User talk:Vyselink/Archive 4

A cup of tea for you!
Darriellouiec4 thank you very much. I try my best. Vyselink (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Russell and Adventism
Whilst I agree with your revert here, your edit summary isn't really accurate. Russell was very strongly influenced by Adventism, especially from 1870 through to 1877, and his contact with them could not legitimately be called 'extremely brief'. Even after his formal split with Barbour, Russell's end-times beliefs remained distinctly Adventist, as do the end-times beliefs of all resultant Bible Student sects (including Jehovah's Witnesses).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The influence of Adventism is clear on Russell and his beliefs, and my edit summary was definitely incorrect in using the term "extremely brief" in regards to his time with them. It was not my most thought out edit summary. Vyselink (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
A federal question is an issue raised by a party, through their allegations, to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction; it is not raised by a court's opinion (see also Frankfurter's dissent commenting on dismissals in prior cases). So in the context of that article section, it was describing the State's argument that the case should have been dismissed because Gobitis's conclusive resolution of the issue meant no substantial federal question was raised by Walter Barnette's allegation that his children's First Amendment rights were violated by the school district's policy. Otherwise the passage makes no sense. If you like, we can rewrite it to say "plaintiffs" instead of "Barnette" to be less ambiguous. postdlf (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't mind changing it to either plaintiffs or Barnett, as you make a valid point, just be sure if you are going to talk about Barnett you spell his name properly. It is Barnett, no ending "e" (as I'm sure you know, case names are often misspelled). How about this: "The state's principal argument was that the Barnett's raised no substantial federal question because Gobitis settled the constitutional questions raised by the flag-salute expulsions."


 * Also, unless I'm mistaken, I believe "Gobitis" should be italicized in that section, as it is referring to the case and not Walter Gobitas (again a misspelled case name). Vyselink (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "plaintiffs", and fixed the fmt of Gobitis. The Barnetts and John F. A. Sanford should have a special plaque at the Supreme Court Building dedicated to the victims of clerical errors. postdlf (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fantastic. Vyselink (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 13:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MacGyver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crime scene investigation ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/MacGyver check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/MacGyver?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)