colin Bundy. You'll see that I've trimmed his entry in the list of Mertonians so that it conforms with all the others: just name, job title, and date of matric. I think this looks better like this and hope you agree. My apologies for commenting him out in the first place. The red link made me trigger happy.

Have you thought of using the {{subst:Biography}} template on his page?

best wishes Thruston 14:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on Bundy

Regarding the former college barman whom you seem to wish to remove from that list, couldn't he be dropped on the technicality that he (presumably) didn't matriculate?

Oh Parky matriculated all right, in those days (1970s and 1980s) the undergraduates used to run the bar themselves, (it was very profitable for the JCR), and in some ways he has had a notable career, he is a BBC Oxford journalist I think, but his entry was (iirc) deleted under the Vanity policy sometime ago, so the link to it on the alumni page no longer seemed appropriate.

Alumnus in Latin is a verbal adjective meaning "having been fed" or "having been nourished". I think it has pretty much the same meaning as "graduate" except that it perhaps also includes those that attended but did not graduate (hardly any of these at Merton for sure). So strictly it perhaps should not include Fellows who were not undergraduates, but that's why the heading says Notable Former Mertonians. For what it's worth I think that we should probably split the lists up in some more imaginative ways. For example Fellows, Rhodes Scholars, Undergraduates perhaps. Part of the problem is that the whole notion of the modern student does not really apply for most of Merton's history. There were *no* undergraduates until the early 19th century...

Thruston 09:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hex RfA

This is the RfA of user:Hex. I believe he would make a good and unconventional admin, so I'm running around right now, trying to encourage some of the more sensible people I know of to support him. Subversive 08:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject University of Oxford

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 15:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project! I think an early objective of the project should be the improvement of the main University page to at least Good Article standard, as I'd be willing to bet it gets read as often as several dozen of the other project pages put together! However, I've not had any experience of the Good Article nomination process so I thought nominating a few of the college pages might be an easier way to start and useful experience. I have a personal interest in the Jesus article (and recently put it up for peer review), but I think it's only one of several college articles that could easily be WP:GA candidates.

I think it would be useful to identify a shortlist of a few articles that are close to meeting the criteria. I suppose ideally they should be high on the project's importance rating scale too. Any personal favourites? Casper Gutman 21:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford categories

Thanks for your message. To deal with your points in turn: (1) Christ Church categories - neutral: consistency favours "Fellows", accuracy favours "Students". "Canons" is probably unnecessary since I don't think we categorize clergy by cathedral chapter membership. (2) Heads of Houses - I think we should treat them as "Fellows", regardless of technicalities, as (a) my instinct would be to look in the Fellows category, rather than wonder whether the college statutes had some peculiarity of status and (b) the Head of House categories would be too small. Better to have a succession box linking past and present holders. Incidentally, your "Head of House" box for current holders of the office is great. (3) Lecturers - I don't think we need it: e.g. Anthony Kenny's lectureships can be mentioned in his article (and perhaps in a Exeter or Trinity related article, at a push), but aren't really sufficiently defining to warrant categorization. "Category clutter" is the phrase sometimes used. Also, I agree that junior people who aren't Fellows are unlikely to merit an article. (4) Hon Fellows - I used to think that it was worth categorizing Hon Fellows as Fellows, but now my view is that this is over-categorization by award which is generally not The Done Thing on WP - see WP:OVERCAT#Award_winners. I'd be in favour of deleting any freestanding Hon Fellow cats and removing Hon Fellows from Fellows cats.

And how about this one: Category:Academics of the University of Oxford? Do we need it? Bencherlite 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academics of the UofO needs a clear-out at some stage to check/remove overcategorization where we know the college affiliation. When I get a moment, and when my version of AWB isn't playing up, I'll take a look. As for Christ Church, perhaps "Canons and Students of Christ Church, Oxford" is too awkward a category name to add to the end of an article (and the obvious question on seeing the category name is "which?!"), and maybe we do need to have different categories for each after all. Bencherlite 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Richard Turnbull

I have removed the notability tag. Excellent contribs, by the way. --Smokizzy ^{Review Me! (Please!)} 02:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to message

I have added a reply to the discussion you posted me about Oxford University. Koos 12:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oxonians - italics to small

Done Bencherlite 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In case you're wondering, I copied the contents into a Word file, used "find and replace" to change '' to <small> and then again to change the "small" tag at the end of the line - then it was just a question of repasting the contents and checking for "small" tags that hadn't been cancelled as they weren't at the end of the line. A lot easier and quicker than doing the whole thing by hand! Bencherlite 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sewell

My apologies if you thought my comment was meant in a negative tone. I was merely writing fast and rather distractedly - I guess it didn't come across well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Oxford people

Hello - in case it doesn't catch your eye on your watchlist, your thoughts in this discussion (Talk:List of University of Oxford people#Very long) would be very welcome. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 10:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Llŷr

You need to put the tip of your tongue at the front of the roof of your mouth (behind your front teeth) and then drop your jaw and blow! It rhymes with "clear", to all intents and purposes. My Welsh dictionary says that "ll" is an "aspirated version of "L" [as in Lamp, not in milk], articulated in the same way but with breath instead of voice". Hope one of these explanations, at least, helps! Bencherlite ^Talk 20:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Thomas (footballer)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Keith Thomas (footballer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. ArtVandelay13 15:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Malcolm Bishop

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Malcolm Bishop, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Malcolm Bishop is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Malcolm Bishop, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Ste Croix

The Guardian obit states: "Born in Macao, he was educated at Clifton school in Bristol, and from 1926 to 1940 practised as a London solicitor." As far as I know, one has never been able to practice as a solicitor without a law degree(?) I would be interested to hear otherwise. Grant | Talk 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I made an incorrect assumption. Thanks for putting this right. Grant | Talk 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Nine Public Schools do not dislike newcomers

I found your comment on the Public Schools Act 1868 page, and since no one had added a citation, removed the offending statement. Frank Walsh (1962) (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Elvins

Hello Oxonian2006,

I'm a little concerned that the article on Mark Elvins (which you created today) may not meet the Wikipedia Notability guideline. I realised Elvins has published several works, but the article as it currently stands might be also interpreted as a breach of "What Wikipedia is Not"; specifically, it may be seen as a directory and/or an advertisement of this gentleman's work.

Do you think you would be able to address these concerns? -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift reply regarding this. I don't doubt his entry or work, just a little concerned that unless there is more scope for expansion, and something existing about this gentleman in a third party published source with which we can attribute and verify the content of the article, whether I was to nominate this article for deletion or not, its removal may be inevitable.

To clarify, I was wondering if you'd be able to expand the article in the short term, and perhaps provide citation for the content? I for one hope so, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LPBS

Have to confess to be intrigued by your remarks on the LPBS page. Given your username, guessing you matriculated at oxon in 06 - or possibly graduated - which either way would make you a very recent leaver of lpbs? I was at the school sometime before, and likewise went on to oxford. Northcote was not HM at the time, so I don't know what the school's approach is like now, but there was no track-record of oxbridge application back when I was there. I never expected to hear of anyone else ever escaping to go on to one of the two universities ever again, and never met any other old boy at oxford. Everyone else in my year went to Southampton or somewhere similarly dire.--Corinthian (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Sir Paul Reeves

A good idea for finding weather something on wikipedia is factual or not is just googling. Here are some sites which list Paul Reeves as a knight bachelor :

[1] [2]

good job on taking the initiative to fact check...thats wikipedia's main problem....and my favourite method of vandalizing conservapedia :) Dowew (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal wedding

The article may say that, but I can find no source on the royal website to that affect. In addition, such an announcement would gain press attention, but I can find no report on BBC News website or sky.com/news. I suspect the Tablet is yet another journalist claiming to know the date, as many, many have. We need official confirmation before it is included.--UpDown (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxonian

Thank you for your points which I shall most certainly follow. I have been on Wikipedia for a year and it is getting more and more accurate thanks to dialogue such as the type we are having now. Bishop Easthaugh confirmed me- his wife's family owned more or less everything nearby. With very best wishes Bashereyre (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct way to address an archbishop

Sorry about Michael Lewis, Bishop of Cyprus and the Gulf. Also it says he is the fifth holder of this post but try as I might, I cannot track down the first two. Any ideas?

Additionally, I was reading the article on the Anglican Diocese of Cape Town yesterday which refers to Desmond Tutu as "archbishop-emeritus". Many years ago I worked in a Church of England School and we had a very distinguished visitor, a former Archbishop of West Africa. Our head, who was very correct in all matters Anglican, said the correct way to address him was "Bishop". Was he correct? Bashereyre (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titular

For what it's worth, the use of titular in Lobotomy was used properly. "Titular bishop" as in existing in name only is one usage. A valid and common use is "of, relating to, or constituting a title <the titular hero of the play>". I have, on the other hand, no problem with your use of the synonym "eponymous". ∴ Therefore | talk 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling deletion

Can I enlist your support to reverse what I think is a bad deletion? Yesterday I was researching an anglican archbishop who had been a curate at St George's Hanover Square. It seemed a resonable article, and today I find it deleted. This is possibly one of the most well known Anglican places of worship in the world. What do you think?

Bashereyre (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]