User talk:D Monack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This is an archive of the talk page of my previous user name, Polynova, which was phased out on September 1, 2005.

Washington DC as cruciform

I realize it is quite popular, today, to deny the truth that Christianity had an exceedingly strong influence in the birth of the USA, but despite todays popular opinion that fact remains to be true. Denying it in an encyclopedia will not make that fact go away. Too many stone instriptions of scripture, and even a latin reference to God atop the Washington monument will continualy speak to that truth, no matter how much we want to deny it or cover it up.

The layout of Wash DC is obvious in this image:

[ Image removed as possble copyright violation. --D Monack 20:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC) ]

The more we try to deny the heritage of our nations birth, the more we make ourselves to be liars and reprobates. KeyStroke 03:54, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

Your argument has one problem. Here's what the Federal City looked like when L'Enfant was done: Washington in 1791

Or maybe, Washington was laid out by Satanists. At least their map has the virtue of actually following the street grid.

Perhaps an ability to use MacPaint is not really evidence.

It should be obvious that one can believe in God without being a Christian, like say if one were a Deist like certain Founding Fathers.

Polynova 08:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Peter Lynch

I started an article for Peter Lynch, but since I don't much about him I just used what I found in the first few pages of google results. Maybe you can add some more. - Lifefeed

Speedies

Hello. I removed the Speedy Delete tag from The lynshire, as it doesn't qualify as a Candidate for Speedy Deletion. I will, however, list it on Votes for Deletion. I see you're using the "deletebecause" template (very good). You can abbreviate it as "db" and still get the same results -- saves a few keystrokes. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 09:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

solicit comment on Jane Jacobs edit

I noticed your recent edits to Jane Jacobs which seem mostly reasonable. However, I have raised an issue on "insightful list deleted" at Talk:Jane Jacobs and you may want to comment. WpZurp 17:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Category:Controversial books

Thanks for your request! I hope I've now sufficiently detailed how The Plot Against America is controversial in its article. I've also added to A Child Called It for the same reason; I trust Live from Death Row and The Da Vinci Code, which I had also just added to the category, are obvious enough as written by others. Samaritan 07:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity

1) When did you graduate Pingry? 2) Do I know you? I graduated in '99, and I thought I knew everybody within +/- 3 years of me who was interested in libertarianism.

No need to answer, unless you want to. I'm just curious. Thanks! - Loweeel 18:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mark Haddon

Please see my comment to you at Talk:Mark Haddon, where I explained why I reverted your last edit. No ill intentions. --Woggly 06:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

National Building Museum

Thanks for adding a bit more to the stub. I visited Washington in January, spending Australia Day there, and the NBM was an unexpected pleasure amongst the Smithsonians. The vast interior is simply jaw-dropping, and if I'd turned and walked out of the building at that point, it still would have been a highlight of my trip. But I spent a pleasant couple of hours touring the galleries and exhibitions, and when I return to Washington, as I surely will, I'll make sure I spend more time there! Pete 03:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jewish is a nationality

See the article about Jews. It says:

The word Jew (Hebrew: יהודי) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes. This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of the religion, please refer to Judaism.

Most Jews regard themselves as a people, members of a nation, descended from the ancient Israelites and those who joined their religion at various times and places.

I'm not reverting Category:Jewish film directors until you reply, just in case you still disagree. Spikeballs 07:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Since you didn't oppose, I'm reverting it. Spikeballs 07:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cookie Cutter stadiums?

There are a number of books and other references that use this term. I could list the references if that would help usage your concerns about POV in connection with the "Concrete Donuts" of the 1960s... or do you like that term better? Wahkeenah 23:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ben's Chili Bowl

Your article on Ben's Chili Bowl made me hungry. I am now going to have to go there for a chili cheese dog and a thick strawberry milkshake tomorrow afternoon. Thanks, thanks a lot. Are you going to pay my tab? ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NewarkNJ flag.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NewarkNJ flag.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This image was tagged with {{PD-US-flag}}, which claims that the image is "a U.S. state, federal district, or insular area flag". This does not include U.S. city flags, which may or may not be in the public domain. —Bkell 13:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)