User talk:Andrew c

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

[edit] DYK update

Any chance you could post it? I just finished it, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, I need help

Thank you very much for your help, but unfortunately I need help again → List of New Testament lectionaries — of course this List is not complete (even more notable lectionaries) but it be continued. I want write article about Museum of Bible in Amsterdam (Bijbelmuseum).

I work on "History of the Text of New Testament", it will first this book in Poland. It is really very difficult job (relashionship between families of manuscripts). Most difficult is Caesarean text-type. I do not know when I will finish it. Not quicly. CSNTM is very helpfull for me. From time to time I write some articules in polish, english and russian wikipedia (usually about biblical manuscripts). It is not so difficult like that unfinished book. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for mistake. There is exist List of Lectionary Manuscripts. I did not see it before. I recoped table and new link to "external links" in older article. But I think it will better to retitle this article (List of Lectionary Manuscripts), because we have: List of New Testament papyri, List of New Testament uncials, List of New Testament minuscules, and naturally "List of New Testament lectionaries".
• In "External links" (in List of Lectionary Manuscripts) someone placed "Continuation list, Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF), Munster", but it concerns to papyri not to lectionaries.
• Maybe definition of lectionaries - in List of Lectionary Manuscripts must be redefined (according pattern in Lists of NT papyries, uncials, minuscules).

Sorry for this mistakeLeszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Err, huh? History of Japan "660 BC" -> "666 BC" -> "660 BC" -> "666 BC"

One of us is confused. But since I like knowing when I'm confused (see IP's umbrage on my talk page and his) I gotta ask... why? Did you look at the link in the summary, 660 BC, which mentions 660 BC as the date for the emperor? What did I 'get' wrong? Shenme (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, nevermind, he told us, with three references! :-) Shenme (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of the Beast talk page

Would you have any objection if I removed the bottom thread on this page? It's OR, forum-type comments by one user, and then a long-winded, typically OR reply, by Xicsies. I see no reason to encourage him. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This Saint John's idea (people should vote in order to define what money is, instead of obeing to a violent money maker authority) is beeing censored by violent authorities and possesed people 2000 years now. I am not surprised that you also want to censor it. God Bless you, poor Carl... Check again the meaning of the word Ψηφισάτω.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to keep OR out of WP. And what is your problem with having a signature, seriously.... Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This alternative meaning of the word psefisato is not original research. It is written in EVERY dictionary. There are 2000 english transations of the bible and there is NONE mentioning the alternative meaning. Dont you think that is worth mentioning it somewhere? Original research refers to the article page, NOT to the talk page. Why are you trying to hide the alternative meaning of the word psefisato even from the talk page? Isnt the talk page a page where everyone is allowed to talk? Go look yourself at the mirror, Carl.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK Overdue

Much as I like seeing my DYK on the front page, it's now over 9 hours since the update! Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the domestic violence article editing

After looking at Wikipedias article on domestic violence, the first thing i saw was how the neutrality of the the article was disputed. I usually pay no heed to these messages as biases in a Wikipedia article can be hard to hunt down. I log onto wikipedia often, so the words im about to type do bear weight:

Wikipedia's article on domestic violence, before i made any typographical changes, was the most sexist and exploitive article ive ever seen on this website.

The article throughout uses words like 'abuser' with 'man'and 'victim' with 'woman' synonimously, and let me give a few examples.

• Under 'Types' it originally read: "IT batterers include two types... the first type include men that...the second type are men that..."
• under Psychological Abuse: "Women that are psychologically abused... Women undergoing psychological abuse..."
• under 'Definitions' it reads Wife Abuse and Wife Beating

...just to name a few

At this point let me mention I major in Behavior and Social Sciences. Anyway, hhen the writer gets to 'Violence against men' she only mentioned men being battered by other men. Furthermore, one of the FIRST things that part of the article said contradicted itself by saying violence against men is (brace youreself) 'not a problem', citing a website that makes references to men as diseased and 'the enemy.'

However, you are right about 2 things, one was that the Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women 2005 did not shed light on violence against... men; I must have accidently put that word in the wrong sentence, you have my full apologies. And secondly, whoever wrote this article used exceptionally biased and most likely uneducated websites as footnotes, so I absolutely AM making edits based on what i disagree with personally.

The last time i got hit by a male was a fight i got into in 6th grade. Since then i have been hit by my mother, female teachers, girlfriends and and many other females, all of which were unprovoked and I never hit back. I logged onto this article cause my ex-girlfriend recently gave me a bloody nose after i got into an argument with her that she was unwelcomly trespassing on my property. I, like so many other men before me, didn't press charges or even call the police. The point of I'm trying to make here, is that only half of the time men are the victims of domestic violence. The other half is women.(obvioulsy)

Honestly, do this. Go back and look at the article before i made the changes, only this time, mentally replace every mention of male with female and vice versa. The article is downright misogynist. But thats not what I did. I changed words like 'woman' to 'victim,' 'batterer' to 'offender,' and 'wife' to 'spouse.' To be honest with you i consider it an act of feminism. The article portrayed women as weak, helpless little sheep, and i elevated them to an equal status as men.

I promise to be extremely careful in the future not to pin to much of my opinion on wikipedia, but do you at least see where im coming from? I just got punched in the nose by my exgirlfriend. It's like a woman getting robbed by a man, then having that woman look up 'Robbery' on wikipedia and it ONLY talks about woman perpetrators, and male robbers are immedietly called: 'not a serious problem.'

69.243.83.42 (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Danny

[edit] doesn't it seem a little odd

... that you think it's not important to worry about CE or AD, but you took the time to find and revert all my changes, AND to write a lengthy comment on my talk page about it? There is probably something much more important needing your editing than CE vs. AD. Hope this inspires you to do some constructive editing! ;) --JaGa (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(I'm going to get a little defensive here, so beware. No harm is intended) IMO, a line has to be drawn somewhere. If we let people go under the radar, someone would eventually run into a visible enough article where the big CE vs. AD dispute would blow up again (as it has at Jesus and Template:History of China in the past, and as it seems you may have run into yourself to a lesser degree at Freemasonry). I have a zero tolerance policy. IMO, if a user is going around switching CE to AD or vice versa, without seeking consensus first, that user is editing in a disruptive manner. Period. If I revert the disruptive editing, I personally feel I am undoing what amounts to vandalism, instead of perpetrating the era notation dispute. Whether I am justified in my belief or not, is clearly another matter :Þ. Maybe I have a double standard, so you have made me think critically about my editing. But then again, you haven't changed my opinion that your edits amounted to being disruptive (while made in good faith). :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for at least giving me credit for good faith. I believe they were made in good faith. Basically, I was thinking, just as it seems proper for an article about Windsor Castle to use colour and an article about JFK to use color, it seemed proper for Christianity-related articles to use AD instead of CE. I'm not religious, but I do believe strongly in tolerance. And I thought forcing CE onto articles that would probably be edited and viewed mostly by Christians was intolerant. Mind you, the edits were done on a whim, I did no research to prove my point of view. Then again, did you make absolutely sure that each revert you made was in line with consensus for that article? I'm not trying to push one argument or another; I was just trying to remove prejudice from articles. But don't worry, I've had more than enough of that. --JaGa (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK update

...is ready, if you want to post it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus historicity controversy

Hi Andrew. I see you haven't replied to me on the relevant talk page so I was just wondering what you thought about my reason for deleting the said material and whether you still wanted it reinserted. Thanks. Roy Brumback (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouns

Hi, Is the capitalization of pronouns not necessary or is it disallowed by the grammar police, whoever they may be? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, but what I do not know is: Is the Man of Style a suggestion or is not following it against the rules. E.g. wearing colors that do not match well in public may be unpopular or against style, and the fashion designers may faint upon seeing it, but is not against the law. So what is the case here? Thanks History2007 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact 1: You know more about this topic. Fact 2: I don't like their style, but will live with it, for I do not want to start a debate on grammar. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion you'll be interested in

Hi. I see you warned this user. Please have a look at the discussion and see what you want to do. Best wishes, --John (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now blocked them for 1 month. Please review the block and tell me if you think it was to harsh or (more likely) too lenient. Thanks, --John (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC

I am OK with your changes to the lead sentence in Roman Catholic Church. I was just trying to help add a reference so it doesnt become a discussion item again. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GNL

Thanks for your input. You should have seen the unpleasantness and downright abuse during the GNL war at MOS talk last year ("you motherfucker", etc). We won, with a rather weak result; but it's better than nothing. TONY (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chair (official)

I don't understand why you made your recent edit here. Is the "longstanding title" the title of the article, or the title of the office?

Also, the article includes a somewhat intricate discussion of the various forms of the word. Your edit, IMHO, clobbered that discussion. (It has been clobbered before, or at least was put into an incoherent state by unfortunate editing.) My opinion is that the article should be "Chairman (official)" and that the discussion should cover the use of "Chair" and the other forms. Robert's Rules of Order, if I recall, uses "Chairman." Lou Sander (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I've been thinking about your comments on the fertility awareness template. I thought perhaps a template for the menstrual cycle would get around the issue of appearing to define FA: I've worked up a suggestion here. I'm not sure the templates would be similar enough to treat it as a renaming; any comments on that issue or other comments on the template would be welcome.

I'm also sorry to see you're having health issues; I hope it's something transient and that you'll feel better soon. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation, I think

User:Invocante keeps inserting ICEL draft texts for a revised English translation of the Roman Missal. ICEL strongly opposes any premature publication of these texts, as indicated on the Internet here and here and here. I have endeavoured to draw Invocante's attention to this with regard to his insertions in English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use and Gloria in Excelsis Deo. It hasn't worked. There is nothing more I can do. But an Administrator can do something - if something needs to be done. Cheers. Lima (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I [Invocante] do not accept that in the normal understanding of things I am violating the copyright of the ICEL. The very notion of copyright on translations of texts as ancient as the creed or the Gloria is dubious but in any case there is a more substantial point. The new translation when it comes out will affect millions of the Catholic laity and the attempt to hide behind copyright is simply disingenuous. The reason for this are well given by Father Zhulsdorf in his reply to the ICEL letter referred to by Lima [http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/04/letter-from-icel.html here Indeed if we take the example of the new translation Gloria the Church has already authorised a new musical stetting of those words which is readily available from the Word Youth day website, see http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/parishes_schools/wyd08_mass_setting. This availability on the WYD site tells us two things. One the text I provide was reliable and 2 the church is perfectly happy to have the text in the public domain. So on what basis does Lima claim the right to delete my entry? Lastly I might add Lim arrogantly reedits everyone else’s contribution and he might have tried speaking to me first but. Lima seems to think he has a monopoly of wisdom about the catholic church. I suggest you go to hi stalk page which is littered with people complain about his arrogance. Invocante (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have followed your advice and put a message on Invocante's Talk page. Drawing Invocante's attention to the matter by an edit summary was not enough. To judge by what he has just posted here, perhaps the Talk page message may not work either. I had better also follow the advice of Wikipedia:Copyright violation and raise the matter on the Talk pages of the two articles. But I'll wait a little, to see if it is necessary. Lima (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to the Future Uses article being deleted if my entry is allowed to remain on the current English creeds page. I have already explained several times why I think there is either a copyright problem with all 20th C versions of the creed - in which case you need to delete them all or there is no substantial problem. I have also pointed out although the ICEL has taken objection to publishing the entire new translation it seems to have no objection to publishing extracts. Lima cited one situation where the ICEL wrote to object but ignore the numerous websites where portions of the text have been cited and the ICEL has taken no objection. He is however unable to deny the fact that most of the text of the ordinary for the mass is already freely available on an official site of the Australian Catholic Church. If the ICEL should to write to Wikiepedia and requests its removal fine but I do not accept that Lima is the sole arbiter on these matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User Lima keeps deleting my entries on the creed and the Gloria. He has entirely failed to answer the counter arguments I have given him regarding the alleged breach of copyright but instead just keeps deleting my entry. He is the one who should be given the warning not me. I have repeatedly posted reasons arguments in favour of my entries and he just ignores them and goes ahead and deletes them anyway. Invocante (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC

Andrew, you are fixing the bible refs but I'm not sure you are doing what is correct. All of our references have a consistent format. You have now made these refs inconsistent with the rest of the refs on the page. Is there some policy you are following that I am not aware of? Let me know, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK then, thank you for identifying that important problem and fixing it, I am very grateful. Good job! NancyHeise (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my copyright violation for an image

Hi Andrew,

a few days ago you send me a message telling me that i've been doing a copyright violation. to this incident I am apologize to you and also to the Wikipedia team. I am so sorry. I give you my word, that i have no idea that what i'm doing is actualy a copyright violation. I am a new user to Wikipedia, and i've just made my account a few months ago. I saw a feature wich made me able to put an image in Wikipedia page. Since i'm a new user i was curious about this, so i tried it. I thaught it's gonna be like every other site wich I can put my image in. So i am sorry for this missunderstood, wich is my fault. For the image itself, I got it from a video preview of the movie. I captured the image then edited it myself (i just wanna use it as a test) so yes, i do not have the actual copyright for it. So basically, i just wanna try the feature on Wikipedia. If my action causes so many trouble, once again I said I'm sorry.

I hope this kind of incident would never happens again.

Regards.

Wiki-guy15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-guy15 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One question, one proposition

Probably External Links in Codex Sinaiticus needs some correction. I divided into two groups. And proposition. From time to time I work on List of New Testament uncials, and this List will complete (I use Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions and To The Theory and Practice Of Modern Text Criticism, 1995, Grand Rapids, Michigan). It will no longer "List of named or notable uncial codices", but 'complete List'. There is one problem, after codex 045 two boxes are empty ('Sign' and 'Name') and they will empty. What we shall do? Maybe it will better to divide into two tablets (from 01 to 045 nad from 046 to the end). It is only proposition, I will not change it without your acceptation. I am not sure is it my proposition is good. After your decision I will do the same in polish wikipedia. This list will complete in his time. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Thank you for your kind warning. However, if you are following BRD, then note the R, in that you have been reverted. I noticed you have followed D in BRD, and I've responded in kind. Your bold removal has been reverted for the reasons listed on talk. (Clarify, please note I refer to you making the bold move since your removal came after previous discussion related to this matter further up the talk page; Wallace information replaced a different quote objected to by two editors. Therefore, your warning was unwarranted as you walked in and changed an end result of a discussion, then warned me for reverting your BRD changes.). --Faith (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You did not "revert"; you removed text you disagreed with. There is a big difference, sorry. The text existed as the result of a discussion you didn't participate in, so it was your bold move to take it out, which was reverted once and discussion was responded to with reasons for the revert. Thank you. --Faith (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is my final reply to you on this subject. You did not participate in any discussion regarding any sort of addition or removal of that part of the article until you removed the text that was already in place. I performed a Wikipedia:1RR#One-revert_rule of that removal, a single revert to your bold removal of the text. Therefore, you did B, I did R, and we are both doing D on the talk page. Now, further discussion on the talk page is not only acceptable, it's necessary and I'll be happy to discuss further the changes you propose to the article. However, I don't appreciate the false warning, and continued debate, so any further discussion on that matter will have to involve an administrator. Thank you --Faith (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly; as you are involved in the situation, your admin title has no bearing as you are acting as just another editor in this particular situation. You could hardly pass censure against yourself, unless you are into self-flagellation, which presents far worse concerns than need to be addressed here :) I think you simply misunderstood and misrepresented the situation; discussion is revealing we are basically on the same page, or can at least meet in the middle. --Faith (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK Update

Hi Andrew. The next DYK update is overdue and (I think!) ready to go. If you're online would you mind uploading it? Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 15:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been done now. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking

It may be necessary to semi-protect several pages. See , 172.163.14.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 172.135.27.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 172.167.255.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 172.164.36.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 172.135.41.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Those are all from today but it might be a good idea to wait a couple of days and see which other articles they like. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Institute_for_New_Testament_Textual_Research

Someone renamed this article 8 times: Revision history of Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image issues

I don't know what tag to add can you help? Liguria (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The artist is called Giovanni Maria dell Piane, Image: Giovanni Maria delle Piane.jpg, Private, GPL, no note, the image cam from Italian wikipedia as sourced. The Painting is from the 17th century, so more than a hundred years old, how can you help?

I also have a problem with Image: Female_Goddess.jpg and I need to find the right tag for it too, can you help? Thank You. Liguria (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

but we have the permission from the author and the permission to upload it on wipedia as it was uploaded for the Khmer sculpture article. The image has no copyright and we have the permission to put it. So can you help us to clear this mistake so that the image can stay. It was a self image before it was published in a catalogue. Can you help? Liguria (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Female_Goddess.jpg My relative photographed this image myself but it was also published in the Espiritualidad del vacio catalog. and I can permit you to keep it on wikipedia. can you clear this error, mistake please? Liguria (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So do I just have to wait, should I upload a different image??? Liguria (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the Image:Giovanni Maria delle Piane.jpg what about the source, it came from Italian wikipedia, so is the image still safe? Liguria (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Revelation Link?

Why do you persist in deleting a link to a scholarly and professional presentation of the book of Revelation? The linked page provides material that is thoroughly devoted to the understanding of the book of Revelation with 18 PowerPoint presentations resulting in around 1000 charts dealing with numerology, authorship, dating, extra-biblical quotes of the "church fathers" and more. It is not promoting some personal website but is a link filled with professional grade material by an organization that provides it freely. Is it merely a bias on your part as you clearly allow links to "sermons" by other men? Why the double standard Andrew? Just curious.

• Research Revelation Via PowerPoint Numerology, dating, authorship, early quotations and textual research

Stevenjwallace (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL

Please note that 20 articles were deleted without any consultation or discussion by Mango. I am extremely angry that you describe my reaction to that as "disruption". I want an immediate apology; retraction and removal of the remarks from the page where you made them. Sarah777 (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad edit summary.

My edit summary for this was not thought out properly. "Can refer" was actually fine. If you prefer it, either of us can revert and I'll abide. Blackworm (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

Please don't remove ALL of the logos. Not all of them are incorrect. For example; in the image Image:Martha logo.svg, the type face was a direct trace over, and did not involve an actual font whatsoever. The font was overlayed, edited to match each specific path, and made as an exact copy of the logo. Just because I uploaded it, doesn't means it's wrong. In fact, most of them are correct. Especially since most are traced directly from the bitmap version of the files. And I have no idea how the colors would have differed, referring to your comment on the other page, considering there is a "pick colors" tool, i.e. the eye dropper button that gets the same exact color... CoolKid1993 (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gospel Harmony

Care to comment on this? (note my comment above, to which he is responding) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

FAC has restarted, if you would like to vote, please go here [1] Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] editing a page

hey Andrew,

could you tell me more about how and what should i do, if i wanna put a picture in a Wikipedia page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-guy15 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image Policy

You actually answer my question quite well and detailed, for that I thank you

but i'm still confused

if I dont have a licence for the image, I cant put it on Wikipedia right ? because that would be a violation

so what do I have to do to get the licence ?

I mean, I cant just pick an image from Flickr and put it on Wikipedia cant I ?

-i hope i dont disturb you for my question, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-guy15 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image Licence

So I found this image on Flickr, wich contain the BY licence:

www.flickr.com/photos/sgt_spanky/2470700936/

and according to your explanation, then I am free to upload it on Wikipedia am I right ?

if I want to upload it, then what is the next procedure do I have to take ? ( I dont want to repeat the same mistake i've did previously )

-Thank you for your explanation and help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-guy15 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Screenshot

hey Andrew,

what if I have an image from a movie screenshot and I uploaded it and i choose the "Movie Screenshot Licence", then I added the information about where I get it, and who is the creator, is this still a violation ?

Thank you for your time,Wiki-guy15 (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

Hi, I would like to bring to your attention the page Girly-pop. If you look at the page you will see that it is completely un-encyclopedic and consists of unverified assumptions of a colloquial term. I tried to get it deleted several times but it has so far failed. Also the person who created the page has been using several sockpuppets (first from an IP address and then to another alias such as IiiiiiiiiiiiiSEXIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii to make edits, as well as making personal attacks on my talk page. --SilverOrion (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Hermits of Saint Bruno Page

The Hermits of Saint Bruno are listed in the Official Traditional Catholic Directory under Religious Orders (P 115). Preview of book can be seen here: http://books.google.com/books?id=giA8iihQAT8C&printsec=frontcover&sig=x0lniO29urnVG5zrbE7ZUasp0Gc&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=0_1 or one can just be purchased.

Beside myself in the Diocese of Orlando, there is a Hermit of Saint Bruno who was just recognized on Wednesday, June 4th by Cardinal Archbishop Sean O’Malley. The occasion is the celebration of a Mass of Consecration for a man who wishes to take perpetual vows as a religious hermit for the Archdiocese of Boston. That man is Brother Benedict Joseph Connelly. (Which was one of the listed Hermitages). I just found an online Catholic Bulletin to use as reference. can be read here: http://parishbulletin.com/Bulletins/1096/060108MaryNewton.pdf

I had planned to add the Diocese of each hermitage that has been Canonically recognized by either Canon 603 or are a Consecrated Religious, as I am. But I was writing the Fraternity to see if I could get a list of all recognized hermitages. As you can imagine this takes time since I am the only hermit within the fraternity with permission to have computer access.

If the page could be returned I will add the reference to the Catholic Directory and the Consecration Notices of the hermits from the Dioceses as I find them online. I can reference Benedictine and M.I. documents for myself as well, but they are hardcopy and not online. And more references will appear like a link to my hermitage in the Orlando Diocese.

If you are able to return the deleted page I will slowly build on it. I leave it in God's hands.

Thank you for your time. Regardless of your decision, God Bless you. Rev. Michael Anthony, H.S.B., D.D. (talk) 21:31 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manuscripts and categories

That is fine.

I found them in a very full "Category:Ancient Roman Christianity" and sought a more specific category for them.

As I under stand you, you won't mind leaving manuscripts in "Ancient Christian texts" if they are manuscripts of works later than the New Testament books.

"Category:Ancient Christian texts" is within "Category:Christian texts" and "Category:Ancient Roman Christianity" --Carlaude (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Example-- Codex Hierosolymitanus

Non-manuscript example-- Canons of Hippolytus

I agree on all points except that until there is a "proper manuscript category" I think it better to have any in "Ancient Christian texts" than not. This one at least make clear from the name it is a particular manuscript. --Carlaude (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hermits of Saint Bruno

Would you please take a look at the page at User:Carthusian hermit/Hermits of Saint Bruno and see if it meets the standards for publication. I am still a long way from completing the page and have written the appropriate organizations for permission to list other hermitages.

I hav elisted some of the parish and diocese bulletins that list the HSB and/or their hermits.

Please list any deficiencies that you see. This way I can see if I am on the correct path, before I continue to work on the page. Thank you for your time. God Bless you. Rev. Michael Anthony, H.S.B., D.D.--Carthusian hermit (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

{NEW} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carthusian hermit (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to continue to work on the Hermits of Saint Bruno. But how is Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and all its associtaed orders that have pages valid when HSB have more references, multiple diocese support and is older than their organization. I just want to know so I can look for what is required to meet all regulations. They do not even have one reference when we have many. I know you do not count those published by the Church, but at least we have those. Thank you, I plan to get back to work on the page when released from hospital. Then I can start to look through archival newspaper articles and such.

I pray you enjoy your vactaion. --Carthusian hermit (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Task force recruitment

Hi, I'm commenting here because I worked with you on emergency contraception, and you seem familiar enough I think I've seen you on other birth control, articles, too. I've proposed a task force to provide a discussion place for articles on methods of birth control, and was hoping you would be interested in joining. If you're interested, please add your name to the proposal: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great work at Misogyny

Good on you for being consistent in upholding the policies at Misogyny. It's a thankless task. Although I'd let many of the edits stand myself, I really only have that luxury because someone is willing to accept some degree of conflict. I'm just feeling a little tired playing the same role myself at other articles, so I thought I'd drop you a note to say at least I appreciate what you're doing. Your actions do reflect what the wider community would like someone to be doing at the page.

I've read a fair bit of Millet, by the way. She's fun to read, however, she sounds exactly like any unsourced POV editor at Wiki. Were it not for the fact that she was published and has been very widely cited, we could not accept her comments at Wiki. The edits you keep removing "sound" exactly like Millet, it's precisely the sort of thing she would say. However, you're quite right, unless someone has actually said these things, we can't actually accept them.

Before writing up Millet, I want to find more tightly argued feminist text. Naomi Wolf strikes me as a suitable source. I actually like her as a person, though I disagree with many of her ideals. Her televised interview with Harvey Mansfield is just outstanding (link at Manliness). Alastair Haines (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Geist screenshot - rat possession.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Geist screenshot - rat possession.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Detective Megan Wheeler (Julianne Nicholson).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Detective Megan Wheeler (Julianne Nicholson).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deleting talk page comment

Andrew, I did not review everything on Biblical Inerrancy, but are you deleting another editor's comment from the discussion page? Unless it is highly offensive, which I did not see, what is the reasoning? It seems like a strange action for you that surprises me. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my question. No much after I added this question I found myself deleting a rather long diatribe on a discussion page for the Bible regarding Obama. Shortly after that I read your comment on Faith's home page; I should have just read everything first or kept my mouth (fingers) quiet. Cheers! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is going on..

Apparently you like to follow me around and warn me on my talk page when you don't like something I've done. This is what.. the 3rd time you've run into me? Whatever, I'm not assuming bad faith.. yet. You seem to have a problem with my edits. Quite frankly, I'm flattered. Perhaps you would understand what I was doing after reading my replys. When I see a troll like that, who has an agenda, what do you expect? For the sake of the article, it's better if he doesn't edit at this point. I was referring specifically to the Criticism of Christianity article, and my intention was not to bite, or scare the guy. He can edit whatever he wants. But until he gets a grasp on our policies and guidelines, handling a topic that he feels particularly strong about is not a good idea. You saw his comment.. that kind of attitude has no place here. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly didn't recall warning you all the way back in January (and it seems I have only edited your talk page 2 times, so I'm unclear what this third run-in you are referring to is). Both instances, you edited articles that are on my watchlist. We may share similar interests or it could be coincidence, but your implied accusations of wikistalking are unfounded. I want to make it clear I wasn't trying to put you on the spot or make you feel bad or scold you or anything. I just wanted to say "It isn't nice to discourage new editors for editing". If you think I am out of line, please go to WP:ANI and ask an uninvolved admin to review my behavior. As for the anon, I guess we disagree on whether they are a troll or not. It isn't clear to me that they were editing in a disruptive fashion. It is always better in my opinion to assume good faith and try to steer new users towards a path to becoming a productive editor. Anyway, good luck in the future, and I'm sure our paths will cross again (it is a small world).-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh.. I don't really think you're stalking me, per se, I just thought something was off with your tone.. and maybe, just maybe, there is something behind that. The third encounter I'm referring to is that human rights template thing. I think we both agree with respect to the anon, we just differ on how we would treat the situation. Whatever, I'm passionate about Wikipedia, and I can get a bit carried away sometimes. This civility stuff comes up every now and then on my talk page :P --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inline Citation Help

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the help on the inline citation re: 2nd Temple Period in Ancient Israel (Ezra). Regards, Rcjavid (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deleting categories

Thanks your note.

I do not think I was not aware of speedy criteria at WP:CFDS.

Assuming I do this and such next time how do I get someone to care it out-- I mean the bot moving the categories in articles once the deletion goes through.

I have come across things like Category:Apostle John where they did go thru the full discussion and agreed to delete/rename -- but no one had done it, or even part of it.--Carlaude (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move Que me quedes tú

Y Done

Hey there, I would like to ask you a favour of moving the page Que me quedes tú to its official title of Que Me Quedes Tú, thanks a lot =) Kotakkasut (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early Versions

I think we need to create a new section in New Testament - Early Versions of New Testament, and articles about Syriac Versions of New Testament, Coptic Versions etc. Of course we have Coptic versions of the Bible (but not Syriac versions of the Bible), and there is some problem. I can not write about Old Testament, it is not my field (I have not books). I know nothing about Coptic translations of Old Testament. I think, it will better if we will write separate articles for Old and New Testament. Articles will more clear, and we will have not complications with translation of translations (i.e. translations of Septuagint). For now I want create article "Syriac Versions of New Testament". Coptic maybe in October or November. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim and vandalism

Andrew, given these two edits (http://en.wikipedia.orgindex.php?title=Shituf&diff=223539106&oldid=223537299, http://en.wikipedia.orgindex.php?title=Shituf&diff=223539293&oldid=223539106), would you please warn Tim on his talk page not to persist in his vandalism? Thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides here. Tim, at worst, may have been editing to prove a WP:POINT, but I don't think his edits qualify as "vandalism". You yourself used the "undo" function 7 times in 25 hours. Anyway, the article is protected so that neither one of you can do damage. Be glad that you guys haven't been blocked for 3RR. And try to play nice and work together on the talk page. Good luck to you both (seems like you'll need it ;p)-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus reached on Shituf - Please unprotect

Hi Andrew. Tim and I have reached a consensus on the Shituf article. You can view the consensus at Talk:Shituf#Let.27s_Keep_This_Simple.2C_for_everyone.27s_sake. It consists of the version here, with the first paragraph changed to this:

Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.

And with a See Also section that includes Trinitarianism, Arianism and Tritheism.

If you unlock the page, we can make that edit and be done. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Authorship

Oh. I didn't notice that. I'll merge the two sections together as soon as possible. --WKPEditor (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the sources used in the previous authorship section are sufficiently scholarly. For example who is "Francis Write Beare"? So, I am a bit skeptical about merging the two sections directly. --WKPEditor (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. I searched in google for "Francis Write Beare" and couldn't find anything useful. --WKPEditor (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: institutional use

Hi, Andrew!

I am involved with School of Our Lady, (I am a teacher there,) but I was not entering the information officially or at the request of administration. I was not aware that involvement with the school results in disqualification. If I had not registered my username as schoolofourlady (I just did that so I wouldn't forget my username) would that have made a difference? How would anyone know the details of what had happened if he or she had not had some connection with the school? I see that you are on vacation, (hope you enjoy yourself) but I hope to hear from you soon. By the way the name of the church is Immaculate Heart of Mary, (Not Blessed Virgin Mary.)

Thanks,

Jean Bullock "schoolofourlady" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolofourlady (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why change?

Why did u change the information, in the page about Kim Kirchen?. In a interview. Kim Kirchen says, that he got his name after the former danish cyclist Kim Andersen. Kim Andersen is a good friend with Kirchens dad, and Kim Andersen are also living in Luxembourg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.117.241 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Abortion debate

Hi. Please either delete the above or rename Template:AbortionDebate-horizontal to it, as I goofed while intending to do the latter. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Damage? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is a centralized discussion required? What's controversial?
  Why not go to the trouble of updating links on non-article pages?
  Why not remove redirects that aren't in the spirit of the Manual of Style? While these redirects remain, they're noise that may (and, I strongly suspect, are) picked up by newcomers, i.e. they can be misleading examples that newcomers may follow.
  What damage? Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin Birth

Actually I stopped at 2 revisions and made a specific request for discussion at the talk page. I appreciate the warning but I was well aware of the guideline and followed it accordingly. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right,. there were three reverts. That other one was for fixing my own mistake, no argument necessary, that's a simple fact. But the fact is that there was an ongoing discussion, and new uninformed people were deleting the material that was the topic of that discussion. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Sorry

Excuse me by my vandalism --Pablo323 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture in Communion

Hi, I know that the fellow who added this book to 5 different Wikipages was doing a commercial plug - he is probably the author and was looking for royalties! But in fairness, it is a relevant book for church architecture and I am going to buy it now that he pointed it out, because it does discuss the topic of the article. I looked it up on Amazon, and it is worth buying. If you don't mind, I will add it back. Thanks History2007 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok that is a good idea. I will make it further reading. Thanks Andrew. History2007 (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

I noticed you were doing some work with the Chicago gangs article and have a totally unrelated question for you. I recently came across the article Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. How exactly can we have an entire article devoted to critism and not violate WP:BLP? I just put a speedy deletion tag on the article, but I must be missing something, as this article had been around a while. I would appreciate the thoughts of an admin. Asher196 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Explain this to me

I changed it(list of chicago gangs articale) to list all the gangs in the midwest so I just have one simple question why is it that some of the gangs that you do get rid of all the time HAVE ARTICALES and are in the mid west mainly MS-13 and some other gangs the fact they are in the mid west can be verified if you look at there wikipedia articales —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insert account (talk • contribs) 02:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to WikiProject Typography

Hello! You are invited to join the WikiProject Typography, a recently founded WikiProject, which aims at improving articles related to typography. We could need some assistance in getting the ball rolling. Kind regards, — Tirk·fl ^“…” 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intact Dilation and Evacuation (Partial-Birth Abortion) Deletions

Hah, I am sure Lyrl's own biases and opinions have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she deleted my posts on partial-birth abortion. Interestingly, you could say the clinical description i posted was redundant; however, the personal eye-witness description was not redundant. In the supreme court's ruling they included a clinical description such as the one listed, then a clinical description by Martin Haskell, and finally an eye-witness description given by the nurses... The SUPREME COURT of the US considered these all worthy of inclusion in their opinion because they offer a different perspective on the procedure! I also think it inappropriate to say that the articulate statements based on CONGRESSIONAL FACTFINDING are not worthy of being included in this page. I mean you honestly think I or some other wikipedia poster can word something better then the US Supreme Court or Congress? Certainly not. I must remind you that Gonzales V. Carhart is specifically in reference to Intact D&E. It's not just some random court case... and in my opinion these cases are some of the best collections of information on the topic. Better then most obstetrics textbooks in fact. May God forgive us for allowing and doing little to nothing about the medical slaughter of millions of American Children in ways that we would not see fit to slaughter livestock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuter1000 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roe v Wade

Your recent reversions are blatantly POV. They basically assume feminist/liberal = pro-choice, and this is clearly wrong. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In the section in question, we cite William Saletan, John Hart Ely, Laurence Tribe, Jeffrey Rosen, Michael Kinsley, Benjamin Wittes, Cass Sunstein, Alan Dershowitz, and Kermit Roosevelt, among others. Your edit says that these scholars are pro-choice. How can I verify that each and every one of those cited scholars are pro-choice? Have you done that research? If so, you need to add citations so that the readers can verify that the section is indeed about pro-choice liberals and feminists. We just can't add adjectives to whole sections without further citation for verification purposes. Hope this helps. My edit had nothing to do with POV or assumptions, simply that you added unsourced content. Please follow basic wikipedia policies in the future if you want to contribute content. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Still, something must be done. The section as it is has a air of "...and this is why people who support abortion being legal can oppose Roe v Wade...". Pro-life leberals and feminists are left out. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Abortion

Dear Andrew, Many thanks for your kind message. I took all information from the following source.

Battleground - Women, Gender, and Sexuality Edited by Amy Lind and Stephanie Brzuzy, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut • London. ISBN 978–0–313–34037–6 (set : alk. paper), 2008, pages 3-4

I have an Ecopy of this book, and I can send you these two pages if you so require. Can you please do me a favor and add these references on your own. I am rather new to these things and do not know how exactly to add references. Furthermore, I have also forgotten which entries I added.

Many thanks.

Anil Aggrawal Anil1956 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion Arguments

Hi Andrew, You previously removed the section I added to the abortion argument page (incomplete information). I'm not sure about the process of editing that particular page, but I added it back with better references and tried to make it as unbiased as possible. I think that if those two arguments are removed, the abortion debate that is available on wikipedia is very narrow in the perspectives it offers. Both of the arguments I have posted are common propositions and neither are discussed in the abortion debate. If you don't like the form in which I've added them, then perhaps we can work together to incorporate those arguments into the page so that it is a more comprehensive debate. I'm happy for people to add to my points and offer contrasting views. I'm not aware of any contrasting arguments that aren't already covered (i.e that stray off in a different direction). ive added them to the discussion section of the 'abortion debate' page where i've asked for any feedback from people to make these points suitable for posting. i intend on having them in the abortion debate page and not just deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopial (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misogyny

Well picked with that edit to misogyny. Being a tad distracted at the moment I didn't look closely—"man made" and "pre-Islamic"! Perhaps I read it as saying that Islam incorporates into its legislation laws, deemed by the author, to be misogynistic. The author may have been wishing either: to express a view that the Qur'an did not come from Allah to Muhammed but reflects pre-existing culture (as much as saying anything about misogyny); or to avoid challenging Muhammed's part in the process beyond endorsing what was already a norm.

If there is a reasonable interpretation of the author that incorporation was part of the intended meaning it might be fair to let the edit stand. Others do charge Islam with misogyny. There's enough unsourced, undue and POV text floating around in the lower half of the article, that it might be perceived as a little unfair to reject higher quality, even if imperfect, contributions.

Anyway, I'll check the source if I can. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! No need, I see you've done well. That's a great quote for that POV. My only thought is that a new editor made a good faith edit with a useful source and might not understand "cherry picked". Alastair Haines (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the reference (thanks for noting I left it out). I intended on writing more in my edit summary, but they only give us a small amount of space to type. I guess that's what talk p