User talk:Andrew c/archive13

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 pages are for, eh? My point was the editor seemed to have pulled quotes and information that tried to make Islam look unfavorable as possible, even though the author defends Islam, and believes the misogyny is not from Allah, but instead man made and pre-Islamic culture (or so I gather). I'm not a big fan of quoting text, and maybe I'll read the source futher and write something more in depth in my own words. But my time has really been limited lately. Thanks for the input.-Andrew c [talk] 01:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Very nice work, and my second guess proved correct, then. The contributor of the source is to be congratulated too. It is an ideal source in that an author sympathetic to Islam conceeds some points here. I don't know Islam's internal workings well enough to know how representative of Islam she is; but we're not quoting her as representative of Islam, but as an expert on feminist theory applied to it, which she clearly is.
 * A missing link, at last!
 * Keep on track with your priorities, best wishes in all of them. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain
You can go ahead and upload a better version of McCain Thanks — Navy  Blue  03:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with Cite specifications and external links
This may sound very simple I have a friend who has contributed information to Wiki to make it better. How can I site his contributions without members of the team saying they are SPAM links? Pdbs (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Next update
I'm not sure if you're around at the moment, but the DYK next update is ready to go if you could switch it over? — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 12:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore that, it's already been changed over! Whoops! — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 12:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're invited...
...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome! This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Spammy DYK notice
HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note), DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :) ). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

List of New Testament papyri - Distribution based on content - data appears to be wrong?
Help - the following data appears to be wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#Distribution_based_on_content Please see my comment in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_New_Testament_papyri#Distribution_based_on_content Thanks, Mercury543210 (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Loveyourfaith
Despite receiving warnings on a regular basis, this user has continued to engage in disruptive editing. The user has also shown contempt towards the warnings by altering the messages that were left on his/her talk page. --SilverOrion (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pleinair and Usagi-san from Disgaea 2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pleinair and Usagi-san from Disgaea 2.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) 05:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA.  Nancy Heise    talk  00:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move of Chair (official) to Chairman
You've been involved in this subject in the past. Please look at Talk:Chair (official) for information about a current proposal. Lou Sander (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus
Finally you show up! I was about to give up - I haven't even been reverting Leadwind's edits - but I have been the only one questioning his approach. I have been at it for several days to no avail and hope you are willing to keep tabs of this for a while ... although frankly I think others need to get involved in this discussion too. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Taegyo
That's an interesting article. Definitely neutrality issues at the least.

Prenatal development is not an area I'm very familiar with, but this particular article doesn't look too difficult to clean up. I'll try to tackle it this weekend. LyrlTalk C 00:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic
I am enjoying the glad there is discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was enjoying this discussion, and the topic still fascinates me. But your wikiquette and seemingly lack of understanding of basic tenets of wikipedia has turned me off. I'm going to take a break from this for a couple days to cool off, and hopefully other users will give their opinions. If you have questions about how wikipedia works, I'd be glad to help you out. I'm not trying to belittle you or scold you. So I apologize if I cannot convey an appropriate tone over the internet. I'd like to help you, if you have questions about the core policies of Wikipedia. Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 22:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My stars, Andrew. I've been editing since 2004. I know how the Wikipedia works, thank you very much. I have disputed some of your specific assumptions regarding this topic. You seem to me to have been making it personal. It has not however been my intention to annoy you or to screw up the Wikipedia by adding inappropriate content regarding the typographic classification of Gaelic typefaces. And I do not believe that the content proposed is inappropriate. -- Evertype·✆ 15:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue that upset me the most is your edit warring. WP:BRD. If you make a bold edit, fine. If you get reverted in good faith, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do you re-add the disputed content. You wait for the discussion to play out. Then it's in the community's hands whether your new, proposed content gets accepted. When someone reverts a good faith 1st revert, it is, in my opinion, spitting on consensus and spitting on the community. You've been here since 2004? Then you should know better. A sign of good faith on your part would be to revert yourself (and remove the disputed content) while the discussion is still underway. Thanks for your consideration!-Andrew c [talk] 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What would a sign of good faith on your part be? You've gone and studied Uncial typefaces, which aren't actually Gaelic. Look, I could add dozens of examples to the Gaelic type article, showing the different shapes which led to my 2000 classification, But that expertise, if I understand you correctly, will be reverted because you will call it Original Research. It's not. It's entirely verifiable description. For someone who's actually got admin status, you are really doing quite a lot to drive off an expert. Please review WP:EXR. I am trying to do some good here. Yet you've accused me of "conflict of interest". Can't we do better? -- Evertype·✆ 01:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You said "The idea that there are three categories of western typography "Blackletter", "Roman", and "Gaelic" is simply fiction." I disagree, and you seem to have made no argument beyond "I've never heard of Gaelic and neither did some people who wrote generalized books on typography". Compare Finnish and Hungarian and Nenets. Two are famous Uralic languages. Everybody knows about them. That doesn't mean that Nenets is not a Uralic language. Just because Gaelic type is in the minority, does not mean that it is nevertheless a top-level class in western typography. Ireland is certainly in the west, and Irish letterforms, deriving from insular letterforms are certainly western, although they are not Carolingian. Everyone who has written about Gaelic type has distinguished it from Roman type, and no one who has written about it has equated it with Blackletter. Roman ≠ Gaelic ≠ Blackletter = three categories. Your assertion that it is "simply fiction" is unfounded and not backed up by evidence. -- Evertype·✆ 09:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not continue content discussions on my talk page. If that is what you think my argument boils down to, I'm ashamed of my articulation.-Andrew c [talk] 14:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What bothers me about your articulation is that you do not actually respond to any of the specific points I have made, and we are stuck with your assertions like "The distinction is simply fiction". :-( Maybe discussion elsewhere will do some good. But I have responded at great length to your assertions. -- Evertype·✆ 13:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Template
I use your Template:New Testament manuscript infobox, it is very usefull, but I do not undarstand one thing in it - hand. It is explaned <<(reformed) documentary ...>>, but if it is possible I want more comprehensive explanation. It is only one point of your template, which I did not use to the present day. Yes. And some suggestion. It maybe good, though I am not so shure, to add some colours to the template. F.e. three colours, for papyri colour which will imitate colour of papyrus leaves. Another colour for the manuscript written on parchment (uncials, some minuscules, and some lectionaries), and colour for the manuscripts written on paper (part of minuscules and lectionaries). Perhaps for purple parchment another colour (?). Thanks for your help in the beginning of my working on en-wiki. I have deceided to work here for several reasons. En-wiki is most important, it is an international wiki, and third reason: I am a cosmopolitan (several nationalities in me). I see you intend to create article Editing Text-type (biblical criticism) - very good idea. I want create "List of textual variants of Greek New Testament", or "Textual Variants of New Testament", but not now. We need more articles about manuscripts (especially about minuscules). With best regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User engaging in personal attacks against me, could you help?
Hello, I have been taking personal attacks by this user, SlamDiego who is constantly insulting my posts as being "verbose", is calling me "childish", and other remarks. He is angry at me over a debate I had with him at the article, Fascism, where I argued that Fascism was totalitarian, while he claimed it was authoritarian. I made a compromise and agreed that it could be authoritarian or totalitarian, however he remains very angry at me. He opened up an old discussion that was ended over whether Obama was a fascist simply to attack the point I made. I have asked him to calm down and have said that his earlier concerns were legitimate, but he continues to attempt to make me look bad and accuse me of malcontent. Look at what he says here "By all means, go ahead and try reporting me for personal attacks; what I have attacked is needless verbosity and transparent illogic. I'd be very amused if you reported me for personal attacks." He is not denying that he is engaging in negative attacks against me, but claims they are justified and is egging me on into a fight. He accuses me of being a type of user who trys "to hide their inadequacies by using lots of words". That is outright offensive of him to accuse me of being "inadequate" because I may use too many words. When I told once him to stop the personal attacks, he said this "It's no more a personal attack than telling an physical assailant to stop engaging in physical assault", that's accusing me of bad faith and an attempt to defame my character. I would appreciate if you could give him a warning to cease these vicious personal attacks against my character.--R-41 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be an ongoing dispute. There hasn't been active talk page discussion at Talk:Fascism between you two in days. Even the most recent discussion at User talk:SlamDiego seems mild (the tone was a little harsh, granted, but as long as it doesn't continue or get worse, I do not see any need for administrator intervention.) If the situation escalates, then please contact me again. But try to take measures to not reciprocate or escalate things yourself. Both of you should try to focus on content, not the character or other users, and try to move past this. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 00:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You might try explaining to R-41 that insulting theories about the motives of other editors are themselves personal attacks. He ought, as I think, at least to offer some evidence that makes his insulting theories better (qua explanations) than, say, the other persons wanting discourse to be reasonable and clearly expressed. ;-) —24.255.35.102 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I didnt vandalise the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Reign 56 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits removed
I've seen you removed my remarks on the number of the beast. As much as i agree that wikipedia is for the masses and understanding of the revelations is to the spirit of daniel. And that the masses cannot bear anything that god tells us. They couldn't understand god telling moses he knows that the pharao would harden his heart and that he would let it come to pass to judge the land of egypt. I hoped that anyone might come to some extended degree of knowledge. The thing they have created wikipedia for... But seemingly you decided that that was no knowledge the masses would interest. But the gamatria is......

I agree... God gives the spirit of daniel to some people which can comprehend what he has to teach them. and not all can carry with them the truth. Let them believe in this silly gamatria where god told us to riddle ourselves with numbers looking for the beast.

any way whatsoever. I'm not a wiki pirate like you and i don't ever wish to be one.. so i hope you have a nice life and god will bless those he deems capable of knowledge with the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.14.186 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexandros Grigoropoulos
Uh, yeah, I'm the one that requested editor intervention. In the meantime, I strove to maintain NPOV. So, thanks for helping, and you're welcome. -Ayeroxor (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

PS - You froze it at the edit of the person who was NPOV. Might want to check those articles before you freeze them. Once again, I'm left rolling my eyes and wondering why I bother...-Ayeroxor (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the reference to the petrol bomb. Despite being mentioned in the first reports as an 'official police statement', it was actually a leak that later proved to be false. It was the first account of the events as told by the police guard. In his statement to the court he makes no mention to a petrol bomb and refers being attacked by "rocks, bottles, and other objects."(he wouldn't obviously forget a petrol bomb, would he? This is reported by eleftheros tipos(mainstream, conservative newspaper ). The radio conversation records released by the police also disproves this claim as mentioned in this article by elefthorotipia(again mainstream, left-wing newspaper, 3rd paragraph reads "no molotovs were thrown, there was no danger, only minor damages to the police car"). Unfortunately I couldn't find any sources in english, but you can run the articles through google's translate or ask a greek-speaking admin to verify my translation. As you can understand, this defamatory remark is causing some stirrup among greek wikipedia readers. I hope you can accept that the whole claim is at least controversial, and remove it ASAP.79.103.215.60 (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Emergency contraception
The zenit source does mention emergency contraception : see end of part 2 on New forms of interception and contragestation. Read carefully, it talks about 2 things : new types of female contraceptives that are BEFORE conception (such as female condoms) and AFTER conception (such as morning after pills).

The part about moment of pregnancy is different, it does not come from the contemporary zenit source, but comes from the position taken in 1968 in Humane Vitae : Paul VI said rather clearly that life began at conception, and that it was wrong to separate sex from procreation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.225.194 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * why dont you include more detail of what is actually being stated... that would solve a lot of problems. I fix it.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning
I can offer no serious defence, having lost my cool over this issue more than once. JJJ999 has reverted 5 different editors. Not just myself. Dynablaster (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a complete lie, once those editors knew that they were reverting a content dispute they were fine with that. And one of those "editors" is a thinly disguised backup account for you (created under a week ago, and madly editing in the last few days whenever you're not online in a desperate attempt to gain a morsel of credibility).  Your backup accounts "edits" were actually vandalism btw, mass deleting all the content in dispute, so I wouldn't be too quick to invoke that "editor" as an example.  Also none of those reverts constitutes 3R or goes against consensus.  You were warned, and now you've refused to constructively engage on the talk page.  I hope you ban him.JJJ999 (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction: JJJ999 has reverted 4 different editors, not 5, including myself. Their edits had nothing to do with the content dispute. User Coruscant wanted to alert other editors to an untidy section, where two lines of text had been repeated. JJJ999 reverted him (diff) before accusing me, falsely, of using a sock puppet. User:HairyWombat was bold and simply proceeded to remove one of the duplicated passages. JJJ999 reverted him. (diff) User:Themeatpopsicle's only crime was to remove long-unsourced statements from the article. JJJ999 reverted him (diff), accusing him of borderline vandalism, before accusing me, falsely, once more, of using a sock puppet. I will not litter your talk page further. Dynablaster (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to review some facts.
 * a) All of them except the latest (the guy whose name even looks like a reference to his meatpuppet status) replied and said they were going to stay out of the content dispute.
 * b) Themeatpuppet's edits deleted a huge mass of text which had been in dispute, this was obviously unaccpetable. Especially since there has never been any serious contention the material is without merit, in fact quite the contrary.
 * I don't know if the first 2 were friends or meatpuppets of yours, but I feel quite confident themeatpuppet is. You guys don't even edit at the same times, it's almost as though you go to your school or library or whatever each day, do your meatpuppet edits, and come back and "wow, Dynaguy signed in!" (note, like clock work your meat/sock puppet has posted twice right after you last posted).  "My gosh, they must be separate people!"
 * Now there are currently some admins who have been asked to intervene, and have been doing so on and off, but if this guy wants to block you too or investigate your meatpuppet/sock, then I'm all good with that.JJJ999 (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dumplin97
Thank you for moving the question to the RD/S! I hope you don't mind if I remove the template from User talk:Dumplin97 because the user name gives me the impression that she's 11 years old, so I want your message to be not hidden behind the legalese. &mdash; Sebastian 02:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Luke
Hi Andrew, could you pop over to Talk:Gospel of Luke and join the discussion Leadwind and I are having? We can't find the sources for the pre-70 dating, and Lead is asking for someone with access to Guthrie; it looks like you talked about this some time ago, and might be able to shed light on the matter. Thank you, Andrew. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping us out. :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Howdy
Hey there. I didn't think that I used Rollback in the previously mentioned edit war and just the undo feature, I apologize if I did use Rollback. Per the unfortunate edit war itself, another admin pointed me to the Dispute resolution page. I tried negotiating a truce but that didn't work out, I referred one of the disputed edits for third opinions and that's going OK. I'm looking for some form of mediation where Spotfixer and I could present our sides, see which version of the edits should stay and then both move on but I'm having a hard time finding one. Any thoughts on where we could take our dispute? - Schrandit (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my, that is my bad indeed. I am sorry about that and do my best to avoid it in the future.  Thanks for the heads up on the RFC.
 * Per sourcing on the UNSC articles. Most of the UN's resolutions have been copied in Wikisource and the proper links are there.  Is that good enough, if not I'll just copy all the sources from Wikisource and put them on Wikipedia. - Schrandit (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense, I'll get on that. - Schrandit (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New category
I want create category: "New Testament manuscripts" for articles like CSNTM, INTF, Family 1, Family 13, Jerusalem Colophon. The articles f1, f13 use wrong category for now (Category:New Testament text-types). They are not text-types, but sub-families of one of text-type. In that case Category:Caesarean text-type can be usefull, but I do not think we need multiply Categories. Category "Manuscripts of New Testament" will usefull for collections of NT manuscripts. I am intending to create several articles about families and subfamilies of manuscripts (like Family Π, "Family 1424" and other in impossible to immagine the future). These articles will need "Category:New Testament manuscripts". Of course we can create "families of New Testament manuscripts", but what we can do with articles Jerusalem Colophon, CSNTM, INTF, and other articles which still do not have precise categories. If you agreed with me do not answer. I will create tomorrow. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello Andrew, I just want to let you know the other editor is going from article to article removing swaths of images. I understand that the removal of images that violate WP:NFCC is important, however he is not looking at the context the images are being used in and just deleting all images claiming galleries of NFCC are not allowed. He happed to do this on two articles I work on.

After the second removal by ESkog, I responded on the talk page why I believe that the removal was improper and why the images comply with WP:NFCC. The Dairy Queen article had been edited at some time in the past and the reasons explaining why the gallery of logos was there had been removed. I restored the content and re-added the line back in to avoid further misunderstandings.

About the McD' and Wendy's comment in the BK products article, I removed it.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 05:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The point isn't who is in the right, and who has justification for their edits, the point is that it is against wikipedia rules to undo the actions of editors more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. You reverted another editor twice, and you reverted me once, that makes 3. I warned you so you could refresh yourself on the policy. If you revert again in the next 24 hours, you will be in violation of that policy, regardless if the revert is partial, or with different content.-Andrew c [talk] 05:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for bringing the activity in the PGD article to my attention; hopefully I'll be able to help the two editors resolve the issue.

I have been having trouble finding the energy to do anything mentally challenging lately, and my activity on Wikipedia has suffered. I start chemotherapy for lymphoma on Monday, so I expect it to get worse before it gets better. I do plan on becoming more active as I feel up to it, and I look forward to working with you more in the future :) LyrlTalk C 13:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

About copyright issue with File:FaceKooLogo.png
Hi Andrew, will this do? Thanks!

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:FaceKooLogo.png.

I agree to publish that work under the free license.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Davidyan74 (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus
A suitable reason for the (obvious) inclusion was offered once I noticed the revert had been made. I shall make use of the article talk page in future, should such difficulties arise and if/when that specific edit is again disputed. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you missed my point. It isn't ok to edit war if you provide a different edit summary for each revert. If someone disagree with your new, bold edit, NEVER put it back in the article before discussing it and getting consensus to re-add it. That said, I appreciate your willingness in the future to use the talk page, and preemptively, it may help to start that discussion now. -Andrew c [talk] 23:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware I was involved in an edit war. But all your comments have been considered, thanks. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Message
I will bring up The Legend of Brown Sugar Chivalries again, and this time I will only write the synopsis and information according to my very own knowledge of the show. No image will be involved this time. If there is any problem, then let me know.

(Action Parker) [comment by moved]

New Add
Okay, fine. But at least I won't be using the article of Drama Wiki. This time, I'm gonna write the synopsis by myself.

recommend a book on historical Jesus?
I've read a lot of Jesus Seminar, some Crossan, a little Borg. Names I hear a lot are Meier, Sanders, Armstrong, Vermes. I don't think I take Tabor seriously, and I like Ehrman for texts but not necessarily for historical biography. Would you be able to recommend a next book or scholar to take up? Thank you. Leadwind (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

request for help
here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus advise
Given that I have read Sanders, Vermes, and Fredricksen, do you think it is worth my while to read Meier's three volume work (which I know is well regarded) or the book by Theissen and that other person (forget the name) which you commended to Leadwind? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of my interest level at this point (diminishing returns, you know?) myself - so i really appreciate your advice. thanks. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SLR did not give a reason for the revert. As my edit was made in good faith, the concept of reverting without reason must be considered inferior. In the future, for all such reverts, I hope Steven will state his reasons in either the comment line or talk or in both. Failing to do so is a symptom that good faith is not being observed. -Stevertigo 19:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you actually looked at the history and the talk you would see that I made attempts with each edit to communicate with SLR and the other editor. I stated my reasons for the edits on the talk clearly. At the time of this writing, SLR has made no comment in either talk or in the comment line indicating his reasons for the revert. This makes him an edit ninja and a violator of AGF, CIVIL and OWN and his actions are therefore invalid. If he won't discuss his changes as I have done, then fuck him. -Stevertigo 16:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I explained my revert, calmly and earnestly, four times (18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC); 19:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC); 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC); 20:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)) before Stevertigo played the race card. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR
I guess you are right .... I considered today to be a new day, and started counting over again. I realize now that was a rookie mistake. I won't, again ... if you fell you must block me I understand, but I won't edit that page again today. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As an involved admin, I won't be blocking you or Stevertigo (though I think things would have deescalated some if I had blocked Stevertigo when I noticed the violation, as the reverts have continued and now there is incivility/attacks involved). I'll make a note of this comment at the report for the uninvolved admin.-Andrew c [talk] 17:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I welcome the decisions of an uninvolved admin. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this? Before anyone blocks me from the relevant talk and ANI pages, why doesn't Slrubenstein explain why he reverted my edits in the first place? I'm of course making the assumption that there is a difference in value between our edits, and that difference is easily apparent - if only interested parties would actually read the edits and maybe (just an idea) discuss them, rather than just reverting them in the manner of what we have come to call an edit ninja. If the difference in value between my constructive edit and SLR's monkey reverts is decided simply by SLR's credentials, or his late compliance with certain admins, then what can I say but to indicate the hebetudinous nature of such an arrangement. -Stevertigo 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo, what does "hebetudinous" mean?


 * AndrewC, I appreciate the way you have handled this. I will stay off of Jesus until Stevertigo is unblocked.  In the meantime, note this.  I am not on Wikien, and I have no desire to engage Stevertigo right now.  But do you think this is an accurate account of the problem?  What is the purpose of going off-wiki except to keep me from presenting a larger picture?  He can use his talk page and the proper template to appeal the block, and an RfC for Jesus if he fels persecuted ... why go off-wiki? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite
Hey Andrew. This user has made an unblock request at WP:RFU. I have commented on it and would like your input before any action gets taken on it. Thanks. Trusilver 19:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Media copyright questions
Sorry, I did not mean to contradict you on WP:ICHD. I presume he just wanted to copy an image of a living person from the yearbook, not make critical comment about the book itself. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian/Syriac issue
hello Andrew c, sorry to bother you about this again, but I posted a complaint about certain edits found here []. You told me to put it in the ethnic/religious conflict section and I did, but no admin has responded yet. I was wondering what else I can do so that this problem is fixed. Sorry for any inconveniences I have caused. Malik Danno (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

YesOn8
I couldn't remember which one was Prop 8 and didn't look at it at the time. (I'm not in California, and they do so many props, the numbers blur together.) Having looked it up, the combination of the agenda of his edits plus his username...yes, I can see your point about it being a username incompatible with harmonious editing. I have no objections to you unblocking my 24-hour block to replace it with a longer block. —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

New Bot
I have an idea for a bot! It does simple Wikipedia tasks: Fixes spelling errors and reverts vandalsim. If you decide to make it, let me know on my talk page. --Thebigfan (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)