User talk:Afaprof01/Archives/2007/01-10

Images listed at WP:CP
The following images:


 * Image:UMHB IN FLOWERS.jpg
 * Image:UMHBIndepOrigBldg.jpg
 * Image:IndependenceBaylorFemaleCollege Ink.jpg
 * Image:UMHBMAYBORNCTR.JPG
 * Image:UMHBEntry marker.jpg
 * Image:UMHBFootball.jpg
 * Image:RUINCHAP.JPG
 * Image:UMHBCru.jpg
 * Image:UMHBParkerCenter.jpg

have been listed as possible copyright violations at Copyright problems/2006 December 12/Images. If the administration of the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor has in fact released them into the public domain or under a free license, please have them contact permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org to confirm that they have done so. Thank you, --RobthTalk 03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

UMHB article
I apologize for my tone in my edit summary; I was overly harsh. To explain my statement: the text that I removed contained a great number of sections copied from other web pages, mostly from the University's site. This alone made it unsuitable for inclusion. Regarding the tone issue: you may wish to examine our neutral point of view policy. The content that I removed read like promotional, not encyclopedic, material. Expansion of the article would be welcome and useful, but it must be compliant with our content policies. I have restored the infobox and the geolink to the article; you are welcome to continue working on it, but please remember that Wikipedia's aim is to provide neutral, encyclopedic content. --RobthTalk 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive, not delete
You should archive items from your talk pages, not just delete them. See WP:ARCHIVE. --MECU ≈ talk 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Weatherly.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Weatherly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A/an historical
Please see my comment about your edit to Bible at Talk:Bible. The reason for changing "a historical" to "an historical" is unclear to me. Is this a regional variation, or is it mentioned by styleguides? Thanks. --Strangerer 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * History is pronounced by some with an /h/ and by others without an /h/. And often both ways by the same people, in different contexts. And so is historical. But the -ic(al) suffix is a stress-shifter; when it's added to a root the stress moves rightward one syllable (hístory vs históric, autómata vs automátic, térrify vs terrífic, etc). That in turn means the first syllable becomes unstressed, and in unstressed syllables in English there's a much higher likelihood of dropping /h/. Typically, one says/writes "a history professor" because the /h/ in "history" is generally pronounced. In contrast, the most proper is to say "an historical novel because the /h/ gets dropped usually so it becomes: "an -istorical" with a silent h. Thanks for expressing your concern. Obviously it's not a monumental error to be dealt with--it's more at the level of fine-tuning.Afaprof01 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I didn't stop by to say "thanks" earlier. I was confused and you clarified it perfectly. Thanks a lot! :) --Strangerer (Talk) 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. It was great that you asked about it. Several times since then I've seen "An Historical" in huge print on the cover of a book somewhere, which made me think of you. But I've also occasionally seen it with an "A". I enjoy seeing your WikiName and good edits on articles that apparently we're both interested in. I appreciate your good and conscientious work.Afaprof01 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! About changes to Christian Views About Women
Thanks for the changes made in Christian Views About Women. If I'm not mistaken, you're the one who added the extensive account of Jesus' interactions with women. While I think these sections could be really useful, they need to conform to Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and citation of sources. Wikipedians are not supposed to include their own opinions or interpretations of texts (including the Bible)--if you believe something should be included in an article, please find someone who has published that point (preferably in a peer-reviewed journal) and directly quote or paraphrase them with an appropriate citation. Thanks again for the changes! I've been touching them up with these two guidelines in mind. Please feel free to return to the article to make these changes yourself. Pschelden 22:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down." Thanks for taking the time to write the warm, encouraging, explanatory note above. I really appreciate it. As I have time, I'll work on it. Afaprof01 03:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely welcome. Here's an article that could be useful regarding the things I mentioned before: WP:OR. Pschelden 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the editor took out more than was necessary, but I'm glad the editor took the time and trouble to write you about it. So few do that, which makes it discouraging for the writer. Thank you for your efforts to document how Jesus treated women. That truly is the bottom line to this article. So don't be discouraged, ya hear??? I'll be glad to help in any way. CME GBM 03:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank Stagg
I thought you should know I added a new page for Frank Stagg and put some of your biographical information there. The page needs lots of cleaning up--I don't even know Stagg's DOB or death, so any information you could add would be very helpful here. Thanks! Pschelden 19:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I had not thought of it. I'll be glad to add to it.Afaprof01 01:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette of Austria
Hi there, welcome! I'd just like to ask you to be a bit more careful when editing; you inadvertently duplicated the content of Marie Antoinette of Austria in your most recent edit.

As well, I notice you changed many Commonwealth spellings in the article, such as "honour", "spiralled", "colour" etc. to their American equivalents. See Manual_of_Style for the policies on this; the jist is that neither American nor Commonwealth spelling is "official" unless we're talking about a subject relevant to a region with a particular preference (e.g. an American congressman gets American spelling; an Australian prime minister gets Commonwealth spelling). In this case, no clear connection exists, so the manual of style suggests you leave the existing spelling as is. --Saforrest 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My sincerest apologies. Afaprof01 01:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian views about women
I reverted your last edit to this article, because it looked like you accidentally saved just a single section (Mary Magdalene), accidentally blanking the page. Just wanted to give a heads-up and let you know why I undid that edit.--AgentCDE 05:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP Christianity
Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Afaprof01, thanks for signing up for the task forces, and thanks for the kind words! We'd love to have your input on Conversion to Christianity and Historical Jesus in particular, as they're our very first two official peer reviews by WP Christianity.  Glad to have you on board!  Nswinton\talk 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes
there's no need to chage the syle fo apostrophes en masse as you did in Lord's Prayer, either style is acceptable - see WP:MOS. An article probably ought to be internally consistent, but otherwise there is no need to change from one version to the other. David Underdown 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did indeed miss the fact that that edit included other changes. On reviewing it again, I see that your apostrophe changes also affected the inter-wiki links - the articles that these links are now pointing to may not even be valid.  Could you change at least those back again.  David Underdown 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll check them. The problem comes from my using an outside editing program, as do many other editors, and then pasting the results into Wiki editor. Since editing in Wiki editor only produces straight quotes (non-curly), I've set my outside editor to do the same. Am not sure where the curlys got it, but obviously it was somehow my doing. Thanks for your sharp eyes and observant checking! Should you observe this again in any of my work, please let me know. I'm trying for the consistency you mentioned. Re: "for ever"--I used the CBP punctuation, capitalization, and spacing from the earlier quote of it in this article. I have no way to verify if it's incorrect in the 3-col comparisons. If it is, please change it both places. I'd welcome any other suggestions/ideas from you. With appreciation, Afaprof01 13:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC) uh....make that "4-col."Afaprof01 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just checked Wiki links. They work fine both ways apparently. All links containing apostrophe in the article work. Afaprof01 14:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Baptist women in ministry, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Whpq 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BWIM logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:BWIM logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BWIM logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BWIM logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello?
Hi, I'm new here and I was looking for some christian friends to help me out in a time of need. I looked up Baptist and saw you did a lot of changes. If I need help is it ok to talk to you? Sorry, Pianoloverizme 04:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely YES. Thank you for asking. I suggest my personal e-mail: AFAProf01@AOL.com. Look forward to hearing from you. Afaprof01 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

External link
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. El_C 15:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You do not appear to be part of the biblewalk.com spamming efforts, so I retract the above. That said, the website has been deemed as advertising spam and I may move to add it to the blacklist in the near future. Many thanks in advance. El_C 16:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

DELETING THE SANDBOX TEMPLATE
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

Why so bitter?
Why are you so embittered regarding the SBC? Eugeneacurry 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk page edits
Why are you editing someone else's user page? You should know better, right? You are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page, but for the future, please do not make disruptive edits to another's user page. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please discuss your changes to Jesus on the talk page? You are welcome to make a new proposal there, but I believe it is premature to just add a new version without discussion because a) there was a discussion about another wording already taking place and b) your proposal is problematic because it has awkward self-references. I implore you to please discuss things on at Talk:Jesus. I'm sure we can arrive at a wording that we can all live with.-Andrew c [talk] 05:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Baptism of Christ
Your edits to Baptism of Christ with AWB included the changing of several filenames, which delinked the images. Please be more careful using automated editing tools in the future, and ensure that the edits you make are sensible ones. Semi-automated tools do not replacement human judgement, which is still desperately needed with tools like AWB. Cheers, Wily D 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your nice note. My apologies for not being more careful with the dash conversions. Am glad you "caught" them. Afaprof01 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

BFM edit
Thank you for restoring the reference, which I had not intended to delete when I made my edit. -- Orange Mike 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (formerly SB, now Quaker)
 * You're welcome. That's an easy thing to do (accidentally delete a reference). And I appreciated your deletions. Afaprof01 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

wikEd edits
I noticed your edits to Christian views of Jesus. You had inserted the text "|NIV" after every template. Needless to say, there were a bunch of templates that do not need that text after it, so I removed that. Also, my personal preference is to allow the user to choose what version, instead of forcing them to use NIV or KJV or whatever. I then say your automated edits at Ordination of women. You inserted spaced between every unordered list and title, which isn't necessary. I have reverted the edits there because of the spacing issue. Please consider tweaking your configurations, or at least manually checking the edits if you are going to be using automation in the future. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding and correcting the glaring (and serious) errors on template refs in Christian views of Jesus. I have fixed the spacing issue in Ordination of women. I could see the extra Enter-key codes in edit mode, but never could see them in Preview either in MSIE or Mozilla Foxfire, since Wiki Browser generally ignores unnecessary Enter-key codes. Therefore, is it really an issue if it displays correctly in Browser mode?


 * When a version is specified, Bibleref brings up BibleGateway.com, a user-friendly interface. When no version is specified, it brings up http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au which has no default version and requires the user to select from its list. I believe most users who click on the hyperlink want to see what the verse or passage says, and are not necessarily concerned with the version. Specifying one gives them instant display of the verse or passage. Changing to another version is a very simple matter, so it really does not force their choice except for initial display. Just my personal preference. Afaprof01 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Southern Baptist Convention
Your recent edits to Southern Baptist Convention are confusing to me. You talk about the "consequences of this decision" without specifying exactly what decision you mean. If the Southern Baptist Convention had an actively racist policy, you should probably state what it was. --Hyperbole 12:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look up a couple of paragraphs in the article: "Though the Triennial Convention and the Home Mission Society were theoretically neutral in regards to slavery, some Baptists in the South did not believe this assurance of neutrality. They knew several leaders who were engaged in abolitionist activity. To test this neutrality, Georgia Baptists recommended James E. Reeve, a slaveholder, to the Home Mission Society as a missionary in the South. The Society's board decided that they would not appoint a slaveholder as a missionary, a decision that the Baptists in the south saw as an infringement on their equal rights." "[T]his decision" was to break away from other Baptists in order to protest abolitionism and attacks on slavery and slaveholding by Northern Baptists. The present-day SBC agrees that this was sinful and actively racist in motivation. -- Orange Mike 17:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. The intervening three paragraphs make things a bit confusing.  "This decision" seems to refer to the decision to appoint William Bullein Johnson as president of the Convention, or to pattern the organization of churches after the association.  Perhaps a little reorganization would be in order.  --Hyperbole 21:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Hyperbole, for pointing out the lack of clarity. Thanks, Orange Mike, for unraveling it. I've put reorganization on my to-do list unless someone beats me to it. Afaprof01 04:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Special Unicode characters
You are changing regular 8-bit ASCII characters to special Unicode characters. For instance, you changed the hyphens to Unicode character x2013. In this edit of "I-35W Mississippi River bridge", you changed the encodings of all numbers and hyphens, break some URL's. Please do not do this.--76.221.184.185 09:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discovering this and reporting it to me. Off hand, I don't know which code is doing that. It's a new "phenomenon" that I'll look into soon. Afaprof01 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Misogyny in the SBC
While as a Christian and ex-Southern Baptist, I agree with you, this edit ("It serves also to further perpetuate the view that the Christian church in general continues a very long-standing tradition of being misogynistic") was a NPOV violation, and somebody else reverted it. -- Orange Mike 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I really didn't expect it to "fly." Thanks for the affirmation. --Afaprof01 21:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

John 3:16
You did a good job cleaning up John 3:16 - well done! - Fayenatic (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you VERY much. It's very nice of you to take the time to send this note of affirmation and encouragement. Afaprof01 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Trinity
Hey, why did you revert my edit here? Reading the edit summary has not provided any clues as to why you reverted my edit, which was an undo of text which was haphazardly deleted. I see that the subsequent edit essentially restores the text to the version I'd already reverted to. So... why did you revert my change?--C.Logan 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Logan, it was an error. My PC froze, and while trying to unfreeze it, I accidentally hit the save page icon. Then I couldn't get back online until a short time ago. My most sincere apologies. I know you to be a "good guy," and I believe we're on the "same page" about this article. I enjoyed your Home page. Afaprof01 02:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize- I was just curious about the reversion to an obviously flawed version. Thanks for the nice comments; I try my best here on Wikipedia. Glad you enjoyed my page as well.--C.Logan 07:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Creation-evolution controversy
Hello Afaprof01, you recently reverted an edit that I made to the “see also” section of Creation-evolution controversy, citing my addition as a “Nondistingushed; fringe ref ..”. I disagree with this characterization and your deletion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wikilink.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a parody religion created to make light of the “Teach the Controversy” concept, is notable and germane to the creation-evolution debate, having been directly borne out of the recent Kansas evolution hearings. FSM is more relevant to the current controversy than many of the (tangentially related) items currently on the “see also” list, and the corresponding Wikipedia article is much more comprehensive than the some of the other articles populating the list (which are basically stubs). FSM has generated considerable mention in the media (a small sample is included below) and other indicators point to a relatively high level of general notability, especially for a non-distinguished “fringe” reference.

FSM has also spawned a book, The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, with a high Amazon.com sales ranking (hovers around 2,000 out of 700,000) and a high-traffic Web site. Also, while certainly not the sole determining factor in deciding whether a phenomenon should be considered “fringe”, or “nondistinguished”, Google Web and News searches can be a good indicator of relative notability, especially when combined with over 2 years of press coverage in reliable sources:


 * “Flying Spaghetti Monster” 1,090,000 Google hits/12 Google News hits. Also, in a Google search of the initials “FSM”, the top three results are for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, much to the consternation of the Federated States of Micronesia (who have probably spent a fortune on SEO consultants).

Compare this notability to some items currently on the “see also” list:


 * Lysenkoism - 85,600 Google hits/0 Google News hits –only a tangential relationship to current origins debate.


 * Evolution Sunday – 21,000 Google hits/0 Google News hits -relevant, but barely notable.


 * Project Steve – 86,000 Google hits (most of which have no relation to the “Project Steve” linked from the article/0 Google News hits (disregarding a few for “project. Steve”)-again, relevant, but barely notable.


 * Jainism and non-creationism – I won’t even bother with a Google search because Jainism is only tangentially related to the current controversy discussed in this article.

Examples FSM in the news:


 * Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas. The Washington Post. 08-25-2005. Reprint of original “Open Letter to Kansas School Board” that began the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster


 * Religious group funding not ‘according to the gospel’. Badger Herald. 09-24-2007


 * But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There? New York Times. 08-29-2005


 * Bacteria turned into living photographs: Researchers program E. coli bug to act as film. MSNBC.com. 11-23-2005.


 * Religion Journal: Taking the Debate About God Online, and Battling It Out With Videos. New York Times. 02-17-2007.


 * 2005: IN A WORD; GLOSSARY New York Times. 12-25-2005 (FSMism is one of 11 buzzwords for 2005 considered worthy of mention)

So, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is: a) clearly not a “fringe” topic, b) a direct result of the creation-evolution controversy, c) clearly more germane to the topic than several items already on the “see also” list, and d) worthy of inclusion as the most salient topic of its kind (humor related to the origins debate).

I am assuming that you deleted the FSM link in error, or perhaps because you were not familiar with the subject and the word “spaghetti monster” raised vandalism red flags. However, a quick check of the linked article should have made it clear that this topic is related and should be on the list. Please try to be more careful with your edits in the future.

On this basis, I will add the link back to the “see also” section. Please do not revert my edit again. If you feel strongly that the link does not belong there, please raise the issue on the talk page. Thank you. —  DIEGO talk 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Diego, for your very courteous and complete rebuttal. Wow! What a great example of WP.CIV. I respect your opinion, and am glad to have you revert my deletion. Please accept my apology. You are a wonderful communicator. It was incredibly nice of you to take the time and effort to explain your position to me. Warmest regards...Afaprof01 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks —  DIEGO talk 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Death and resurrection of Jesus
You recently changed the "Tomb discovery" to say that the accounts converged on four, not two points. However, you didn't change the cited sources at the end of the section. I'm concerned that the content you added isn't found in the cited sources. I have access to "Setzer", and she doesn't use the word "stone" once, and I couldn't find the other content in "Setzer" either. I do not have access to Stagg's book though. I'm concerned that we are making it appear as if certain points are found in our sources when really they are not. I was wondering if you could clear this issue up. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 14:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing this error. That's very fine close scrutiny. I have Stagg but no longer have access to Setzer. Stagg:


 * Agreements in all four Gospels include (1) the linking of the empty tomb tradition and the visit of the women on "the first day of the week" (p. 150) (2) prominence of Mary Magdalene, (3) attention to the stone that had closed the tomb. (p. 147), (4) that the risen Jesus chose first to appear to women (or a woman) and to commission them (her) to proclaim this most important fact to the disciples, including Peter and the other apostles (p. 144). Therefore, I propose removing Setzer as a reference – unless you find any unique material in her article that you'd like to include. I'll wait to hear from you, or feel free to change it yourself.


 * I also notice that "(4)" appears duplicated in the succeeding paragraph. I'll delete it. Afaprof01 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail.
I apologize for taking so long to respond. I've been a little busier, but I'll get around to it soon enough.--C.Logan 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. This regarding the "Fall of the Angels" section I made. You can't just erase anything you want to. You don't know how hard it is to analyze information. I might have to turn you in if you do that again. It depends.--Angel David 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Mary (mother of Jesus)
Please be aware of WP:MOS, punctuation only goes inside the quote marks if it is actually part of the quoted text. David Underdown 09:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AIV
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again.  W ODU P  03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice edits
Those were nice edits to Katharine Bushnell today. It had been over a year since the last significant improvement to the article, and I was sure it had a lot more potential. GRBerry 03:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks VERY much. I appreciate the affirmation and encouragement. I was inspired by Dr. Kroeger's Priscilla Papers article that I came across today in an old personal file. Afaprof01 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

re:Need for protection
Because I watchlist the article, I won't protect the article myself due to a possible conflict of interest. I believe the level of vandalism isn't really enough to warrant indefinite semi-protection. I imagine the admin looking at the case will either decide there isn't enough IP vandalism, or they may semi-protect for a week or two. Yeah, sometimes vandalism slips under the radar for a bit, and it stinks when it happens (and it even stinks more when it's basically my fault for missing it, even though I had reverted other vandalism). Hopefully, this will be a wake up call. If things DO get worse, it can always be re-requested for an indefinite protection. We can also ask participants on the main Jesus article to please watchlist the article to help fight vandalism. Let's wait and see what a 3rd party admin thinks of your request. Thanks for contacting me regarding this situation.-Andrew c [talk] 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)