User talk:Andrew c/archive4

Heartfelt thanks
for this. Hopefully we will be able to get a working dialogue going instead of the near-constant ad homs and so on. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not mischaracterizing the dawkins fans.
The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal material on Dawkins was removed also. ken 21:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Featured picture promotions!

 * Image:Zabriskie Point-Panarama-edit2.jpg, an image edited by you has also been promoted. Thank you for your contributions! --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

Just to let you know that the Featured Pictures you nominated, Image:Lemon-edit1.jpg and Image:Metal movable type.jpg, are due to make appearances as Picture of the Day on and February 28, 2007 respectively. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the captions at Template:POTD/2007-02-27 and Template:POTD/2007-02-26.  howcheng  {chat} 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I've been around for a while and it's about time I gave kudos to people who deserve it. Incidently, I've only been editing Wikipedia since June 2005, and WikiProject Abortion since June of this year. I truly appreciate your attention to articles relating to abortion, birth control, and other divisive topics. It's hard working in this territory, I know, but you're doing a great job of it! -Severa (!!!) 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Christian apologetics
Would you please give me a hand with KDBuffalo on Christian apologetics? He deletes my addition to "scientific apologetics." Or, if you agree that my addition is unneeded, could you let me know? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Domestic violence

 * Sorry, this is with reference to your recent edits to the Domestic violence entry.

As a member of Save Indian Family, I would like to know where you acquired the notion that the SIF (Save Indian Family) is the "parent" organization of MyNation.net.

It is true, as you stated, that MyNation.net is not, as far as I am aware, an organization; my understanding is that it is merely one victim's website on this particular subject - this is Rudolph de Sousa, a Mangalorean Konkani Christian who has been victimized by these criminal "laws" since the last ten years or more by his wife and the State. Rudolph's personal crusade is older than the Save Indian Family, which was founded as an Internet d-list much later, although he is intimately involved with it.

Aside from that, I would like to know the reasons for what I perceive to be your hostile animus against MyNation.net or the SIF.

Is it perhaps because you believe in the superstition that only men are capable of wrongdoing and that women are by their natural constitution incapable of any wrongdoing? That superstition is precisely the "legal" basis of these laws governing "sexual harassment" and "domestic violence".

Please let me know.

Kind regards,

My Wikidness 06:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

--

If you want the 'other side' of this issue, you can contact these people:


 * The Lawyer's Collective - Femofascist organization behind India's enactment of the illegal 'Domestic Violence Act'


 * Another Femofascist organization involved, as above


 * Scanned version of the 'Act'

Allow me to restate due to its relevance what I wrote in reply to a recent email:


 * Yes!!! A Husband opposing his wife's prostitution DOES constitute Domestic Violence!!!


 * What a silly question! When all of these "laws" (ha!) are based on the "infallible" doctrine Divinely Revealed to Parliament and Government that only men are capable of doing wrong, and women are incapable of doing wrong, why should anyone doubt that a woman murdering her husband in concert with her paramour for objecting to her extra-marital affairs is not VIRTUOUS?


 * I repeat, as the law states so very clearly, "All men are criminals by nature; all women are by their natural constitution incapable of any wrongdoing whatsoever, unless considered as mothers, sisters, sister-in-laws, etc. of men". Once you have understood this basic and fundamental doctrine of the State and Government, you will no longer entertain such foolish doubts!!!


 * And to think that that, in order to RE-EDUCATE dolts like us, who believe in the heresy that all, men and women alike, are capable of sinning, or that other heresy that any person, regardless of gender etc., is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the illustrious wisemen of the Indian Supreme Court, condescending to disabuse us of our errors, have certified time and again that this sweet, lustrous doctrine is "Constitutional" indeed!!!


 * Makes one think of the "Supreme Court" of Pakistan that justifies as "legal" the robbery of the entire Country by General Zia ul Haq or Pervez Musharaf. Is there any difference?  I can't see.  They are all honest men, illustrious men!!!

Kind regards,

My Wikidness 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I`m not the Only One
As Andrew Said. [Quote]Sorry, this is with reference to your recent edits to the Domestic violence entry. As a member of Save Indian Family, I would like to know where you acquired the notion that the SIF (Save Indian Family) is the "parent" organization of MyNation.net.

It is true, as you stated, that MyNation.net is not, as far as I am aware, an organization; my understanding is that it is merely one victim's website on this particular subject - this is Rudolph de Sousa, a Mangalorean Konkani Christian who has been victimized by these criminal "laws" since the last ten years or more by his wife and the State [1]. Rudolph's personal crusade is older than the Save Indian Family, which was founded as an Internet d-list much later, although he is intimately involved with it.

Aside from that, I would like to know the reasons for what I perceive to be your hostile animus against MyNation.net or the SIF.

Is it perhaps because you believe in the superstition that only men are capable of wrongdoing and that women are by their natural constitution incapable of any wrongdoing? That superstition is precisely the "legal" basis of these laws governing "sexual harassment" and "domestic violence".

Please let me know.[/quote]

I`m not the only one and MyNation.net is not a Mouth piece of ONE person but its collective Voice of Many Victims. You can see many more Victims Details here http://mynation.net/db and http://mynation.net/blog

There are many more in our Database who are still Affraid to Just tell thier Name and many million men who are Ashmed to tell to public that they are harassed by thier own wives UNFORTUNATLY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rudy3107 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Opus Dei RFC
After lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I think the new page is better, but there are a lot of single-purpose accounts who have been edit warring with me over it. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 12:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church article
Thanks for your information; I do not wish to be in edit wars and had no idea of all this. But wouldn't it be useful for someone to place the contents of User:Leinad-Z/RCC Disclaimer as the first item of the talk page of the Roman Catholic Church article (and all redirects to that article) or would that also create another edit war from assorted POV directions? Thanks Hmains 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks again. Hmains 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Entries for the New Testament and its books
Hey, there. I just thought I'd pop in and let you know I'm very pleased with your additions and editions to New Testament, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of John, etc. Keep up the good work!--Hurtstotalktoyou 15:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

re: HoJ
I am glad you like the slimmer intro. I agree that "alone" and "additional" was overkill, but I think we might want to say "additional" so as not to imply that Christians forsake historical methods in learning about Jesus. Certainly there are difficulties with some of the methods (or assumptions) used by some scholars, but even in the most staunch seminaries in the Bible belt, they still use history to learn about Jesus. I generally prefer phrasing that (subtly) respects the existence of other views when possible. Thoughts? Lostcaesar 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we are dealing with complex, and differing models as to what faith (and what historicism) is. At the end of the day it is just one word, and the paragraph isn't wrong either way.  I will think about it.  Lostcaesar 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, what I would like to avoid, to be totally transparent, is the presumption that reason (in this case historical methods) and faith conflict. Lostcaesar 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PROWARRIOR's talk page
Andrew, I hope you don't mind very much, but I'm going to revert your edit to PROWARRIOR'S talk page. This question of restoring warnings etc. after a user has removed them often comes up on admin noticeboards, and most admins seem to be against it. The purpose of a warning is so that an editor &mdash; especially a new editor &mdash; will be made aware of the existence of a policy which he has broken or is at risk of breaking. It would be most unfair, for example, if someone who had never been told of the three-revert rule got blocked for breaking it. However, warnings are not meant to be used as black marks which a naughty user is obliged to display against his will, as punishment for his naughtiness. Nor is there any compelling reason to have them all on display as a "record" when the page only has about seventeen edits, and anyone who has enough interest to be looking into the matter will certainly look at the history &mdash; especially since I specifically said in my last post that he had deleted warnings. I remember David Gerard said once that if someone deletes a post from his talk page, you know he has read it, so what purpose does it serve to restore it except to hassle him?

He's been blocked. He knows what to do in order to get unblocked. Personally, I don't think he'll do it, or if he does, and gets unblocked without respecting the agreement, I'll block him again pretty quickly. He has so few contributions that it's most unlikely that an admin will come along and unblock without looking through them and seeing that he was deleting talk page comments. But there's no need to worry that there has to be a visible record. It remains in the history, and I believe in letting blocked users keep their dignity. Also, I'm keeping his page on my watchlist, and Joshua very likely is as well. So that's two admins who are aware of the history of this user, and will deal with any problems as they arise. By the way, PROWARRIOR could be a sockpuppet of Sanka123, who stopped editing in April after being blocked, and then suddenly reappeared to reinstate PROWARRIOR's edits and take his part on a talk page after the latter had been blocked. I'll keep an eye on that account, too. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your reply, and for understanding. Actually, quite a few editors would have done exactly what you did. It just happens to be one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia :-). PRO is undoubtedly a troll, and I say that as one who has prayed outside abortion referral centres and has sent large donations to pro-life organizations. (I know we're not exactly on the same side there!) If you want to see something that makes me reach for my sword even quicker than the practice of restoring warnings, have a look here. Thanks again for understanding. AnnH ♫ 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious
On some pages I noticed you say that certain Biblical scholars you have read have dedicated large portions of their work to showing that matters like the resurrection and the divinity of Christ are topics unapproachable by history, instead they are matters of faith or philosophy. I also noticed that you invited someone, on a different topic, to discuss the matter on your talk page, so as not to clutter article pages. I would like to ask if you would be so kind as to indulge me on this matter and answer some questions I have about this. I would like to know just what the arguments are as to why things such as the resurrection or divinity of Christ are wholly unapproachable by history, and also I would like to question the consistency of scholars who make this assertion.
 * I certainly agree that it is important to be humble about just what history can and cannot do, and if people are expecting history to "prove" things, depending on why they mean by "prove", they may be asking too much. But, that said, I don't see why matters such as Jesus' divinity or the resurrection should be wholly beyond historical understanding &mdash; after all, they are claimed to be historical events (divinity in the sense of the Incarnational existence of Jesus is, by definition, historical).
 * Now there are obviously difficulties when using historical methods alone to approach such matters. But allow me to propose the following hypothetical.  Lets say we examine the Gospel of Luke using historical methods and find the following.  Insofar as history can confirm certain things recorded, we know that Luke basically gets it right.  Some things we have no way to verify, some could go either way and are uncertain, but a great many things are confirmed.  Let us also suppose that we determined that, most likely, Luke had access to eyewitnesses for his material.  Thus we have determined the Luke is reliable, insofar as can be checked, and that is a reason to believe he is correct on the matters more difficult to check, like the burial to post-resurrection accounts.
 * We could also determine that Christians, from the first, believed in Jesus' divinity. This even though such belief made evangelization more difficult (i.e. there was pressure to change this doctrine, but it was not changed), and also resulted in expulsion from the synagogues, which entailed the loss of special status in the Empire.  Thus, again, this caused pressure to change and it now made Christians subject to persecution, and we see that the apostles were all persecuted and generally died martyrs.  These would all be reasons to think that belief in Jesus' divinity was based on genuine personal experiences, or the testimony of those who had such.
 * We could note the willingness of early Christians to make themselves vulnerable to being proved wrong: they named names of witnesses, and specific people and times of events, so anyone could check their story. The apostles willingness to embarrass themselves personally when telling their experiences, again a reason to think their discourse genuine.
 * Now, I could go on, but the point has been made. If this hypothesis is true, then we would certainly have reasons, indeed historical reasons to believe in Jesus' divinity and resurrection.  That these events happened would be the most reasonable explanation for the historical facts we do have.  Has history "proved" these things?  It depends what you mean by "prove", but setting that matter aside, we would have historical reasons to believe.  Said differently, history would corroborate Christian faith insofar as it can be expected to.  Conversely, if we place every statement in the negative in our hypothetical, then we would have reasons not to believe, and that would certainly have relevance to Jesus' divinity and resurrection.  So I don’t understand how someone can say these things are utterly unapproachable by historical methods.  Yes, we must be humble in what we expect from history, but we have no basis to assert that X claims to historical events are wholly unapproachable by history.

My next point concerns the methods themselves, because I think many biblical scholars actually do engage in a bit of philosophy before they ever get going at history, and this is in their employment of methods. If we truly cannot know anything about Jesus' divinity through historical methods, then we would have to always leave that matter open ended in our methods, not assuming one way or another. Indeed, a common stick that some Biblical scholars beat apologists with is that they start with this sort of assumption.
 * But when a Biblical scholar says something like "Jesus must be understood wholly as a first century Jew", or "the genuineness of Jesus' saying may be determined by whether or not (and insofar as) his audience would have comprehended them", &c, then he is assuming already that Jesus is not God. He hasn't placed that aside, approaching the matter with neutral and ambiguous historical methods, instead he has loaded his methods with a philosophically predetermined axiom, whence he will do his "historical" work.  It is worth noting that we don't have to assume such, we could leave the matter open and attempt to approach the material in other ways (perhaps we would reach fewer conclusions, but so be it - its just history, after all).
 * For example, if I say "Napoleon must be understood as an eighteenth century Englishman" before I do my work, I will likely conclude that he never actually planned an invasion or England, or that he probably never campaigned in Egypt, at least not against the English. Thus any records which say he did must have been subject to interpolation by Frenchmen at some point, or fabricated from the beginning.  If someone says, "but what if Napoleon were French", I say that such a proposition is not within the purview of history and thus not up for consideration.  Then someone says "but I have documents that say he was Frenchman."  I retort that only an ignoramus would take those texts uncritically, especially since I have shown they were interpolated by Frenchmen! You can believe that Napoleon the Englishman was somehow French and planned an invasion of England if you want, but its not historical, and its really obviously a myth designed to bolster his Frankish-ness created by later Frenchmen themselves, and likewise his champagnes in Egypt were fabricated to glorify him in his new, French military role.
 * Hence I think I have two points here. One, what arguments do these scholars give as to why history should be thought to have nothing to say about events that are claimed to be historical in sources that claim to be biographical?  Two, if we accept that said scholars are right about point 1, then how do they then proceed with methods described in point 2, which obviously are not ambiguous concerning 1 but instead predetermined?

Thanks for indulging me. Lostcaesar 09:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

pt2

 * Well first let me thank you for how much time you spent in your reply. I also must say I feel a little embarrassed that I gave the arguments I did, which were more hypothetical designed to illustrate a point, rather than an attempt at a solid and persuasive argument.  I will step out from the hypothetical veil and just speak more directly in this response.
 * Again I will say that I think it is important to be humble in just what we expect history to show, and to "prove". Much of this depends on what one means by "prove", which is a subjective standard.  And even if we employ a definition of "prove" that cannot be reached by history, nonetheless we are all comfortable believing (accepting as certain) some events investigated by history, including unique events (as all historical events are, actually, though some perhaps more irregular than others).
 * Part of the issue is the regularity of miracles, and likewise the definition of miracle. I find it interesting that Ehrman wrote, "the chances of a miracle happening are infinitesimally remote", yet also said, "there is no way we can demonstrate it [a miracle, in this case the resurrection] using historical methods."  If we cannot determine whether or not a miracle happened, then how are we to know how frequent they are?  The only way to determine the "chances" of a miracle happening would be by seeing their frequency in history.  History is simply the experiences of others in the past, and part of the point of history is to learn from others' experiences.
 * I think from this we can say that the question of historical accounts is a matter of trust, and historical methods are aimed and helping determine how reasonable it is to trust a certain text (i.e. the testimony of the experience of others).  Sometimes I think scholars engaged in principally critical pursuits forget that ultimately criticism is aimed at discerning whom to trust, and more than one scholar has become so hypercritical as to doubt beyond what reason allows (beyond what is reasonable).
 * Thus I see no reason why miracles recorded in the past should be inherently radically different than any other historical event. The experience of a miracle is, in essence, not vastly different form any other experience related by others, in this case through texts.  Just to take the resurrection as a case in point, the sources are quite clear – people say Jesus died, that people saw an angel at the tomb, and saw Jesus after he died, and that he interacted with people in various ways.  If my father said he saw this, I would take the topic much more seriously than if an insane fellow said the same.  The reason why is because I have more reasons to trust my father.  Thus reason (here historical methods) aims at directing trust (i.e. faith).  In a more complex way, historians can check how reliable a source is and arrive at a similar determination.
 * This brings me to your point about the fallacy of faulty generalization. In this strict sense this is a fallacy, and what that means is that the conclusion does not necessarily obtain due to deductive logic.  In other words, reason does not get us to the conclusion by itself.  If Luke is right about many things, it does not necessarily follow that he is right about everything.  But we should discuss what we do have.  First, in this case, history would not have shown anything inconsistent with Christian belief.  Second, we would have a reason to believe Luke – he is generally reliable.  The fact that a scientist has dropped a ball 1000 times and, given the same circumstances, it always has fallen at the same rate does not necessarily entail that the 1001 time, even given the same circumstances, that it will fall at the same rate.  But we have every reason to believe that it will, and whatever the case we can hardly say that we have any reason to think otherwise.  If we were forced to act upon the drop of the ball (and we are all forced to act on the proposition of Christianity, as explained in William James's Will to Believe) then the only reasonable thing to do would be to assume that it would drop at the same rate.  So, like I said, we have to be humble about what we expect from history, but history can indeed approach the matter of miracles: through inductive logic, and that is going a long way.  Hence I think Meier is wrong when he says that historical investigation "stubbornly restricts itself to empirical evidence and rational deductions or inferences from such evidence" – history restricts itself to the testimony of other's experiences in the past, and to rational inductions from such material, not merely deductions.  Also, I do not think it exactly analogous to see history as a purely "empirical" science – that is only one element of history.
 * Thus I find Meier's comment puzzling, " The historian may also dully record the fact that a particular extraordinary event took place in a religious context and is claimed by some participants or observers to be a miracle… but to move beyond such affirmations and to reach the conclusion that God indeed has directly caused this inexplicable event is to cross the line separating the historian from the philosopher or theologian." If we say that, for example, a huge mass of people were fed from twelve baskets (the particular extraordinary event), then we would have given a historical reason for someone to believe in a miracle having happened, and that is really the sort of thing we should expect from history.
 * Now to move to more particular arguments, Meier described the context of the spread of Christianity as "a highly competitive religious "marketplace" that extolled Jewish and pagan miracle-workers". I think that is very right, and I also think that antiquity itself was a very competitive time for religions, when people had many spiritual paths to choose from.  There have been two rather profound points that have affected me, which stem from this fact.
 * 1, In the competitive religious marketplace, claiming that Jesus was both man and God (and not a god) was probably the worst way to popularize a religion. Concerning the Greeks, they were quite comfortable placing Jesus on Mt. Olympus between Zeus and Aphrodite, but the notion that he was the Logos was scandalous.  It was unpalatable to Platonic and Aristotelian philosophers.  That the Logos became man was just as absurd.  The fact that God supposedly died was more bizarre, as Paul frankly asserts.  The very early appearance of versions of Christianity with either a wholly divine Christ, or a wholly human one, is not surprising.  Furthermore, the monotheism of Christianity brought it into direct conflict with the imperial cult, and thus Christians were persecuted like no other religion.  Moreover, the fact that Christianity asserted that Jesus was God meant conflict with Judaism, expulsion from the synagogues, and removal of the Judaic privilege that would have protected Christians from persecution.  My point is, if someone were to invent a new religion aimed at spreading in this "competitive marketplace", orthodoxy Christianity was quite simply the least marketable religion one could imagine.  The earliest art related to Christianity is a first century graffiti of someone ridiculing Christians for worshiping a crucified man.
 * 2, Behind all of these problems which appeared on the surface, as antiquity progressed Christianity developed a sophisticated theology. In the critical fourth and fifth centuries, it was Christianity that emerged over and against every other religion of the time, and this must be understood at least in part to some inherent worth in the religion and its claim to facilitate communion with the other world and with God.  It was successful at least in part because it was able to deliver on these claims.  Even its eventual favor by the imperial government did not automatically ensure success.  Paganism was strong and would not vanish any time soon, indeed Julian restored governmental support of the old cults, and even thereafter there were other versions of Christianity besides orthodoxy that could have emerged triumphant if they have been as "competitive" as Christianity.  The point is that one must credit the ability of orthodoxy to deliver on its claims (communion with God and the other world) as a key factor in its success.
 * These are "soft" arguments, ones which are open to interpretation, but which have had a very strong effect on me personally. They are also in a sense historical arguments, because they depend on the historical emergence of Christianity within (and out of) its historical context.
 * But to return to more central matters at hand: the matter of martyrdom and embarrassment. Certainly many have been willing to die for their own beliefs.  But this example seems noticeably different.  The apostles died because they were unwilling to compromise what they proclaimed to have experienced, even though its hard to locate a motive for this other than the genuineness of the claims.  It is more akin to the man who dies fighting for the innocence of someone whom he knew personally and, moreover, whose guilt or innocence depends on events that he himself saw.  I think people have always found this sort of thing very compelling, and for good reason.
 * Concerning the matter of embarrassment, I think the whole topic must be in part suspended until one discerns the authorship of the gospels. If they were written a world away from the events described and a generation removed then your points would be quite applicable.  If, however, we say that Matthew was written by the apostolic community c. AD 50 for the Jerusalem Church, then we have a much different matter.  But this aside we do have Paul's letters also, and he was quite close to the events.
 * The Napoleon argument was indeed a stretch, and it was merely presented to show how methods can contain non-historical axioms that largely predetermine the historical construction that one ends up with. Many scholars have pointed this out, and I think it is perhaps the most significant thing in all that I have written.  I would not wish to repeat other examples, but needless to say, if one begins with the principle that "the genuineness of what Jesus said is determinable by the likelihood (and only insofar as) his audience would have immediately understood it", or that "Jesus did not utter a real prophecy", is to begin by assuming that Jesus is not God.  What one ends up with is only a conditional, "if Jesus was not God, then he was X [insert: itinerant Jewish sage, healer, and executed criminal]."  This is an exercise that one can engage in if he wishes, and to those who assume that Jesus was not God, it will be no doubt satisfying.  But it hardly is an example of leaving out philosophical or theological views.  It does not "leave the supernatural considerations out of empirical research."  That would entail leaving such matters open ended and seeing what can be determined historically otherwise.  Instead, it presumes a certain philosophical stance, one which predetermines the "historical Jesus" that will be thereafter constructed.  What one then has to ask is, "how does this theoretical model of Jesus square with other known facts?"  Personally I find it hard to explain why such a person would be executed at all, or why anyone would claim that he was God afterwards, or why that set of beliefs would somehow rise to influence.  It doesn't begin to take into account incorruptible saints, bleeding hosts, miraculous places such as Lourdes, and the like.  So personally I find it a very unreasonable position, one I would hardly put my faith in, and indeed history is a part (but just a part) of this reasoning process.
 * As an aside, I chose Luke as an example because he is indeed a very good historian. There are, to my knowledge, really only two serious issues with his work, the first is the genealogy and the second is the census.  In the case of the genealogy, I have to abstain due to ignorance.  Concerning the census, its worth noting that this is the only material which is two generations removed from his writing, rather than one, and thus its veracity is not directly applicable to that of the remainder of the text.  This said, I am not convinced that Luke has been definitively shown to be wrong.  It is so difficult to be certain on such matters, when we just have a very few texts, and in some sense I think the matter must be left open ended: there are various theories that explain the material in the sources and only some require Luke to be wrong.  But this is a digression.
 * Well, I really appreciate all the time you put into this, and I am certainly learning much from the dialogue.
 * Lostcaesar 00:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What an amazing discussion / recruitment take #2
Just thought I'd chime in here. I stumbled across this on Lost's talk page and was captivated! I'm glad he didn't ask me that same question about why historians refuse to comment, one way or the other on Jesus's divinity. I think the best answer I could have managed was to paraphrase Stephen Colbert and say "Historians are agnostics, and 'an agnostic is just an atheist without enough balls to admit it'". Which, admittedly, is far more crass and far less erudite than your explaination.

Anyway, as soon as I saw the discussion, I thought "Lost and I have gotta get this guy to help out at Opus Dei". Of course, I forgot I'd already asked you, but, I figured I'd ask again, this time with graphics. I know, nobody loves to hop into a content dispute, but you should. Where else are you going to get to:
 * Stop an army of albino monks from turning Wikipedia into a giant brochure.
 * Stop an army of apostates from turning Wikipedia into one giant atrocity story.
 * Stop me from becoming tyrannical.
 * Stop Lost from being the only sane one in the room.

ARrrgh! It's the chance of a lifetime. Sign up now. Operators are standing by. Plenty of questions needing opinions as is. --Alecmconroy 12:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture
Congratulations. Raven4x4x 06:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Israeli "apartheid"
"Apartheid" is an inflammatory propaganda term, used in connection with just about everything, though perhaps more often in connection with Israel than other countries/conditions, since, for a number of reasons (many quite distasteful) Israel is the target of a hugely disproportionate amount of propaganda. It's hardly an encyclopedic topic, but Wikipedia editors often reflect the world around them, including its bias for directing unique and often absurd obloquy at Israel. Thus these kinds of articles tend to thrive, e.g. huge articles on an accidental shelling that kills 19 Palestinians, but almost nothing on a conflict in which 160,000 Algerians were deliberately killed. The entire thesis of this article could (and should) be summed up in 4 sentences, and stuck in Allegations of apartheid, but those with agendas will have their way, so we're left with a 55k monstrosity/soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be mixing up two issues, whether or not this article should exist, and the title of the article. Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for propaganda, and the amount of attention devoted to this subject is unwarranted given its trivial nature. The point is not that Wikipedia should be a platform for "correcting" propaganda, but that Wikipedia should not be a platform for transmitting propaganda. As for the title, it seems entirely neutral and reasonable; the article describes various allegations regarding "Israeli apartheid", and the title reflects that. I have no issue moving "Homosexual agenda" to "Allegations of a homosexual agenda" either. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg

]](talk) 00:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You must be some sort of feminist?
Well, I added and built up the Violence against men section on the Domestic violence page and you reverted it - from previous edit in other sections of Wikipedia I have drawn up the conclusion that you seem to think that Men are never a victim of anything and that you are some dort of feminist. I have rereverted the article and will be contacting wikipedia regarding your estranged views. Winstonchurchill2nd 13th December

Re: Sidewalk counseling
I had reservations in creating Sidewalk counseling because I wondered if it was notable enough to warrant its own article. However, the Pro-life activism article is in need of some serious attention, particularly copyediting. The majority of the article is unsourced, and, because a lot of the activism methods, like the "Die-in" or the "Truth Display," seem obscure or peculiar to one group, I'm wondering if parts of the article border on original research. The article also focuses exclusively on U.S.-based activism and I really want to break away to a more global perspective.

Needless to say, I wanted a fresh start, although it would be entirely acceptable for Sidewalk counseling to be merged into Pro-life activism when the latter is more developed. But if a form of activism is widespread enough, and well-documented enough, it might warrant its own article, like crisis pregnancy center.

Working on Sidewalk counseling, and Access to Abortion Services Act, has gotten me thinking about Scunning's proposal of an Abortion restrictions article at Talk:Minors and abortion. Perhaps a series of articles about types of abortion-related legislation common throughout the world would be a welcome addition. I think these laws can be broken down into four categories: spousal involvement (already covered at Paternal rights and abortion), parental involvement (covered at Minors and abortion), informed consent (i.e. waiting periods and mandatory counseling), and protection of access to abortion (i.e. "bubble zone," "buffer zone," "access zone" laws). Given the last variety, I don't think it would be appropriate to lump all coverage of these subjects into an "abortion restrictions" article, so I recommend they be seperate.

Sorry for cluttering your Talk page with my ideas! Thanks you for your comments regarding Sidewalk counseling. -Severa (!!!) 08:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Bizarre" claim on Eucharist page
The way in which it was stated made the claim on the Eucharist deletable POV, but it's not coming out of nowhere. Cf. the page on the Book of Revelation. Perhaps this needs to be developed into a section within the Eucharist article, to discuss how the Eucharist was seen as an earthly re-enactment of a heavenly event - Christ's making atonement in the Holy of Holies (cf. the Epistle to the Hebrews). Evan Donovan 20:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong; I agree with your actions. If it comes back into the Eucharist article, it's going to have to be more substantiated than that and certainly NPOVed: most people don't find the significant of the Eucharistic rite in their reading of Revelation. I just wanted to clarify where it was coming from. I didn't realize that section was added today - I thought that I had seen it prior to that. Perhaps it was removed, and then readded. In any case, there are scholarly and patristic sources on this, not just two RC theologians. Unfortunately, the scholarly sources I no longer can access, since they're behind JSTOR, and I don't have copies of the relevant patristic texts. Perhaps someone else can help out with this matter.


 * Here's one scholarly paper that I did happen to find though: The "Open Door" of Heaven in the Book of Revelation


 * Speaking of divergent interpretations of Revelation, I'd never heard of the esoteric interpretation which you worked on explaining. Could you direct me toward any more material on that? (For my own part, I interpret Revelation as primarily being about the vindication of martyrs and the encouragement of Christians to stand firm in persecution, either prior to or soon after the destruction of the Temple, although I'm sure the author intended it to have multiple levels of meaning (as do all Scriptural texts, according to patristic and medieval principles of exegesis.) Evan Donovan 21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links. Hope the other editor can help out. Though, judging by his edit summary, it might be hard to keep the section NPOV. I only read the last site you linked so far, but really most of what it said didn't seem particularly New Age or esoteric, other than the terminology and parallels with other religions. Origen and other Church Fathers also read the book of Revelation allegorically, and thus I think it's possible to be an orthodox Christian and read Revelation as being about both physical and spiritual judgment that repeat over time, as judgment for violations of the Lord's covenant. I wish I knew most about Eastern Orthodoxy, as I suspect that allegorical readings of Revelation have primacy for them.


 * UPDATE: Ok, I read the other two sites you linked and they're much more New Age in tone. I think the problem with talking about a New Age interpretation of Revelation is that it suggests there's only one such interpretation, when in fact there are almost an infinite number possible. Since New Agers don't generally subscribe to a historical-critical hermeneutic, they're free to import ideas from anywhere into the text. And with a reader-centered approach to the text such as this, there are basically no interpretive controls - as long as something sounds interesting and is at least minimally self-consistent, it's a "plausible" interpretation. But really, if we want to get anywhere in reading Revelation, we have to see how the book was received by the first communities to read it and what was the Biblical and cultural history of the symbols it employs. Probably the article needs to talk more about principles of interpretation adopted by different schools of thought and less about the details of individual interpretations.Evan Donovan 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to add something, and I can understand why the previous sentence added by another editor is in need to reworking. The basic text is that of Scott Hahn, The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth, Doubleday, 1999.  The argument is that the Eucharistic liturgy of the early Church expressed the doctrines of the incarnation, paschal sacrifice (i.e. crucifixion), and second coming &mdash; three theologically related doctrines.  Furthermore, the structure and imagery of Revelation is a mirror presentation of these doctrines in the context of the liturgy, the heavenly liturgy, which the early Church saw its liturgy as copying.
 * None of these ideas are new to Catholic theology. What is new, however, is understanding Revelation as an expression of this view, thus giving an early date to a position well attested to in later centuries. It does not take away the eschatological interpretation of Revelation, but it does put the eschatological elements in their context.
 * As for the notability of the view, it has found a good deal of support, and has been steadily growing. Scott Hahn is a professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He has founded his own institute of biblical studies (website here).
 * As for its relevance concerning the Eucharist, I think the matter would belong more in an article on liturgy. Everything it tells us about the Eucharist we basically already know the early Church believed &mdash; everyone knows the early Church believed in the real presence (cf. SS. Paul, John, Justin &c). But I'll try and work something up.
 * Edonovan, I'll give it a shot; if you think its pov then we'll work on it.
 * Lostcaesar 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Font redirect
Hi Andrew, I removed the redirect of "Font" to Typeface as they are extremely different terms to professional typographers. Typography is a subject I have worked in, and have taught, for better thirty years. The font article I wrote acknowledges the relatively recent (post 1985) use of font as a metonym for a typeface. Nonetheless they are not one and the same, and to academics and professionals, wikipedia would, I think, appear quite wrong in maintaining they are solely interchangeable. Because wikipedia is most accessible to the technologically capable early on, many of the typography related writing is often wrong, or slanted towards a Microsoft programmers' needs and use. Please consider this, and check my references, I think each relatively recent publication (most are post 2004) will support this. Thanks. CApitol3 19:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have followed your suggestion, not sure I agree on your take on wiki policy, should this be construed to mean lowest common denominator always wins, even if wrong? Learning through research or contextual use is natural.CApitol3 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, my take on the wiki policy is that it is intended to avoid intellectual elitism. I agree with that intention. I don't take that to mean that it directs us to ignore the standards and definitions of our profession. It is a typographic term. Yes, muched used by non professional typographers to mean a typeface. I prefer the separate article, with links to the typeface article, to make users aware of its professional meaning. Best, Jim CApitol3 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SV &c.
Ah, that would be my mistaken then. If it means "Standard Version" then perhaps it should return. Also, I wanted to mention that I put one of the two words removed, "additional" back in the lead in the HoJ article, where it mentioned that Christians use "additional" religious methods. I wanted to get your thoughts, if this was acceptable. I agree that "additional" and "alone" was overkill. However, I had given it some thought and just decided that I think one mention should be there, otherwise, as I said in the description, it sounds too much like an acceptance of Bultmann's view. Lostcaesar 15:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand your concerns. I will see if I can think of a clause that is acceptable to all positions.  To me, the view that there is a Christ of Faith who is accepted without any attention to the history or reason strikes me as the view of German (old) liberalism, and is not indicative of the Catholic position and hence not indicative of most Christians (and many scholars, and myself). Lostcaesar 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that is a good point. Just in my personal experience, which is that of an amateur of course, generally when pushed on such matters people simply say something along the lines of it being their faith, which often implies that it either ought not be questioned (as a matter of personal religious choice), or that it needs no rational defense.  I am convinced, however, that these people do have reasons, they just don’t think the reasons are "good enough", in that they would not withstand scholarly criticism; an example: "my father based his life on the teachings of the bible, and he was a good man whom I would do well to imitate, so I follow the same teachings", or (in a more Catholic sense) "the Church is very wise and has made many saints, which is proof enough".  Though I really had a problem with this when I was younger, as I have gotten more mature I have grown more respectful of this simple faith, and I think many liberal scholars who maintain some semblance of Christianity are often motivated to come up with some way to preserve room for this simple faith (especially Barth, but even Bultmann), or at least to not be so harsh when treating it, which is something that, though I disagree with their scholarship on the whole, is a motivation which I do appreciate.  Lostcaesar 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 '''
 * Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays ! | A ndonic O Talk 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

. 

WPAbortion
Hello, Andrew. As a member of WPAbortion, just thought I'd take a moment to alert you to the recent creation of a project Watchlist and Noticeboard, which may help you keep up-to-date. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd thank you for stepping in as a third party on Talk:Abortion. I suppose a lot of people are still away for the holidays as there aren't a lot of people around to comment on things. Your input is especially appreciated. -Severa (!!!) 07:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you mind checking out Talk:Abortion again? I fear this has reached an impasse and perhaps another head could bring about a solution? Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you mind taking a look at Stillbirth? An odd place for personal commentary to spill over — but that seems to be the case. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lauberhorn
Thanks for properly listing it as CopyVio, I was looking for that template as I remember to have seen it before. Didn't find it that quickly and tought the case was so clear that it might as well be speedy deleted. But you are right of course, if there is a proper process let's use it. Cheers Dschwen 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Compass rose image
Thanks for telling me how to do this. I was frustrated and short on time, but hopefully have now done the appropriate fixes. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mythology
I think we may be saying the same thing. My position regarding the other entities/(individuals & gods) is that I would disagree with them being listed under mythologies for their respective religions. The category "Christian Mythology" would be appropriate for the stories of the miracles of Jesus, but it would not be appropriate for Jesus himself. Just as the stories you mentioned of the Bab, Vishnu, etc. Unless a religion specifically acknowledges their gods as symbolic representations, they should not be listed under a cateogory named Mythology. We both agree that it is appropriate for all relgions to be discussed in an article that addresses mythologies, but I would remain unconvinced that it is an appropriate category except for the acutal myths. Such as those already listed under the category in question.

Again, I really do think we may very well be ending up at the same position, but using different terms to get there. Still enjoy your edits. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Andrew,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:AmbrosianIliadPict47Achilles.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-02-19.  howcheng  {chat} 17:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I could use your help
Hello Andrew. I look back fondly on the positive changes we were able to bring through dialogue and working together. While our perspectives weren't always the same, I could respect and appreciate your desire for understanding and concensus. In the end, through both of our efforts and learning to interact, we made it work. That said, I could use someone with your qualities in a current dispute that involves another user who does not seem to have your positive traits, and isn't as strong on constructive dialogue. I would appreciate your opinions and your desire to bring about harmony if you could join me at the topic ICR also called the Institute for Creation Research. I am not a Creationist myself, but I tend to respect the perspective or at least the right of an organization to hold a view they believe in and to have that view be presented. While the final edits may not match what I would envision, at least they will be arrived at more fairly. I could use someone with the wisdom you have shown.

Thanks Bbagot 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing up and taking a look. I'm afraid even any input you give may not be useful. We could have discussions on article content and try to involve whoever else would wish to join and find concensus, but the predominant method of change in use in this article appears to be removals or reverts without using the talk page and, presumably, without really looking at it. In looking at the talk section in the Gospel of Luke just now, I am amazed how seriously we took presenting and discussing our views and ironing out differences of opinion. I miss your desire for true dialogue. Bbagot 00:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem
Per the Gospel of Luke edits... no problem. Thanks for the edits and sorry about the revert... keep up the good work. --Rtrev 06:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus: Possible external influence
Hi Andrew. I do take your point that my contribution would be better at the end and I have put it there. I do feel though that your comments were rather dismissive and failed to appreciate the scholarly nature of the reference work, which while it is aimed at a non-specialist audience, is written by specialists. I feel that what I have written balanced that section and more accurately reflected the scholarly consensus. The current version largely concentrates on the few 'nay sayers' and only referenced one contrary view. The book by Komozeewski et al is actually written by three NT specialists (including Daniel B Wallace). They devote 40 pages to discussing the fallacy of 'parallelomania' (Samuel Sandmel, "Parallelomania," Journal of Biblibal Literature 81 (1962)) and reference many sources including Robin Lane Fox, Ronald H Nash, Bruce M Metzeger and many others in support of the quote I used. This quote is a fair summary of modern views. Hope this explains why I made the edits I did. Mercury543210 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade FAR
Hi, Andrew. I recently opened an Featured Article Review on Roe v. Wade here. In short, I'm simply burned out of Wikipedia. I appreciate everything you've done for WikiProject Abortion. Would you mind checking out the FAR and lending your input? Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 04:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

move tab
Oh, sorry, I did not know about the move tab. Thanks for the tip. Lostcaesar 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Joachim
I undid my changes and all is well. However, you said: "Furthermore, I personally find issues with moving the original Joachim article to Saint Joachim." I personally find issues with you accusing me of something I did not do. TenaciousT 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
I just wanted to thank you for your input at Abortion-related violence. I was concerned about the appropriateness of the sources cited, but I wasn't certain of how to demonstrate it. I entirely support documenting the events if they have an appropriate source. Thanks for speaking up. Joie de Vivre 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stressed Out
Hey, hang in there. It's very easy to get too involved. Just remember, if we weren't here, things would survive, so like you said, remove yourself, and look at something else. Believe me, it was hard not to let go with my real feelings in this situation. The problem with assuming good faith is that people with wrong intentions often get a pass. Actually, Ferrylodge make a couple of edits that actually seem to be not connected to abortion issues afterward, so maybe he's actually reconsidering what he wants to do here. Keep fighting the good fight. Citicat 02:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to press you to take on more than you can, but, you're part of the glue that holds WikiProject Abortion together. Your work is very underappreciated, especially since you're cross-editing articles on more than one contentious topic, including religion and abortion. Take a break, if you need to need to, but I hope to still see you aroud in the future, because it would be a shame to lose you. -Severa (!!!) 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing we're on the same page in terms of the origin of our Wiki-stress. I'm not one for greasing squeaky wheels — i.e., relenting in frustation and thus letting the "wheel" have its way. But you only have so much energy, so it's best to pick your battles if your reserves are low. Fetus is uncharted territory, for me at least, so I'm kind of sticking to articles where I know the lay of the land a bit better — where I'm therefore more able to address issues that might arise. Articles like Stillbirth and Fetus need to be written by an expert — not edited to conform with a personal perspective, creating controversy where none exists, and forcing us all to call in the POV response team. -Severa (!!!) 09:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think it is time to file an RfC? -Severa (!!!) 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should file an RfC, regarding history of abortion. A neutral observer would see that my edits were proper, and that your comments in the edit summary about 3RR are improper.  I really wish you would take a step back and look at things objectively.  Two days ago, that article contained blatant errors and ommissions --- all of them having a pro-choice tilt --- and now the POV problems are largely gone.Ferrylodge 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Joachim
You could say you're welcome for the tedious and complicated process of untangling the edit histories of the Star Trek and plain version, you know. :) -- Avi 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you Andrew
Hi Andrew, thank you for your contribution to Christianity. All the best for the future. 137.154.16.30 04:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam
Hi Andrew,

Some time ago, there was link to both Islamphobe and Criticism of Islam. So, we removed both of them because antisemitism and criticism of Judiasm for example are not in the Jews template. Just to apply same standards. --Aminz 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Patience
Sorry if I was coming off as pushy. I understand your frustation (I pooped out for a week). You edit a lot of articles on a lot of subjects, but my range is rather limited in comparison, so I have to face these issues on a daily basis. I suppose facing it anew when I'd thought that chapter was closed has kind of started to wear down my patience reserves. -Severa (!!!) 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the discussion at Talk:Embryo and just thought that I'd comment that just because you have a history of disagreement with a user does not invalidate the points you raised. -Severa (!!!) 13:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Christianity
Thanks Andrew for your kind words. I was very suprised at the venom in A.J.A.'s comments but was most annoyed at his disrespect for Storm Rider who I consider a dedicated and caring editor. Hopefully Ann's comments and a night to sleep will bring the conversations back to suitable levels of civility. I wouldn't go as far as saying all my edits have been helpful - A.J.A. and I have crossed swords in the past and I have wound him up and been less than civil sometimes. This all shows what a bad idea that is and I have learned my lesson. Actually you are one of the editors I most admire as I've never seen you lose your cool and even your opponents in any debate respect your opinions. Sophia 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Palenque glyphs-edit1.jpg
Thank you so much for your edit of Image:Palenque glyphs.jpg (now Image:Palenque glyphs-edit1.jpg). It's fabulous and just what I was looking for. Thank you so very much. Madman 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Christianity (Nicene Creed)
I noticed you took part in the straw poll. Please visit the talk page to engage in the discussion, so we may build consensus. Vassyana 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

CSS float
I'm guessing you had the time to compare the pages, is there any other difference besides the respective size of text in both columns? - Mgm|(talk) 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently div-items have a can have a height. Try putting "height:100%" in the relevant css class that surrounds the left side menu. I haven't tried but if it works as I suspect that div (and its background color should extend the whole height of as you want. - Mgm|(talk) 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fetus
I decided to dive in and try to help moderate the POV pushing at Fetus. If you support or disapprove of my edits, please let me know. If you would make a short overview of how you think the article can be improved and what needs attention on its talk page, I would appreciate it. I cannot promise that I will follow your suggestions 100%. However, I have great respect for you as an editor and would take your comments seriously. Vassyana 01:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew C., I wonder if you would do me a favor sometime, if you get a chance, and read the second paragraph of this article. I think a fetus article should cater to what average people most want to know about, and what they think is most relevant to them.  We're not writing an article to be read primarily by medical students.  Thanks.Ferrylodge 03:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot
RE YOUR COMMENT "I have a few articles on my watchlist that keep being edited by Smackbot, and then you come along and revert the bot's edits. This has been going on for a few days, and the bot is going to keep doing what it is doing because that is how it is programmed. If you have a problem with the bot's edits, please take it up on the bot's talk page. Posting on the bot's talk page will stop the bot from working until the issue has been addressed by the programmer. If you don't do this, the bot will keep finding fact tags and adding the current month.-Andrew c 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The status of this bot and category is currently being hashed out at Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20. My objection is it's intrusive and highly inaccurate, and editors are entitled to make article-by-article decisions what their "citation-needed" policies will be. Now all of them on the wiki, or virtually all of them, are labeled "February 2007". In addition, the whole thing involved an administrative override of an earlier community decision to do away with the category out of which the bot operates. It'll likely take another 10 days or so to bring this discussion to a conclusion and argue it all out in a new WP:CfD. ... Kenosis 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind discussing whatever it is you are trying to do?
Johnbod 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not all those Psalters are illuminated you know. The creator of that cat is liable to remobve it from the illuminated manuscripts cat. Johnbod 01:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editing these now - this needs wider discussion
Thank you Johnbod 02:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fetus and Prenatal Development
I'll look at the fetus article when I get a chance. Physiology and anatomy (and histology and biochemistry) do tend to overlap quite a bit, and certainly there are a lot of topics in human biology that fall into more than one category depending (or not) on the viewpoint. There were two editing/layout issues I had though, since you are interested in these two articles, I thought you might know how to fix them / have them fixed. On the prenatal development page, I couldn't figure out how to avoid justifying the fetus image with the header line of the next section. Also, the rat fetus image in the fetus article seems to have been posterized to a few shades of purple with an abrupt jump to white, I don't know if you have any idea of how to fix that, but it pretty much ruins the picture; it's not particularly informative as it is. tucker/ rekcut 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a few changes and moved some stuff around in the fetus article, was this what you were looking for? let me know if I can be of any more help (on medical or scientific articles).<font style="color: #ffffff; background: #2f4f4f; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .1em .9em .1em;">tucker<font style="color: #ffffff; background: #2f4f4f; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .35em .1em .35em .1em;">/ <font style="color: #ffffff; background: #2f4f4f; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .9em .1em .1em .1em;">rekcut 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw the revert, and in fact had an edit conflict with you in response. Not that I'll let it taint my future responses, but this guy's user talk page is pretty hilarious. I'll continue to monitor the article and chime in. Cheers! <font style="color: #ffffff; background: #2f4f4f; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .1em .9em .1em;">tucker<font style="color: #ffffff; background: #2f4f4f; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .35em .1em .35em .1em;">/ <font style="color: #ffffff; background: #2f4f4f; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .9em .1em .1em .1em;">rekcut 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism
Hi Andrew,

I was wondering if you have some free time helping with Antisemitism article(in which case I would be thankful). If not, that's perfectly okay.

I have been involved in that article for awhile and I think the Islam section is very POV and I think the section would not become neutral unless several new editors join in. There is a dispute here.

Cheers,--Aminz 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory
Andrew, I remember you as an experienced editor when I was a noob, so I'm turning to you for some advice. LostCaesar has given the Purgatory page an overhaul that, not coincidentally, is quite favorable to RCC doctrine, and he's resisting my edits in response. I put a POV tag on the page, and I don't see a resolution that LC and I will both be happy with. Of all the people that try to defend the Christian viewpoint by suppressing contrary information, LC is one of the most responsible and reasonable, but the purgatory page has been our special point of conflict since I started on WP. If he resists my input, I'm out of options. Any insight or advice you could offer would be welcome. Jonathan Tweet 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)