User talk:Andrew c/arhive18

Race for Life
Thanks for reverting censorship the of the Race for Life article. I traced the IP address of the edits and it turns out they came from Cancer Research UK themselves! I've added info on the talk page of this fact and given a warning about conflict of interest. Keep up the good work.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

IP reverting your edits
You might want to have a look at 128.252.69.40's recent contribs. Wholesale reverting your removals of the USC logos. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice of user problem
Hi Andrew... I've been trying to carry on a civil discussion with User:Altaileopard on references which he's somewhat confused on. That's probably fixed. Anyway, he has a Category:Megafauna of Africa insert on his discussion page. I corrected it by adding and extra set of brackets [ ] so that it would not appear on the category article/page. He reverted it so now it appears. I'm going to alter it again as a Reviewer and hope he doesn't repeat the revert again. I also notified Administrators User:After Midnight, User:AlexiusHoratius as I don't know who's active this week or next. Thanks... Noles1984 (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ten Commandments
Hey when you have a chance can you read over this discussion? Ten people are on one side, against one user (kwami) who I now think knows very little if anything about the matter. The page is protected and I think it is time to have it match consensus, but Jfwolf reverted me. We need an independent view. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weekends are usually not a good time to reach me. Looks like the page is currently unprotected. And wow, I only skimmed the discussion, but it sure is a lot. That said, my totally uneducated perception was everyone knew that there was a "second" ten commandments that was different significantly from the ones they display at court houses, and it's the only place in the bible with the phrase "ten commandments". But apparently I must have received that knowledge from a fringe source? I'm fairly rusty on Old Testament stuff, but Moses goes up the mountain, gets the ten commandments from god, comes down, sees his follows being heathens with the golden calf, gets mad, breaks the ten commandments, goes back up, and received the 2nd set (which are supposed to be identical to the first, but in Exodus 34 are mostly different when enumerated...) That, and the story is repeated like 3 or 4 times in 2 different books, and some earlier chapters chronologically should go after later chapters, and there is a lot of coping and pasting from multiple sources, and then I get too confused and don't bother learning all the JEDP stuff. But really, without looking at any sources, my inclination would be to include information about the "Second" ten commandments in the article about the ten commandments, because it is interesting (and rather fascinating), fairly common knowledge (but maybe not lay knowledge), and I thought it was notable. But perhaps I've been reading the wrong people. I've been meaning on picking up some basic textbooks on the OT (like Stephen Harris'). Anyway, like I said, looks like the article is unprotected, so I guess you don't need me. This really makes me want to research the matter more, and see if the Exodus 34 stuff really is not that notable, and completely unrelated to the general topic of "ten commandments". -Andrew c [talk] 02:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Objecting to the Jesus Legend.
Surely you're not serious in alleging that to be POV. Maybe it is, but the whole subject of this article is POV. Religion is a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Legend (like myth) is a loaded term, and can have really offensive connotations to believers. I'm sure there is a more neutral wording which doesn't take a stance on whether the stories about Jesus are legendary or not. What is the problem with the previous wording? -Andrew c [talk] 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Cervélo TestTeam
Thanks v much for your answer in Media copyright q's; I understand, and it makes sense to me. Great stuff.  Chzz  ► 03:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bart D. Ehrman: date and place of his birth, missing reference
Dear Andrew:

Bart D. Ehrman informed me about date and place of his birth in two recent emails.

Here the text of his first email:

Datum: 	27. Juli 2010 16:35:41 GMT+02:00

Georg, Thanks for your note. I’m glad you enjoyed the Teaching Company course and the books. My birthdate is October 5, 1955. Best wishes, Bart Ehrman James A. Gray Professor Department of Religious Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://www.bartdehrman.com

I am afraid such an email is not citable. Bad luck for Ehrman and me. Kind regards, George Gaden (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want that information in the article, either find it in a published source that we can cite, or perhaps kindly request that Professor Ehrman post it on his official website or something along those lines. We have pretty strict sourcing policies when it comes to biographical articles about living individuals.-Andrew c [talk] 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Mediation
Noloop (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Personal attacks
Calling people bigots, accusing them of vile prejudice, etc., is a personal attack. Address the points. That's all. Noloop (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Discounting sources that are otherwise highly qualified based on your own personal prejudices is not an acceptable way to edit. It is not within Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and I'm sorry if you find calling it like I see if problematic. I find your continued efforts to discount sources above and beyond WP:RS based solely on a religious litmus test highly offensive. I won't shy away from this: it angers me to see such repeating ignorance and bigotry spouted over and over on Wikipedia. It has no place in society, and no place on Wikipedia. If someone was editing the feminism article, and arguing on the talk page that we couldn't cite any women, hopefully you'd be equally as angered at that notion. Or saying we couldn't cite Jewish scholars on the holocaust article, or that we couldn't cite atheist "Darwinists" on the evolution article, or we couldn't cite African American authors on the Martin Luther King, Jr. article, you see? I'd be entirely open to independent review of any of my comments. In fact, I'd encourage it, because I have a very strong and clean record here on Wikipedia, and pride myself on integrity, and am always open to review and constructive criticism. I'd be glad to drop pointing out that things are obviously prejudicial or "bigoted" if you'd gladly stop attempting to discount sources because the authors happen to be Christian or Muslim or Jewish or otherwise theistic. Deal? -Andrew c [talk] 13:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's absurd. You don't make "deals" that you won't attack people in exchange for their abandonment of their ideas. You need to stop attacking me, because you need to respect me at a very basic level. I've filed an ANI: Noloop (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comparison to feminists and women, etc. The relation Christian:Jesus is not the same as Woman:feminist. A woman does not have any particular position on feminism as a matter of faith. You can be a woman, and not be a feminist. Christians take the existence of Jesus on faith--i.e. not because of fact and logic. That's why Christians are biased about whether Jesus was real. Noloop (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some very liberal Christians do not necessitate a historical Jesus. Let's not forget Robert M. Price is a member of the episcopal church. If this was a case of only Christians believing Jesus existed, you may be on to something, but we have presented atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims scholars as accepting a historical Jesus. Many Christian scholars argue that the resurrection of Jesus was not a historical event (meaning it either simply didn't happen, or that it happened in a manner outside of the scrutiny of history, so it cannot be discussed in historical terms using historical methods). Why on earth would Christian scholars come to such conclusions about the resurrection of Jesus, the MOST important aspect of the Christian faith? (or the virgin birth, for that matter). Your premise that a Christian would never come to a historical conclusion in conflict with their faith is very simplistic and when examined simply false. It may seem like a nice rhetorical argument, but in actuality (and in what is important on Wikipedia, cited sources), it just doesn't exist.-Andrew c [talk] 15:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've argued that there's anything Christians would "never" do. I've said Christians are predisposed to believe Jesus existed. I'm sure there are exceptions; that doesn't change the basic point. You keep saying belief that Jesus existed is widespread. By definition, something widespread is easily found. Matter-of-fact references to the Holocaust are widespread in peer-reviewed journals. Ditto the moon landings and the spherical nature of the Earth. Where are the widespread, factual references to the historical Jesus in peer-reviewed journals? If they are really widespread, it should be easy to use them as sources. We don't have any. Instead, we have theological approaches, often published in Christian presses that, by their own mission statements, exist to promote belief in Jesus. Noloop (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Novum Testamentum, Currents in Biblical Research. 1, 2, 3 go. I strongly disagree with your final assessment. If a journal claims exegetical, historical, literary-critical, sociological, theological and other approaches to the New Testament, it is no longer valid in your book because it might publish a historical article in the same volume as a theological article? I'd like you to demonstrate Sage, Cambridge, Brill, SBL are Christian presses with missions statements that promote Jesus. I think we should take care when using journals with an interdisciplinary approach, to make sure we are articles based in historical methodology, but that doesn't mean discount them completely.-Andrew c [talk] 02:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just don't know where you keep getting language like "discount completely" and "exclude". I don't use language like that. You are making strawman arguments. With a few exceptions, I'm not objecting to any particular Christian source. I'm objecting to the near-exclusive use of Christian sources, and keeping that hidden from the reader. Those journals, at first glance, seem like a perfect example of journals that promote a particular view. Use of such journals as sources is also less frequent than use of publishing houses like Eerdman's, which do have explicitly promotional mission statements. Again, there is probably a Journal of Holocaust Studies, or something like that. But, we don't find factual references to the Holocaust limited to such journals. Noloop (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that those journals promote a particular view, in terms of WP:RS (of course they have a view, or else they'd accept articles on meditation, and mathematics, and building boats, and fashion, etc). Some of the core values of the SBL, which publishes the JBL is "inclusiveness" "tolerance" "scholarly integrity" "responsiveness to change" "accountability" etc, part of their "vision statement" is "Facilitate broad and open discussion from a variety of perspectives". Nothing in there is non-secular, or promotes a Christian-only view. I also quoted above the broad array of fields another journal covers, so that it isn't only centered on those with a religious mission. I think research into these journals and/or the organizations behind them will lead to the conclusion that these are all acceptable reliable sources, and that we do not need care in terms of WP:RS. And I don't appreciate that instead of researching that yourself, you just assumed that they were "perfect examples of journals that promote a particular view". That said, perhaps we have been relying on a disproportionate amount of conservative sources, but it is hard to focus on that alone, when it seems like the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Maybe instead of trying to focus on the moderate/centrist sources, you should focus on the very worst sources we are citing, to see if we can't raise the scholarly bar in these articles. I don't think it's safe to say, "since we are citing conservative publication X, we can't assume anything about the historical Jesus is reliable..." While you may not have gone out and said anything like this, I'm not convinced you have any sources (outside of the CMT crowd) that you would find acceptable for this topic, and I think it is very important hurdle to cross; that we can agree on mainstream scholarship, and start promoting it's use, as there is a big gap between CMT and Eerdman's (I don't know much about Eerdmans, so I'm not entirely comfortable yet claiming they are the polar opposite of CMT, you know. but I guess I need to do the research into that publisher myself ;). As for the strawman, while you may not be trying to ban Christians, it seems very clear to me that you are trying to exclude Christians from making certain claims, or that if a claim is made by a Christian, it requires qualification based on that religious litmus test, and nothing else (and again, I'd refer to SLR's long post for the rationale why we shouldn't "poison the well" like that). My analogy would be adding "pro-choice" in front of all the citation to various scholarly sources in the abortion article. Just because someone may be affiliated with the Guttmacher Institute or the WHO, or may hold a pro-choice view doesn't preclude them from being professional, and doing scholarship which is published in JAMA or Lancet. Similarly, just because someone may be Christian, or has been trained at a parochial institute, does not prevent them from using the historical method, publishing in scholarly journals. It is insulting to their reputation to think that we need to add that they are "Christian" in order to inform our reader of possible, speculative, but UNFOUNDED bias. -Andrew c [talk] 15:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not make personal attacks on anyone. Calling Noloop a bigot is a personal attack, so please desist. You can of course disagree with his argument, but accusing Noloop of bigotry is not constructive and simply drags the debate down. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. -Andrew c [talk] 01:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Meetup/DC 11
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)11:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus
I've started a thread on the talk page of Historicity of Jesus regarding my second recent full protection of the page. Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 23:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk
Hi Andre, thx for the guidelines, still trying to figure out how to talk to you here on wiki.

Can you help me to put a picture and spokesmodel section on the page?

Hello Hello.. here I am. Thank you for your help, I ve uploaded the file - now I have to publish it. --> done. thx

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cioccolatina (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of draft at WP:GL/I
Hi Andrew, thought you would be interested in the current discussion here at the Graphic Lab. Thanks! --JovianEye (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  03:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Barto and Mann.jpg
> If you own the copyright, you are welcome to license it however you want. Here are some choices WP:ICTIC. However, normally the photographer is the copyright holder. What makes you the copyright holder despite not being the photographer? This image looks like it is promotional or been published before, so you are going to have to have the copyright holder e-mail us a consent form: WP:CONSENT, per WP:PERMISSION. Otherwise, a user is likely to tag the image for deletion (i.e. template:npd).-Andrew c [talk] 23:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply, Andrew. The photograph was taken by my mother, now dead. It is not a promotional shot, nor has it been previously published. I own the copyright by virtue of inheriting the image. Will the WP:ICTIC tag work for this situation?

Thank you,

Brad Smith 23:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradford Smith (talk • contribs)


 * It's probably best if you post your reply on the media copyright board, not my talk page. This way, more users who are involved with copyright issues can see your question and respond to it. I'm not always available for reply, so relying on one user to answer your question probably isn't most efficient. When you upload the pictures, make sure that you note that you inherited the rights to the image, but most likely you'll still need to send in an e-mail for verification purposes, per WP:CONSENT. As the copyright holder, you are free to release the images however you want. The image really does look promotional in nature, and I'm a little skeptical that it is otherwise unpublished, so other users may tag it for possible copyright violations and such, which is why you need to e-mail your consent form, and work with the agents there to verify the rights. -Andrew c [talk] 17:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to talk:abortion, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Really now? Ever heard of "don't template the regulars"? If you have something to say to me personally, I'm all ears, and usually quite polite (and thoughtful). But I don't have any idea what motivated you to post the above, and what you thought it would accomplish.... -Andrew c [talk] 23:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about templating you; it's just that the wording of the template expresses it so much better than I could. Bwrs (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Musa (Moses)
Hi, could you move that back to 'Islamic view of Moses' as you did for Jesus. I don't know how to move back over redirect, other than requesting to delete redirect? Thanks Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. What about Islamic view of Pharaoh? -Andrew c [talk] 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure. Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you've forgotten. just a reminder. Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Help
The user Lucas has undone a lot of links, work and absolutely encyclopedical information on Xenia Tchoumitcheva as for example the financial institutions (merrill lynch..), the first time of a runner up contract, the brigitte bardot fact which wasn't absolutely speculative but factual by many magazines (links). Can you please go back to the last version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cioccolatina (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

MBLAQ
Hi Andrew. Thanks for raising your concerns about the MBLAQ page. My friend, who is an international student was the editor of the page, adding audio and images. Her limited english led to her misunderstanding of the term 'public domain', and hence the misuse of the audio files. I would like to ask on her behalf, whether using audio from her own CD collection for the sole purpose of demonstrating and artist's sound, is permitted? It would of course be within the 30s limit, and not used for any profit in any way. Furthermore, she would like to know whether images of album art obtained from online music sites are permitted for use in a 'Discography' section? And one more question, are images readily obtained from online news articles permitted for use? Provided it is sourced properly? Thanks for your time. Imaginazn (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Music sample: if it meets WP:NFCC, then it should be ok. An artists with a very extensive and diverse discography, like Bob Dylan, has 7 different samples, which all relate to article content. A boyband that has been active for under a year, I don't imagine more than one music sample would be necessary.
 * Cover art: non-free cover art generally cannot be used in discographies. If there was an individual article about each album, the art could be displayed once, in an infobox in each individual article. but it is not needed in the main group article or in a discography article.
 * readily obtained images: just because they are publicity photos, does not mean they are licensed "freely" for our purposes. unless there is evidence the content was licensed freely, we have to assume it is copyright, and then could only work under WP:NFCC. I'm not sure what sort of image you have in mind, but if it is like the group shots that were uploaded, these are not acceptable, because it is plausible for a user to go to a concert, or public event where the band will be, and snap a photo themselves which would serve the same purpose as the publicity photos.


 * Hope this helps. -Andrew c [talk] 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * -Thanks so much Andrew. I appreciate it.Imaginazn (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lou Engle
Nice work Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up
In case you haven't noticed, someone has left a comment on your userpage. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for both of those, I did miss the post on my userpage, so I'm copying it here.-Andrew c [talk] 04:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page
When discussing Jesus Christ it is important to use the timeline of his presumed life. It does not matter if you prefer CE to AD it is not relevant and in any other context it would not matter. If you any legitimate criticism bring it forward otherwise leave it as is.

Tomgazer (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be important to you personally, but it isn't important to Wikipedia. If you want to change our guidelines, you are welcome to make a proposal, but keep in mind that this is a contentious area historically on Wikipedia. To keep the peace, we allow both (but ask that only one notation be used in an article, usually defaulting to the first one used unless there is consensus to change). I'd urge you to just let this one go, because there are much more important matters than a couple silly letters after years. We have tons of articles that need help. I'm sure there are endless things you could do, and I'd encourage any productive activities. From experience, fighting over the era notations (which we have no stated preference for in our manual of style) is basically pointless. But if you insist on continuing, I'd ask you to try to gain consensus for your changes first. Make your proposal and rationale on the article's talk page, and see what other editors think first, before going back and edit warring to try to keep your preferred era notation in. Good luck. -Andrew c [talk] 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup #12
An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.

—NBahn (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

List of Canadian flags
Because you were involved in the deletion discussion of List of Canadian flags, please join the discussion at Talk:List of Canadian flags. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes
My changes are being reverted and no one is attempting to reach any compromise. There is no consensus, and I am the only one making any attempts to build one.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you aren't picking sides, although it is interesting how their view on this issue counts as consensus, even though by definition there is no consensus. I cannot work with them because they refuse to work with me on anything. They can keep reverting my edits without consequence but I cannot do the same.


 * Also, I see you didn't issue an edit warring warning to PiCo.


 * This is what is happening: I make changes, they undo them and don't even offer to compromise. Their version has almost no sources, mine has sources. They attack me and dismiss my sources as meaningless. They aren't going to compromise by me waiting. They are just going to do what they want. They don't own this article, and there is no consensus. This is all against Wikipedia policy. RomanHistorian (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Bible articles
I appreciate the your moderation, especially on Gospel of Matthew and apologize that I have been getting frustrated. Whenever I make changes they are simply reverted. Dylan Flaherty made clear he is just reverting everything I write ("your changes are controversial and your edit comments are misleading, so the best thing is to revert"), and he is doing so without even trying to discuss things in the discussion pages. When even minor changes of mine are reverted without discussion, how can I not be frustrated?

I am having a similar issue with him in Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, Gospel of John. I am also trying to make extremely minor changes to Saint Matthew, John the Evangelist and Authorship of the Johannine works. In the last case, for example, I just tried to change "Prominent modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works." to "Most prominent modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works.[4] Many conservative scholars, however, do believe that John was behind at least some of these works in some way." and he reverted it without even trying to discuss anything. Non-fringe minority views are supposed to be given due weight on Wikipedia. Could you intervene on these pages so I can at least make some minor modifications like in Matthew?RomanHistorian (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian
Andrew, thank you for getting involved in this. Since you're an administrator, I'd like your input on how to handle this. Let me explain how this looks like to me.

I got involved when RomanHistorian completely removed the books of the NT that Protestants don't accept as canonical, from an article that covers all the books of the Bible (including some that I do not accept). I was shocked by this and worried that it was an indication that he was biased against Catholicism, in favor of the fringe of conservative Protestantism. I'm sorry to say that this has been confirmed by the many other edits he has made since.

As I understand it, when we see bias like this, we're supposed to revert it -- with an accurate explanation -- so that's what I did. I was not the only person who noticed RomanHistorian's editing pattern and I'm not the only one who reverted similarly biased changes by him. And when multiple editors keep reverting the same change by a single editor, I believe that it is only that one editor who is considered to be edit-warring against consensus. In fact, the 3rr rule looks like it's designed to punish lone gunmen by allowing more than 3 reversions so long as others join in to "gang up".

On the whole, he has made little headway, although he has occasionally found some support from people with similar views. Regardless, his changes are clearly in violation of the neutrality requirement, and I believe they border on vandalism. It doesn't help that he makes large changes, often deleting perfectly good sections, and does not make any attempt to get buy-in before the changes. I think you might remember from my few edits to Abortion that I am cautious, seeking buy-in and accepting the results. In contrast, each time he's reverted, he immediately restores his unwanted version, sometimes with a misleading explanation or no explanation at all. This strikes me as dishonest.

We've 'tried' to engage him in discussion, but this isn't possible until he slows down and confines himself to one change at a time. While he does use sources, he uses exactly two, and both of them are fringe. My problem is not with his views being included, but with the attempt to pass them off as mainstream when, in fact, they're found only among the most conservative of Protestants, whose scholarship is not generally respected. I don't believe that this benefits the articles, or the credibility of Wikipedia.

The idea of moderation was mentioned, but I'm not sure what the process is or how to get it started. What would you suggest? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't really worth it. I looked at some of these changes and they are too minor to fight over. My only remaining issue concerns the comment I made on Gospel of Matthew. I also made a comment on Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works that a minority view should be presented and that there should be a minor stylistic change to Gospel of John, but I am not going to pursue these.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh...
Re... shoot you, or buy the first round of shots? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (scroll down)-Andrew c [talk] 21:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely a round of shots, then! KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Success!
File:Bielat-congress.jpg (from this now-CC-licensed photograph) courtesy of Paul Keleher. Thanks again for the help! jheiv talk  contribs 17:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings & need guidance
Still trying to learn some things. I have been reading pages on wikipedia for sometime now, and have noticed that you seem to do fairly un-biased work. I have been having a problem trying to re-write minor-unbiased content to several southern region (USA) related pages and have been having some problems with a user named "GarnetAndBlack" who is constantly re-editing, vandalizing, or changing points of view to Clemson University related pages. I have no affiliation to the university in question, but it seems obvious to me that his objectives aren't to be "objective." Do you have any advice. Thanks. A. Apollo1975 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since some users have caused problems in the past, I wanted to let you know in advance that I have taken some source material on another page that had expired citations, condensed the information through careful edits, and have spent "hours" making certain that all of the facts and citations are valid and follow wikipedia guidelines. I just wanted to let you know this now, in case another problem arises. Is there someone who I can get take a look at it or make appropriate changes so that the edit will not be blocked in case a user attempts to tear it down again.Apollo1975 (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Bible study (Christian) since you contributed to the article.Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk: VAW
Nice job advocating for yourself and for your attacker's right to speech. Thanks for your work.Dkreisst (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian (2)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rklawton (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Query about CC licensing and OGG files
Hi Andrew. You were kind enough to help with the Oligodendrocyte image a couple of months back. I was wondering if you know, is there a noticeboard I can go to to ask questions about hosting a video clip (an OGG file, I guess) in an article. I could use some technical help and copyright/licensing advice. Cheers. Anthony (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MCQ is the place to ask media copyright questions. Good luck. -Andrew c [talk] 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Anthony (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That worked well. I now need to upload onto WP or Commons this YouTube video (copyright is sorted:CC-BY-SA). Is there a board you know of where I could take that? The copyright owner (Israeli Ministry of Health) and producer are both being very helpful, so I'd like to find someone who could work with them to produce the ideal format, size, etc for presentation on our page. Any ideas? Anthony (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this helps, but check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types: "Videos must be Ogg files using the Theora video codec. Again, non-free formats must be converted before uploading." We have strict video file limitations. I'm not sure if this is something you can do to the youtube file yourself, or something that must be done with source material. I imagine you could convert the flash file, but the quality may suffer. Maybe the commons help desk could answer your question better. Good luck! -Andrew c [talk] 14:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Anthony (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonfree content review for Punk rock
A discussion is currently underway at this section of the nonfree content review page. As you previously participated in a talk page discussion on this matter, you may be interested in participating. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of Luke
Because there is so much material on the talk page, I can see how you might get lost going through it all, so I just wanted to sum up the issue here: editors like Leadwind are deleting a lot of secondary material from well cited and well regarded biblical scholars because they are personally religious, and by his logic that makes them apologists. He replaces their work with some pretty liberal sources. Liberal sources are of course fine and useful, but he is eliminating the conservative and even moderate sources (most of which are secondary sources) and replacing them with liberal sources (mostly tertiary sources). If you look at Leadwind's edits for the couple of days before the article was locked, you will see that he went in there and deleted a lot of sources, mostly from scholars who are personally religious. This is despite the fact that the scholars are good scholars who are well known, and the sources had been part of the article for a while.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now Leadwind is making the same disruptive edits to Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew. I commented on it at the bottom of the Luke discussion page.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal Information
Andrew, Would you please remove your reference to my name from your posts in the "Abortion" discussion thread?

Please change it to "Chuz Life."

Thank You --Chuz Life (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅-Andrew c [talk] 21:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews
This topic has had some serious problems. Would you make yourself available to help? - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't had much time for Wikipedia. I'm free today and I've briefly reviewed the talk pages there. I'm still a little confused about what the edit warring was over, and it seems like there hasn't been continued discussion in 3 days. Is there anything specific you want me to look at, or could you summarize the dispute, if it is still ongoing? Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 15:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I stopped editing and have reached out. This article has had a terrible history. It would be great if you could keep an eye on it help us not to fall into edit warring etc. It is a hot topic, not only on Wilipedia but also in the real world. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

CPCs
Any hope of your getting back to the talk page for Crisis pregnancy center? It would be nice to have some kind of mediator, either to point out why my sourcing fails or to somehow oblige Schrandit to stop vandalizing the article. Roscelese (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

CPCs...again
Care to comment on whether we should describe CPCs as "typically Christian" or "typically affiliated with a Christian organization"?

Cloonmore argues that we can only describe them as Christian if they proselytize ("Christian" as a stand-alone modifier connotes that the primary or significant purpose of a center is to proselytize or evangelize), and User:Schrandit argues that we don't really know what "Christian" means so we can't use it (The definition of "Christian" is unfixed and it unclear what is meant by it, and what can be inferred by it). I argue that it's extremely obvious from the many sources cited that the centers' religiosity goes beyond the nebulous "affiliation" and that to suppress that is misrepresenting them, and that Cloomore's and Schrandit's arguments are specious and against both policy and practice (how about we just go with what the sources tell us instead of individual editors' hand-wringing about the true meaning of Christianity?).

-- Roscelese (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question
What does "deleted edits: 2" in my edit count mean? - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It means you're not very active at WP:CSD. :-) Seriously, any edit that winds up being deleted is in that count. If a user creates an article that is later deleted, or tags someone else's creation at CSD and the article is deleted, that edit shows up as a "deleted contribution". Frank  &#124;  talk  14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, any time you make an edit and it later gets deleted for any reason, it will show up in your deleted edit count. I have over 2000. If you want to know, your two deleted edits are 1) Talk:Newshounds and 2) Gospel of the Nazarenes (the page was deleted for a move and later restored). -Andrew c [talk] 15:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Us old guys often get confused. I thought I may have done something that was out of line. In any event Merry Christmas and thanks for the good work you do. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic view of John the Baptist
Hi, could you move the article Yahya ibn Zakariyya to Islamic view of John the Baptist as you did to other Islamic prophet articles. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dust Bowl - Dallas, South Dakota 1936.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Dust Bowl - Dallas, South Dakota 1936.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly hi! 07:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ja Ga talk 06:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider Please
Dear Andrew,

I'm a new user of the wiki. I have a problem about my user page and my talk page. After a month I've found that there are 2 pages dedicated as my user page: The first page I created and second I found it now the empty user page!

Also my first talk page with no message is here and the second talk page with welcome messages is here

I don't know what the matter is! Can you help me and merge the first user page with the second talk page and remove the others?

Best Regards,

svhashemi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svhashemi (talk • contribs) 09:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!
You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C. Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
 * Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
 * Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
 * Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
 * Details & RSVP:  Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews and the Jewish Gospels
I seem to have pissed really upset an editor at Gospel of the Hebrews and the Jewish Christian Gospels. I tried work out a compromise which seems to have upset him even more. Before it gets really ugly, I have decided to step back and ask for Admin. support. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Andrew C
 * Dear RetProf, you could have notified me of this.
 * Honestly, firstly this is a minor/trivial/boring subject for me, and if I was at all pissed really upset at the deletion of 4 hours work, I would have edit-warred rather than simply ask you for explanation on Talk:Jewish-Christian Gospels, Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites, Talk:Gospel of the Nazarenes for your deletions. As it stands all your deletions still hold in the article. Wheras my content, sources, even NPOV tags, have all gone. But I am allowed to ask for explanation on the talk pages. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Trust but verify
In any event, it is best to let the facts speak for themselves. I have temporarily stopped editing. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are In ictu oculi's references really 'mainline' or just one position in ongoing scholarly debate?
 * Did I really remove his tags from the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites?
 * Did I really delete all In ictu oculi's edits or only revert those lacking consensus?
 * Have I been acting in good faith; trying to work out a reasonable compromise?
 * Is Schneemelcher's numbering really the present 'standard'?
 * What is really meant by "this is a minor/trivial/boring subject"?

Things have improved
Things have improved but your input is still welcome. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Things have not improved for me, RetProf is still running a one-sided edit war deleting and reverting my edits while I do not delete his.In ictu oculi (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC) ...I did however revert one thing, the deleted NPOV tag on Jewish-Christian Gospels since the tag specifically says "do not remove".
 * However ... as it happens I think I can walk away to go back to classical music and other interests... two other editors have arrived who I think are likely to introduce mainstream scholarly sources into the articles and remove the OR and reduce the overweight given to James R. Edwards "controversial" theory.In ictu oculi (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I do agree that things have not improved. We do need Admin help. As for the harsh comments made against me, "Trust but verify". I do make mistakes from time to time but I do not think I am as bad as I am made out to be. Indeed I am more a Parker fan than Edwards but NPOV is what is really important to me. Actually I find the whole situation a little intimidating. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RetProf. A hopefully kind word of advice for future reference; if you find it intimidating to be asked for explanation on talk pages after large deletion of other editors' contributions then it may be better not to delete in the first place. However, in this case now that 2 seemingly well informed and independent editors have arrived I encourage you to follow my lead in walking away from the subject and letting the 2 other editors who have appeared remove or keep the OR, NPOV, and fringe theories.In ictu oculi (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind word of advice . . . I think? - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation
I provided a source, so stop making false accusations. Dispute the source all you want, but don't make threats. I realize BLP is a serious issue, having been involved in many roundtables led by User:Newyorkbrad on the subject, and I realize that my first edits were a bit too flippant for the policy, but to delete my source and then claim that what I put was unsourced and threaten to block me is a violation of WP:civility.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk)


 * I went back to the site and it now says that it's closed. Anyway, I learned about All About Anna and Gry Bay only from Wikipedia, so I broke the rule of using Wikipedia as a source.  When the website said the sex in the film is real, I took it to mean that the film clips from it findable on the net were all of genuine sex acts.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!

 * 1) At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out.  You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
 * 2) To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter.  You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
 * 3) To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for the meetup. Stay tuned for more meetups and activities this spring, and join wikimedia-dc mailing list for more announcements and discussion. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Vote needed
Votes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Tahash Timeline
Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

CPC/Christian
Hey, I see that you changed "Christian" to "run by Christians." There's currently an RfC open on how to describe CPCs' religious status, so would you care to weigh in? (I argue that "run by Christians" - nor "affiliated with a Christian organization," which is the wording Haymaker wants to use - is not sufficient. The U.S. is over 75% Christian and so you're likely to find that your corner store is run by Christians, too, but they are much less likely than a CPC to evangelize, to give you religiously based counseling or material, or to say that their mission is based on Christian principles.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of Material
As you can see, I have been running into a bit of trouble. Could you kindly refer me to those policy sections that have to do with duplication of material. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) PS could you keep a eye this topic. I feel my position is strong when it come to references but I do not have the Wikipedia "skills" to protect myself from person attacks etc. particularly at the Gospel of the Hebrews.
 * Off the top of my head, I can't point you to any policy. But I know what I learned in grammar school, when I was taught to write essays and later when I was taught to write scholarly articles. And I know what an encyclopedia is. It is poor writing, from my understanding, to have very similar sentences saying the exact same thing in 2 adjacent paragraphs. And it isn't concise or encyclopedic. As for monitoring the situation, I'll do the best that I can, but I have not had much time for Wikipedia lately, so I can't devote as much attention to things as I could in the past. I'm out of the loop. In theory, when in conflict with another user, I prefer to be patient, never return negative comments with more negative comments, and never participate in edit warring. Unless it's a BLP violation, or something damaging, it doesn't hurt to have a version you don't prefer stay live while discussion is underway. Not sure if you were seeking that sort of advice, but there you go. :)-Andrew c [talk] 20:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Shucks, I just realized something. Here I go, being out of the loop some more. You weren't referring to the one sentence I deleted in the Gospel of Matthew article, you are referring to my comments regarding your Jesus outside the New Testament article. WP:AND sort of applies. But more importantly, I was concerned that similar proposals were made in the past for a spinout article, and it lacked consensus to create a new article. So I felt like there wasn't enough community input to support creation of that article at the time. But who knows, like I said I am out of the loop. Perhaps you DID seek consensus and I just missed it. We do have guidelines on Content forking and Splitting. They encourage seeking consensus, but we also encourage being bold. I just think in this case, since it was discussed before, your creation was TOO bold. But that is just my opinion, and you probably didn't even know there was a past discussion, so I don't think there is any bad or ill intention editing on your part, so don't get me wrong in that regard. -Andrew c [talk] 20:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time - 21:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this refers to Duplication on several pages, can I note that the issue is not just "new" articles but also Canonical Gospels which was expanded from the original redirect Gospel, and that the duplication includes material from self-published websites like http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php I am not one of the anti-spinout crowd as you fairly put it, but proliferation of duplicate content, particularly from articles where POV tags are present, is not helpful.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NB Although the duplicate content gives that website as source in one instance it may not actually be the source. I keep finding more duplicate material Nazarene (sect) contains virtually verbatim the same material and refs promoting a lost Hebrew Gospel. For a fringe view it seems to have populated nearly a dozen articles. I haven't time to check if it's simply cut and paste, but looks like it.In ictu oculi (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now completed my review of WP policy on duplication. It appears that Ictu has used duplication as a cover for POV pushing. Over the past several weeks he has visited many many many articles and removed all material from Edwards, Parker, Nicholson, Butz etc. He has also been canvassing many many many editors. I suspect a great crowd will arrive on the scene shortly. I do have solid reliable sources to back up my editing but I simply do not have the WIKI SKILLS to deal with this sort of thing as I tend not to participate in editing warring. Your help would be greatly appreciated - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC) -

PS - There are some legitimate Duplication concerns which I would be pleased to work through.


 * Hello Andrew, Ret Prof

FWIW I don't necessarily share the majority "critical" view, I merely recognise that is where academic consensus is, and a reader has to know that before looking at minority views. And I very much doubt a crowd of "many many many" editors will arrive. I asked the 2 who proposed nominating Talk:Canonical gospels for deletion (or rather for restoring to the REDIRECT to Gospel which it was), but I haven't heard back from them. I do think that page should be deleted, yes. And yes I have been doing the rounds of articles (at least those I've found) where you've been adding what would appear Fringe views (that's always subjective, but when an author describes his book as "controversial" it probably is) and tagging, in some cases blanking duplication, making comments on talk pages. I should state again that I have no objection to Edwards-Nicholson-Butz hypotheses being heard, nor Parker's, but my understanding is that Wikipedia generally prefers a "most scholars think A ______,ref... but some scholars think B ______,ref.." format, rather than let minority views take over and exclude "standard" reference works (by which I mean called "standard" in verifiable sources not subjectively) from the article. I should point out that I realise that some of the duplication is not yours but is Junk DNA from 2006-2009.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Found another one: section "first gospels" in Gospel, tagged. The duplication may go back several years, I don't know.In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keeping Ictu Honest:  This is beginning to feel more like an election campaign. You seem to be spamming everybody. Actually, I spent a lot of time fixing the duplication. Then you reverted my edits. And then complained about duplication. In the Gospel you have done some "strange" duplicating. Please do some serious clean up. You have made quite a mess. Thanks- Ret.Prof (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Refactor
I don't usually refactor other people's posts but I did so for this one on the WP:MCQ page to clarify your post. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Review Request
There is an on-going discussion on Talk:Gospel of Matthew between Ret.Prof and In ictu oculi that you may have been following over the past 2-3 weeks. As it has gotten to somewhat of an impass, I and another editor (PiCo) would like your official input. Please go to the referenced page and scroll down to the thread entitled "This needs other Wikipedia editors", read lead to this section and then scroll down to the two drafts that have been proposed. Thanks much for your help! Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Draft in my view is not the right word, the surtitle Draft has been proposed by the editor who added cut and paste section and has resisted attempts by 2 editors to remove: Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew It would be preferable for the cut and paste Messianic duplicate material to simply be deleted as cut and paste, rather than redrafted. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that we had worked out the impass and were now working toward consensus. Am I missing something? - Ret.Prof (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is still a proposal outstanding to delete the duplicate cut and paste material. If anyone supports or opposes they should add support or oppose.In ictu oculi (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we are close to consensus. The Torah Shebiktav is the Written Torah. According to tradition, God dictated the entire Torah (except for the very last part of the book of Deuteronomy) to Moses in the Sinai desert. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. The Torah Shebeal Peh is the Oral Law. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. I do not think it is Messianic POV content? In any event if you find the "non-English" terminology offensive we can drop it. Still a little confused but I hope I answered your question? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew, there is still a proposal outstanding to delete the duplicate cut and paste material. If anyone supports or opposes they should add support or oppose.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise there is a duplicate proposal to remove the same duplicate text on Talk:Saint Matthew If anyone supports or opposes they should add support or opposeIn ictu oculi (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Gospel you have done some "strange" duplicating. Please do some serious clean up. You have made quite a mess. Thanks- Ret.Prof (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ret.Prof
 * What I did here on Gospel was remove duplicate section with the article you created out of the REDIRECT to Gospel at Canonical gospels. In doing so multiple links to a book with no page numbers broke. Not much I can do since page numbers weren't there anyway. The removal of your largely duplicate section First Gospels there, I stand by without apology.
 * Andrew,
 * Apologies for this being on your page, but then you are an admin. Is it normal for 6 articles to have cut-and-paste identical substantial content on Wikipedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ret.Prof please remember that had you not brought the issue of your duplicate material to AndrewC's attention I would not have known Andrew was even interested. Likewise if you duplicate material across several pages naturally it will duplicate on several talk pages as well. Is there anything anyone can say or do to get you to voluntary remove this duplicate content or limit it to one page?In ictu oculi (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Ictu Honest:  This is beginning to feel more like an election campaign. You seem to be spamming everybody. Actually, I spent a lot of time fixing the duplication. Then you reverted my edits. And then complained about duplication. In the Gospel you have done some "strange" duplicating. Please do some serious clean up. You have made quite a mess. Thanks- Ret.Prof (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup: May 7 @ Tenleytown Library
The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Meetup/DC page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Abortion moves

 * I have re-opened the move discussion at Talk:Pro-life movement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance on Wikicommons
Hi Andrew,

I would like to request your assistance on a matter on Wikicommons, which I have explained on your talk page over there. Thanks you. -- Mdd (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to undelete
Hi, I want to request the 'undeletion' of the article Articles for deletion/University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems. I believe I can put enough content to make the article notable and valid. Thanks! Pampi1010 (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was the nominator, not the deleting admin, for that article, so I should recuse myself from future administrative actions on that article, including undeletion. That said, I have looked at the old article, and 90% of the article consists of a table of non-free or deleted images. That sort of content is not appropriate for Wikipedia and should not be undeleted under any circumstances. The only non-tabular text is taken directly from University_of_Santo_Tomas. There is no new, original content which was lost in the deleted page. Therefore, if you believe you can create an encyclopedic article from scratch, you are welcome to recreate the page on your own from scratch, but it is my opinion that we should not restore the previous article in any form. -Andrew c [talk] 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral move of Pro-choice movement
This needs moving back, a unilateral move isn't acceptable - especially by such a WP:INVOLVED editor. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted it after I blocked. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for moving a contentious full-move-protected article without recent discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really up on the degree of consensus, but in my experience Andrew c is pretty reasonable, and he's never been blocked before despite many years of editing highly controversial topics. Do you really think a 1-week block is the best option here? MastCell Talk 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering he participated in the last two discussions, and moved through protection that was specifically put on the article to prevent moving without discussion, and that this is a topic that's under 1RR restrictions because of edit warring problems, and that as an admin, he should have known better, sounds about right to me. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already taken it to AN/I for review, since I'm sure other people will feel as you do. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you move that page in the first place? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to discuss that further, but I know unblock requests typically aren't for pointing the finger at other parties, nor continuing content disputes. I find it highly inappropriate that Anthony Appleyard voted in the first discussion, then closed the discussion in his favor, then moved the page. Despite having concerns raised regarding involvement by multiple people, Anthony Appleyard decided to close the 2nd discussion as well, ensuring that his original preferred move stays in place. I feel strongly that both closures were inappropriate and that the article should go back to the title from before Anthony Appleyard meddled and abused admin power to his favor. So what did I do, I meddled and abused my admin power to restore the order (or what I perceive to be the order, as clearly I am just one person with one opinion, and others can in good faith disagree with me). I guess I was also emotional and was also discouraged with how 'consensus' seemed to be working and how slow various processes were and how alienated I felt from any means of appeal. So I took matters into my own hands, boldly, because I was impatient and felt like I knew best. I'm not going to lie here, I still feel like I know best, but I know that I can't force it, and I especially shouldn't be using the mop for those sorts of actions (though I didn't realize I was moving a protected page, in my haste, as I stated above). All I can give you is my word. I won't move the page again. And frankly, I have been quite discouraged that I'm fine just walking away from that article completely for a set amount of time. I'm not a threat here, I promise. -Andrew c [talk] 01:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were moving it to a consensus position, I don't see what the issue would be. However, it's important to realize that "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are political terms, whereas support for or opposition to abortion rights are the reality. I don't think it's appropriat for wikipedia to be kissing up to political correctness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to self: I need to stop assuming people are admins.... :P -Andrew c [talk] 01:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. I just ask questions that occur to me. :) P.S. If I were an admin, I would lifted your block already. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a revealing comment, Andrew c. It says that you don't give much credence to the questions of an editor who is not an administrator, even if that editor is respected and the questions thoughtful. Color me not impressed. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I had phrased my reply in a manner as if the one asking the question was the one handling my unblock review. I would have phrased certain things differently had I known the situation fully. That is all. There is nothing more behind my statement (except last month I talked to Eraserhead1 as if they were an uninvolved admin reviewing a this, when neither was the case). Sorry to unimpress. -Andrew c [talk] 13:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's safe to assume that any responses directly under an unblock request will be read by the reviewing admins. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation around Abortion articles location
After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

GLAM-Wiki Baltimore meetup
 You are invited to the first Wikipedia Baltimore meetup on Saturday, July 23, 10:00am-12:30pm at the Walters Art Museum. Come meet Wikimedians, learn about GLAM-Wiki partnerships, get involved, and discuss future wiki outreach and activities in the Baltimore area!

There also is a Wikipedia & Cultural Heritage at the Young Preservationist Happy Hour on Friday, July 22, 6:30pm at the Midtown Yacht Club, an unpretentious neighborhood pub.

Note: You can remove your name from the Baltimore meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Help needed for page “Neeraj Grover Murder Case”
Hi Andrew, I created a page Neeraj Grover which is a very infamous murder case in India. One of the prime accused had her own page and the main accused did not have. I put some redirects on Neeraj Grover viz "Neeraj Grover Murder" & "Neeraj Grover Murder Case". After this I moved the page to Neeraj Grover Murder. Finally I redirected Jerome Mathew & Maria Susairaj to Neeraj Grover.

Issue is now when I search for "Neeraj Grover Murder Case" or "Jerome Mathew" it takes me to page Neeraj Grover that has been moved. Following is what I would like to do.


 * 1) Page name should be Neeraj Grover Murder Case
 * 2) Neeraj Grover Murder, Jerome Mathew, Maria Susairaj & Neeraj Grover should redirect to above name.

Can you please help me? Many thanks. AKS 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunsingh16 (talk • contribs)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter
The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

First Century Palestine
Hi Andrew, I believe which you created is not correct in havng a First century Roman province called Philistia on the bottom left hand side. I have added a disputed tag as such. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've responded. Short version is: I was only following sources. If you are saying scholarly sources are wrong, you need to back it up with more. -Andrew c [talk] 16:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Films involving disabilities
Category:Films involving disabilities, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade at Featured Article Review
nominated Roe v. Wade for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. NW ( Talk ) 16:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Andrew c,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Dear user My name is Mario and I am a user of the Wikipedia in Spanish. My situation is as follows: I put two images of a Wikipedia web. The owners sent me an email saying this:(I put all emails) ''Mario:

Our images have been produced, made and used by us, we are its sole owners, will try to follow the protocol you tell me. The truth is that I had not seen.

Cheers and thanks

Stephen

Dear Manager:

Sorry for being so heavy but I do not know if you understand well what I ask. You allowed me to use their images freely, but I can not do anything until the wikipedia ensure that I am free to use your content, then you need to send an email to wikimedia approving the fact that their images free licensed and, therefore, can be used.

To understand me I'll show a message saying what I have to do, as we read:

Is necessary, if you want to continue, you tell them it is necessary to send an email to OTRS system explaining their conformity with the use of images licensed under the cc-by-sa so that we can use for otherwise we can not use their images. It takes time and it is likely that when they realize what they have to do and the implications, and do not want to donate images.

I hope you understand, because even if you gave me permission, I can not do anything. I feel that there should be many complications (believe me when I say I never thought I would have to make such a fuss to do something very simple and that bothers me as much as you do this).

You go forward, know that the instructions for sending mail are on the link in the email that I sent.

Sincerely,

Mario Perez Santolaria

The Photos are owned by us, like the texts. There is no problem in use.

Stephen

Dear Manager:

First, I want to thank you for giving me permission. Secondly, I have not understood. They say they are copyrighted but, instead, allow me to use the content. He believed that having rights meant that could not be used for other things.

- If so that gives me permission to do so:

I am advised that to do what I want (using pictures of him in an article in wikipedia) you need to send an email to wikimedia stating that the contents of this website is free and ask to be put under a free license, under section of wikimedia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/es. Read for more information.

- If the case contains, indeed, copyright and confidential, tell me.

Sincerely,

Mario Perez Santolaria.

Mario:

We are the owners of all rights to the pictures and texts, so there is no problem. In addition thank you have noticed this humble company and Puppet theater room. Use the information from the web as you like.

Cheers and thanks.

Stephen

To Whom It May Concern:

Are images on their website are copyrighted or licensed Comons? You would want to raise one or two to develop a Wikipedia article on this theater. Of course, the text is mine, not copied. Also, how I can make this website as a source of the article?

If you have copyright, I would advise putting everything under a ©.

I have no very clear about the issue of licenses.

Thank you for your attention'' My question is: How will I know if you have received? As if to answer, my Spanish Wikipedia user is 'Santolaria'. Thanks, 2.142.210.149 (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to DC Meetup #28!
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

Orphaned non-free image File:1998 World Youth Games logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:1998 World Youth Games logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
 * I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries
Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.

Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of the National Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!

Kirill [talk] 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

RfD: Matthew XX:XX -> Gospel of Matthew
Howdy. Looks like you're mostly retired, but I see you've had previous discussions regarding the bulk-redirecting of titles to Gospel of Matthew that are the subject of this RfD. - TB (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DC Meetup #33
December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!

The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.

Kirill [talk] 14:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Holiday Party and Wiki Loves Monuments Exhibition
Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.

The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.

Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for administrator
I want to have my user page & it's history deleted. May you please do that for me?

--S1312 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done that. If you were just asking Andrew c to do it, you didn't need to use admin help, as just a simple message here would do. If, on the other hand, you wanted to ask any administrator to step in and do it, then a more appropriate place for the admin help template would have been your own talk page. (I am telling you this in case you ever want to ask for admin help again. This time, the page is deleted, and I don't suppose how it happened matters much.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Units


A tag has been placed on Template:Units requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ( ).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

help with this.
hello, I need your help with this little problem..


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_Z_(film)&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_Z_ (film)

as you can see, there have been some inconvenintes, that truth is if they are doing well or poorly, they closed my discussion on the "talk page" practically because they want to, or they are right? thank you sir. MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

DC happy hour on Thursday, February 28!
Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion: Wikipedia and legislative data
Hi, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!


 * Please sign up here
 * Announcement on Cato's blog
 * Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
 * Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, March 9!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 14:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29
In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, April 13!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 19:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to the "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20
The "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20, 2013 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is a rare chance to go behind the scenes in the University Archives of the GW Libraries and use their unique resources to research and update Wikipedia pages related to The George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Did you miss our last D.C. history editathon? This is your is your chance to come edit with wiki-friends using different great collection! The event includes a behind-the-scenes tour of the University Archives and a show-and-tell of some of its most interesting treasures, snacks, and the editathon.

Participation is limited to 30 volunteers, so RSVP today! Dominic·t 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetups on April 19 and 20
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill [talk] 20:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, May 11!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

DC WikiSalon on May 24
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of May 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 18:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Webinar / edit-a-thon at the National Library of Medicine (NLM)
Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!

On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Wikipedia meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.

Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.

If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

DC WikiSalon on June 6
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Have time on Saturday?
I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Harej (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, June 15!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 19:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Join us this Sunday for the Great American Wiknic!
Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.

Harej (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, July 13!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 00:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 03:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14!
Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 18:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 14:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 05:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
I have responded on the same page. Thankyou for taking the time to discuss this. Hopefully we can reach a consensus that can maintain completeness and equally address the issues of descriptors. If a middle ground can be found; I'd be happy to make the edits myself.Lostinlodos (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits on vacuum-aspiration.svg?
Hello,

sounds like you're on hiatus. When you're back, I'd love to discuss changes to vacuum-aspiration.svg -- I think I may have discussed them with you in the past, before going on an unexpected hiatus myself.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Bobby V
Category:Bobby V, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox New Testament manuscript
Template:Infobox New Testament manuscript has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 23:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Font Bureau typefaces
Category:Font Bureau typefaces, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. David Condrey  log talk  01:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:WayneAnde
Hello Andrew. Could I ask whether you are also User:WayneAnde, and using that account for paid editing? Thanks, Number   5  7  21:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What? This is my only account. I'm curious, what peaked your suspicion? -Andrew c [talk] 22:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an account on Elance that is using your user name, picture, and personal information for paid Wikipedia editing. They also use the above account User:WayneAnde among others. Would likely be good for you to ask Elance to take down that account if it is impersonating you. They have agreed to take down other accounts their that infringe up our ToU. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Healing the ear of a servant
Andrew, Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Healing_the_ear_of_a_servant&direction=prev&oldid=371626312

I want to remove this Wiki article listing completely to replace with a correct version: "Healing of the Servant of the High Priest" (not his 'ear'). There is a huge difference, and you can see my discussion of it on the Talk page of that article. It is all metaphoric, something few seem to understand. I see how to add sections, but not change the article title. My goal is to ultimately replace the complete topic of Judas with the corrected gnostic view of him, which is as a cover for James the Just. I can tell you (anyone) all about the reasons for this, but it is a quite extensive discussion. If you are seriously interested I am game for it, however. I know you won't be disappointed.Sahansdal (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dragonfly image
Moved from your userpage, from an edit by User:Hyperbole6000X Moved by Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Image:Dragonfly morphology edit 3.svg (partial redraw of hind wing for accuracy)
 * A request for you to correct an image you made. The dragonfly image you made, and altered, turns out to have been drawn with Honeybee wings, NOT dragonfly wings. The Tumblr community had this brought to their attention recently by an entomologist's posting (http://quietmagpie.tumblr.com) and would like to ask your help in getting it changed. You can probably tell I am not familiar with adding anything to Wikipedia, so I hope everyone takes that into account. I hope you can contact that entomologist to see what they would need to get it corrected. I also added something to the entry for Gustavb so he can help you again if needed. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gustavb ) Thanks ahead of time. Facts equals Truth.

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux  Talk 01:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux  Talk 00:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux  Talk 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Majority rule (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Majority rule (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 15:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Majority rule (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Majority rule (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

DAB page with only 2 links that can easily be replaced by hatnotes.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 00:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)