User talk:Mdkarazim/Archive 1

Arius

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.) lists Arius as being a priest (p. 104). It's hard to find a more standard reference than that. ——Preost ^talk contribs 00:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The ODCC notes the bishops for his ordinations to both the diaconate and then later to the priesthood. He was indeed a presbyter. ——Preost ^talk contribs 23:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jackson County Republican Committee (Michigan)

I dunno. There are no comparable articles that I could see, so the name you suggest above seems fine. If at a later time someone has a better idea they can move the article. older ≠ wiser 01:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Arius

A slight point of clarification. Deacons are priests. There are three kinds of priest in the Orthodox Church, Deacon, Presbyter, and Bishop. Phiddipus 19:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While this is true, ASDamick is inferring that deacon=deacon, presbyter=priest and bishop=bishop. I wish there were a better standard for these terms. Mdkarazim 30 June 2005 00:48 (UTC)

"Dominion" vs. "Commonwealth"

They're just both names, and don't really mean anything. The "United States" are certainly not a voluntary union of states, after all (and have not been since at least the Civil War). For what it's worth, Australia in the Statute of Westminster was described as a dominion, along with Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and the Irish Free State. The currently preferred term for such a state is Commonwealth Realm.

It's true that the name "Commonwealth" does have republican sentiments: legend has it that the Australian delegates to the UK Parliament had to lobby strenuously to get the name accepted.

A possibility why Australian states are named states rather than provinces is that they are constitutionally more powerful than Canadian provinces. Slac speak up! 2 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

Trunkline

Sorry, I'm not very familiar with the term. I only came across since I began editing articles here. You might try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways or some of the other projects related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport. older ≠ wiser 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on Freep front page

I just read the first section of today's Detroit Free Press. Congratulations on making the front page! Robert Happelberg 16:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had no idea that they would be putting it on the front page, and I certainly didn't expect the photo to be as big as it was. They took the picture on Sunday 2006 July 30 around 3PM (EST) literally within a half hour of the beginning of rainfall...I think it would have been a lot better for it to have *not* been raining on my laptop, but it wasn't damaged so no complaints. It's good to see that wikipedia has gotten so much attention and importance these past two years. Perhaps it will soon become the mainstream source of info for everyone. mdkarazim 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Arbor vs. Spring Arbor (CDP)

Spring Arbor and Spring Arbor, Michigan (CDP) need to be merged as they are duplicate entries. Spring Arbor Township already has page. --Criticalthinker 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still very strongly of the opinion that the only two articles that need to exist are the township and the CDP page. There is no need for a page explaining the difference between the two, which is pretty much what this one is. Someone delete this. --Criticalthinker 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have me pegged wrong. I'm from Lansing, Michigan. I see what you are saying now, but I still disagree. In a way, your Spring Arbor, Michigan page would be like me making a "Metropolitan Lansing" page. The difference here is that Spring Arbor is not large enough to warrant a page on its greater surroundings. A page on the CPD and the Township are more than enough to cover the area, it does not need its own community page. If you like to mention the greater community in the context of the CDP page, I think that would be great, but there is no need for three pages on approximately the same area. There just isn't.

After much thinking, I think everything, as is, is acceptable, so I've deleted the merge links. However, for the unincorporated, I removed some redundant references I requested you add to connect it to the township and CDP as I don't think they are needed beyond the general description of the area in which they are included.

However, for the unincorporated community page, as it's not a defined statistical area, I see no need for the the "demographics" and "government" section, nor does a unincorporated community need external links unless it actually has one. Those are redundant. Can you please delete those? Most people realize that unincorporated communities don't have their own demographics definitions and government defintions. --Criticalthinker 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]