User talk:Andrew c/archive3

Talk:Abortion

There is currently an editorial dispute involving the mental health sub-section of Abortion. I am having difficulty fielding the overwhelming number of considerations on my own. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 22:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

trying to look at misoprostol with a cold eye

i had a good time nerding-out doing the brazil research--what do you think of the summary sentence(s)? i found one source which claims misoprostol is used illegally in mozambique, but no numbers/studies yet. the "used in many countries" quote is on ibis cite, and that sentence could be put back in, but i would rather have more specific sources. (?)

overall, what do you think article needs for NPOV/"comprehensive treatment of subject without going onto too much digressive detail"?

(i am thinking it needs 1) needs info about miso in the '70s 2)the cervidil info worked in 3)more info about artrotec, the miso+painkiller combo used in uk 4) some info about prostaglandins 5)more about the mechanism of action; how it is similar/diff to other prostaglandins) do you have ideas about what else/what should be adjusted? Cindery 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

j'accuse! :-)

"IDX, along with dilation and evacuation (D&E), early induction of labor, and rare procedures such as saline abortions, are only used in the late stages of pregnancy. Late-term abortions are uncommon, with abortions at 21 weeks or later accounting for only 1.4% of all abortions in the USA.[12] Intact D&X procedures are used in approximately 15% of late-term abortion cases. This calculates to between 2,500 and 3,000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000. "

ok, i accuse you of having read this IDX article and not alleged that the arithmetic performed on data from guttmacher was original research...but, not a big deal. (i still think math not OR; am not disputing/looking to make issue of calculations made in IDX article.) Cindery 03:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr Andrew

Someone vandalise the Jesus page. Plz revert it

New Testament manuscripts

I have now closed the CFR you nominated, I thought I would let you know as you mentioned that you are going to put some articles from the Manuscripts category in the new cat. It might also be worth moving the new category out of Category: New Testament and into Category: Bible ? Tim! 09:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I had a good break from all this in the real world and regained some perspective. I'm still very angry with how they treated Al and can't cope with any of the wider community stuff with its posturing and petty power play, but the science articles lured me back. It's nice to be in the majority for once but wherever I go I seem to find a battle! I've always admired your calm detachment that gets the job done in a quiet efficient way and am trying to develop the same editorial style as it seems to be very effective. I can see I've still got a way to go yet. Sophia 22:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mexico in the article North America

Hello Andew c:

I read your following comment about Mexico being listed in Central America:

Why is Mexico listed under Northern America when the Northern America article says specifically that Mexico is not included. Also, the Central America article notes that Mexico is usually not included as well, so where does that leave Mexico if it isn't Central or Northern? I think the best solution would be to not use "Northern America" at all, and use the confusing, redundent, yet common phrase "North America*"... *not refering to the continent.--Andrew c 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a proposal not to use the UN geoscheme because it is confusing. Please I beg you to comment on my proposal in the discussion page of the article North America under the name "List of Territories and Countries Proposal". Please comment.AlexCovarrubias 06:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Manga Magdalena

Dear Andrew, could you please have another look into the Mary Magdalene article. Our anon friend, now with a user name, refuses any explanation and just reposts his stuff again and again and again. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory

You might want to hold off on the subcategorization you've been doing with the directory. Not that I have anything against it, quite the contrary. The pages were never really done; we were just working to ensure that all the projects got included. I am in the process of making newer versions of the directory pages in userspace, including several projects under several headings when appropriate. For instance, I think "Star Trek" will fall under Television, Novels, Comics, Film, and Video Games. I think. Don't quote me on that; I don't have the list in front of me right now. But you might want to hold off on the reorganization until the final organization is in place. If you want to add to them, however, they are under those which have been started are at User:Badbilltucker/History and society Directory and User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory. The rest will follow. I think the final model will be following the subcategorization you wanted, maybe a bit too much so. Badbilltucker 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Redirect list

When I said all the names were included in the new directory on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council talk page, that's exactly what I meant. I just did that so that we could know what all is out there and that everyone could start to see which, if any, were just old boilerplate which never amounted to anything and could reasonably be deleted. In the process, I and the others found that there were a lot of projects (over 1000 total) and that many fall into more than one niche. Now that I have had all the names included on the basic directory, I am in the process of trying to break them down into categories. I have the lists of categories prepared, and am now individually going through them and seeing which projects were just abortive attempts which could be deleted safely, and adding the rest. Regarding the redirect you mentioned, I honestly don't know anything about that and had nothing to do with it. My guess is that whoever did do that thought that the new unfinished directory, which includes several hundred projects more than the old one, was, even with its flaws, more useful to have. And don't apologize about "butting in". I wouldn't have known the old list was deleted otherwise, and am grateful for the information. Knowing that, I have more incentive to complete the new one more quickly. I'm hoping that it should be done early next week. Thanks for the info, though, and my apologies for the premature action of whoever eliminated the old list. Badbilltucker 14:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Our past butting of heads and your request

I agree with that we butted heads in the past, however, I believe we both do not want a repitition of us butting of heads based on your last message to me and my desire for reconciliation. Secondly, I agree the Biblical literalism article was a mess. I changed the order of the arguments since the arguments for biblical literalism should proceed the arguments against it in a Biblical literalism article. Secondly, I removed the uncited material that offered no Biblical exegesis. Lastly, you should know that I mostly did the editing to the article as a favor to you since we butted heads in the past. I am far more interested in issues having to do with Christianity/Bible and history/science. ken 17:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Authorship of Pauline epistles

We seem to have a trouble with the source in the first paragraph. I think there is a misunderstanding. You have used different words in different edits. I am confused as to what wording to use, and am not trying to change the quote. Here is the example.

Revision as of 03:33, 26 September 2006 Andrew c The latter 3, called the "Pastoral Epsitles," are generally considered by critical scholars to be pseudonymous.

Current revision (15:37, 26 September 2006) Andrew c The latter 3, called the "Pastoral Epsitles," are more disupted, with wide agreement among scholars regarding them as pseudonymous.

Those are both your edits. My edit, which is sandwiched in between, read: Revision as of 08:30, 26 September 2006; Lostcaesar The latter 3, called the "Pastoral Epsitles," are more disupted, with many critical scholars regarding them as pseudonymous

It seems that the major change to the reference was a product of your edits. Thus your edits have said both "generally considered by critical scholars", and "wide agreement among scholars".

Just trying to clear up some confusion. Lostcaesar 15:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Andrew, I see now. I think we can drop critical, and my phrasing as well. I think the best thing to do would be to preserve Ehrman's rather bold assertion; I will try to cite the counter-claim properly when I get a moment. Actually, I wonder if this kind of back-and-forth style is right for the intro. I don't know - what do you think? Let me say I am glad that you are giving attention to the article. A while ago, someone observed the citations needed and the use of weasel words, so I tried to improve this, though I ran out of steam before the pastoral section. However, my contributions alone would be imbalanced, no matter how well I try and frame them. Lostcaesar 19:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

biblical literalism

Would you mind adding your opinion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biblical_literalism I know you mentioned that some ideas were salvagable. You seem to know wiki guidelines better than any thathaves talked with me. I'd appreciate your insight. --DjSamwise 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Whelp... I've removed allot of the POV from Biblical Literalism, admittedly only to replace it with much of my own.

I've been to semniary, search google over and over read through all my Bibliology texts and inerrency thesese<-? and cannot find a single proponentary<-? definition for biblical literalism. I've found lots of Liberal Christian sites and anti Christian sites lambasting the literalists and offering definitions, opinions and solutions. And with those sources we have our new literalism page. It's crap. But at least its cited crap. Where do we go from here? --Home Computer 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up Terrorizer

I did everything en masse and was a bit careless with the links. Much appreciated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.0.210 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 3 October 2006.

Thanks for your support....

... on Bible scientific foreknowledge through the ongoing assault against anything criticizing inerrantism. It was getting a little lonely there. The Crow 12:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

..for help with the messianic prophecies page. That thing was out of control. --Home Computer 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew

I've seen your comments on some of the Jesus pages, and judging by the interests you list on your user page we'll probaby run across each other some more. I see you're interested in early Christian writing. My current interest is early Christian writings about the afterlife. If you wanted to check out purgatory, gehenna, particular judgment, bosom of Abraham, limbo, etc., with an eye toward early Christian writings, I'd welcome your input. Jonathan Tweet 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

About the Messianic prophecy article

Hi, Andrew

(I'm posting this on your page instead of the Talk page because it gets into some specifics and I don't want to mess with all the "You're a bigot" allegations that start the moment someone mentions any specific religion.)

We tried in the Messianic prophecies article to only discuss major views. The problem was that a guy in a Bahai cult (BUPC) that only has about 1,000 members worldwide kept adding loads of stuff from his cult's views and misrepresenting it as mainstream. Even Bahai's were complaining about it. Attempts to correct it wound up in constant edit wars.

Regarding, "We'll discuss it if necessary", my response is "been there, done that -- repeatedly." Look through the edit history of the Messianic prophecies article and you'll see the problem. Just changing "prophecies" to "prophecy" won't avoid the problem. The only way that works to deal with details of divergent traditions is the sub-article approach. (Also look through articles like Messiah.)

The reason I posted at the top is because it was a really major revert because of how distorted, gutted and off-topic the article had become and because editors obviously were not aware of the history and problems the article was created to resolve.

At the time I wrote the original article there were Jewish, Bahai and BUPC editors sitting there waiting to pounce on anything they considered POV, so it was deliberately written to present opposing views, examples of alleged prophecies, etc.--after a compromise agreeing to do a general "concept" article and sub-articles. From what I can tell, it looks like none of the recent editors were involved in the "prophecies" article. For instance, "Jesus fulfilled XYZ" claims were deliberately omitted (possible POV) and the article was deliberately made an "only explain the concept" article to avoid constant item-by-item attempted refutations by several Jewish WP administrators. In any multi-religion prophecy article, they insert 2-3 "opposing view" sentences for each "fulfillment" sentence. They don't insert them in a separate section, they insert them directly following the "fulfillment" sentence. The article winds up being unreadable garbage.

I really do hope various editors will create additional specialized articles. I originally created a disambiguation page for numerous "Messianic prophecy (<religion> view)" but it was deleted (without my objection) because no one created the relevant pages within a reasonable time.

By the way, I suggest you check out my user page about my religious background. I have a much broader background than most WP contributors, whose background and training generally are in a single religion. I'm the one who put in the extensive reference section to begin with.

(I consider myself a Messianic gentile but I regularly attend a Methodist church, a Messianic synagogue and a Reform Jewish synagogue.)

RickReinckens 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah.. regarding the same article. If the Bahai faith claims no Messiah as was mentioned on the page, there's no need to include that info. It's not a POV thing, everything in the universe doesn't need to be mentioned. The matrix trilogy for instance , doesn't need to be mentioned. You can have an article on a subject and only the relevant info needs to be in there. You don't need every single religions POV in there to make in NPOV. Peace. --Home Computer 19:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_11#Template:Palestine. You'll notice it is the same block of voters who all come in and voted oppose to the renaming here: Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Requested_move.2C_Retitle_Article_ASAP. It's coordinated block voting and I do not know how to respond to it appropriately. Maybe I should create a mailing list of people who I think will vote with me and call them up when I want to get rid of something I don't like. --Ben 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation)

Hi Andrew. I note that you proposed Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation). What are your thoughts on that? --WikiCats 20:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Animal sexuality and List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

Please feel free to revert the misguided editor User:Kdbuffalo on both of these articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thank you for your support! I hadn't noticed that kdbuffalo was in violation of 3RR on "Peter Stoner". He does appear to have a long history of edit-warring. --Robert Stevens 08:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Because of the discussion between edits, and the various changes since, I did not consider the reverting to be in violation of the 3 revert rule. I apologise if it has appeared that way.Retsudo

3RR

Honestly, I thought I was under the 3RR in a 24 hour period – I guess I lost track, my apologies. Lostcaesar 14:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your rejection to my link for 'Revelation'

Andrew, you may not know I answered your concerns from the 'Revelelation' discussion page. Allow me to reproduce it here for your behalf: "No, it does not sound harsh. I cite all my sources, which are all primary, that is from authors from the antiquity. Sorry, I do not used tertiary sources (such as the opinions and interpretations of contemporary writers) and I will not apologize for that. Who am I? If you look at the parent site posted on top of the page, "Front page: Daniel & Revelation" http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/danrv.html , you will notice I provide my full name and a link to a short bio "about the author". Self-published? I can have somebody posting the link for me: as you can see from the parent site, I have some happy readers. The parent website I just mentioned shows ranked in 4th position on Google and 8th on Yahoo! for "Daniel and Revelation". Maybe I should propose the parent webpage, which is very short and proceed very quickly towards either Daniel or Revelation. Either that, or stating my name and posting the link to my bio on the 'Revelation' page. What do you think? (NEWS: ALL MY PAGES HAVE A LINK TO MY BIO AND EMAIL). BTW, thanks Andrew for saying you like my page. I want to tell you the links I proposed are well-researched, very thorough, contains no hate and would be an asset to Wikipedia. Try that short one: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html Note: that site has been posted as a link, for a long time (please don't remove it!) on Wikipedia pages about 'historical Jesus', 'historicity of Jesus' and 'Jesus myth'. Under 'historical Jesus', the site is in 13th position on Google and 6th on Yahoo! Maybe I am not a registered scholar, but I thought Wikipedia was not all about propagating the work of professionals. I consider myself more of a critical & investigative amateur historian, with burning (but not blinding) passion about the history of very early Christianity. And my approach (and background) should be commended in a field almost fully "owned" by scholars (most of them on a payroll) with very different opinions & theories (which would prove that scholarly works, in this specific field, may be the problem, not the solution). I must admit I am very annoyed when my pages are rejected, mainly because some existing links are of bad quality, very biased or totally irrelevant (Check the last link on the 'Ignatius of Antioch' page --'Ignatius of Nerdtreehouse')(NEWS: I DELETED THE LINK). (BTW, I would love to attract your attention on these bad links, after reviewing them, of course). I did participate about one year ago into editing the 'Jesus' page. But that was very discouraging, with my work being often chopped down by evangelical Christians, even after some very long discussions. Please also note my webpages are ad-free. ..." I checked the page on Ignatius of Antioch, and I am outraged on how one-sided it is. More like an oulet for the Catholic Church (if true as stated, we should be all practicing Catholics). Is it what Wikipedia is all about? Why can no opposing views be exposed (which they are, in a lot of details and justifications, on my page on Ignatius)? I just wonder Mullerb 22:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You rejection on my page on 'Revelation' (Continued)

Since you may not be aware I answered you latest comments on the Revelation discussion page, I'll reproduce my reply here: "Thanks for your comments, Andrew. I feel sorry that Wikipedia would sponsor the old guard of well-financed scholars. I am not even trying to change anything on the main text of these "religious" pages [outrightly so Christian you wonder who owned Wikipedia], certainly not attempting to publish my thoughts in front, just to propose, through a link, some well-evidenced thesis offering in the process some refreshingly clear-cut solutions. And I got feedback as such: "Your web page is very informative! The reading of Revelation without the Christian additions is suddenly very clear. My dad and I are very excited by your research" "Daniel and Revelation: Really enjoyed reading your material. ... Thank you again, for the clear scholarly presentation. So many times I truthfully have no idea what the authors are attempting to say. My humbly opinion being "they" use words that they themselves understand to be quoted as if.... From the tower or perhaps from God or at least a demigod.... The goal of educating not only clergy but all who may seek wisdom. ... You are accomplishing on your Internet pages." "I think ALSO that you have the makings of a scholarly site" "Your intellectual honesty is striking. A quality that is rare nowadays. Most of the time writers have a conclusion in mind and argue their way to lead the reader to see things the way they do." "Just wanted to thank you for your work. I've been trying to make sense of Revelation for years and never did know where to start. You have single handedly cleared it up for me. Fascinating research." Amateurs are the ones who do not try to make a living through their research, and therefore, for the honest ones, not biased and very open to all of the primary evidence, wherever it leads. Please note that my two main entry pages http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html and http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/danrv.html were very popular on Google and Yahoo! before one of them (the first one) was posted as a link on three Wikipedia pages. So there is no circular reasoning here. Now, almost 80% of the "clicks" for my page on 'Revelation' (my most popular page these days) come from Yahoo! If you search there for just 'Revelation', my page shows in 6th position (and I am not even posted on Wikipedia!). So I think the whole thing is very unfair. Mullerb 04:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)" Mullerb 18:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the following addition in front of my page, just to show the ideas I exposed in it are not without scholarly backing: From JewishEncyclopedia.com - REVELATION (BOOK OF), Article by Crawford Howell Toy (Christian scholar, D.D., LL.D.) and Kaufmann Kohler (Ph.D.): "The last book in the New Testament canon, yet in fact one of the oldest; probably the only Judæo-Christian work which has survived the Paulinian transformation of the Church. The introductory verse betrays the complicated character of the whole work. It presents the book as a "Revelation which God gave . . . to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," and at the same time as a revelation of Jesus Christ to "his servant John." According to recent investigations, the latter part was interpolated by the compiler, who worked the two sections of the book—the main apocalypse (ch. iv.-xxi. 6) and the letters to the "seven churches" (i.-iii. and close of xxii.)—into one so as to make the whole appear as emanating from John, the seer of the isle of Patmos in Asia Minor (see i. 9, xxii. 8), known otherwise as John the Presbyter. The anti-Paulinian character of the letters to the seven churches and the anti-Roman character of the apocalyptic section have been a source of great embarrassment, especially to Protestant theologians, ever since the days of Luther; but the apocalypse has become especially important to Jewish students since it has been discovered by Vischer (see bibliography) that the main apocalypse actually belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature." In general agreement with the above, next, I will provide a short synopsis, with some remarks (mostly about authorship), before proceeding to the ancient text, where, with inserted comments, points previously postulated will make a lot of sense (I hope you'll agree, as some of my previous readers: see here)." (Mullerb 22:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Revelation" " Mullerb 22:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You rejection on my page on 'Revelation' (Continued ...)

Just to inform you, Andrew

I do not know how Yahoo! works, but right after I indicated here (and on the Revelation discussion page) that two of my sites were showing high on the Yahoo!'s lists (when searching for 'Revelation' and 'Historical Jesus'), my webpages suddenly disappeared. Are we back to books burning? Mullerb 01:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Gnosticism on Jesus Page

Hello, I had some contributions or possibly changes that I wished to make to the section on Gnostics, and I wanted to run them by you since you both contributed heavily to that section and are presumably "in the know" about the subject.

First, The passages says that "while some Gnostics were docetics, most Gnostics believed that Jesus was a human who became possessed by the spirit of Christ during his baptism." However, I have a text in front of me by Henry Chadwick, a well known historian of antique Christianity, who writes "Most of the [gnostic] groups were for the divine, not for the human redeemer, and in most cases disbelieved in the reality of Christ's human flesh." He then argues that 1 John contains a polemic against this Gnostic view. He concludes "to gnostics, death on the cross seemed incompatible with divine presence." This seems to be a factual issue of some merit, and I would like your opinion on whether, and how, to include the differing analysis (if I am indeed understanding the views properly). I will says that in my amateur reading of some gnostic works I do distinctly recall an absence of the cross.

Second, the passage mentions that Gnostics held certain beliefs about the demiurge (which is no doubt true). Because this conjures up ideas of Platonism, I would like to mention that the Neo-Platonists, such as Porphyry and Simplicius, basically saw gnosticism as a mortal enemy.

Third, the paragraph says that Gnostics tended to "interpret the New Testament" as allegory, but I have problems with this use of New Testament, since it strikes me as anachronistic in that the New Testament canon had not been settled, and indeed the books were being written while gnosticism was well underway, and also because the Gnostics held many writings as spiritually profitable that would never be in the New Testament. So I think the accuracy of this passage could be improved.

Fourth, and lastly, I think it worth differentiating between contemporary gnosticism and ancient gnosticism. The last sentence, which reads "the movement" is not clear that the modern movement is historically fissured from that of antiquity and in many ways distinct. There is a difference between early views and contemporary reconstructions of early views. Of course I must admit my total ignorance to the neo-gnostic movements of today, and would certainly need input on how to properly describe the similarities and differences.

I am interested on your thoughts and advice. I will say, I am in no rush, nor am I dead set on such changes happening, but I think they are a good idea. Lostcaesar 13:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

re

1, Chadwick does not say that all gnostics were docetic, only that most were. I think the difference is just on whether most were or not, since both sources agree that some were and some were not. I don’t recall saying anything about the resurrection. The quotes you mention sound docetic to me, but I'm no expert — they get uncomfortable with the idea of physical death on the cross. 2, You are righ, point dropped (this just comes from my own interest in neo-platonic philosophy really). 3, I'll think up a sentence and offer it when one which sounds right comes to mind — your suggestion is good. 4, I am only thinking a few words here, perhaps around the "rediscovery" passage which might be the right moment to mention something. Lostcaesar 17:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The removals from Yahoo!

Sorry Andrew, but I never accused you, nor that even got into my mind for a split second, to have anything to do with this removal from the Yahoo! lists. However since most of my comments to you were a repeat of what I put on the Revelation discussion page, yes, I am suspecting one of the readers here used some muscles to have my webpages disappearing. Maybe it cannot be done, but maybe it can be, but that's too much of a coincidence. I hope I was clear. Mullerb 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

John Meier disambiguation

Thanks for fixing the image before I had gotten to it in de-indirecting!

I suspect you are more interested in John P. Meier than in John Meier (Australia)... I was thinking of writing the full name (John Paul Meier) in a disambiguation page. OK? JoergenB 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... I only knew of the German folklorist; so this night I've learned a bit more of biblical history and Australian politics than I expected :-) I've no protest; but did you remove the disambiguation header from all three articles? JoergenB 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine! (I was unsure, due to the lack of a plural form of the word article.) Good night JoergenB 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case against Kdbuffalo

I accepted a Mediation Cabal case involving this user, and was told you might be interested. The page is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo, if you want to say anything. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

drones go 2 diners

Didnt you know sir, that only drones and zombies go to diners. I meant well, and certainly i do not vandalise wikipedia, thanks mr andrew c. Portillo

Congrats

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Archilochus-alexandri-002-edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! NauticaShades 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, next time upload your edits over at commons. NauticaShades 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

re: re: FP promotion

I was wondering if you could answer this question. How would I go about moving Image:Archilochus-alexandri-002-edit1.jpg over to the commons? I know if I upload the image with the exact same name, the redirect won't work. However, could I mark the image here for speedy deletion, and then the redirect work? Or is this too much of a hassle and I should let it be and just in the future upload images (and edits) to the commons? Thanks.-Andrew c 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• You can upload the same picture on Commons with an every so slightly different name. Then, just tell me ( or do it your self and tell me afterwards) and we can replace all instances of it with the commons version. Then, we tag the non-commons one with {{NowCommons}}. NauticaShades 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all your help. If I am reading Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons correctly, the admins that handle NC tagged images can work with images with the same file name on the commons, so changing the file name when uploading to the commons and editing all pages on wikipedia that use that image seems unnecessary (though I did it this time). Anyway, thanks again.--Andrew c 14:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. On the subject of changing the name, you are right in a way, but as the old saying goes: If you want it done right, then do it yourself. In othr words, the {{NowCommonsThis}} area has severe backlog, and it would take weeks (if not months) to sort this whole issue out. If we upload it under a different name, we can change all instances of the non-commons one to the commons one and get it over with, as opposed to the admins having to do it. NauticaShades 15:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[untitled]

Fair enough, I suppose...I'll edit my comments to make it clear that I was commenting on the early feminists' positions, and not Yonmei or the others'.

Pianoman123 01:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Hello, Andrew c. If you would like a cool signature made for you, be sure to visit User:Sean gorter/Signature shop. •Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} 09:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Caprock Canyons State Park

Edit 1: Color burning applied to washed out areas; Sharpness filters removed, removal of motion blur, higher quality sharpening & dropped blown sharpness artifacts.

I've uploaded a better edit attempting to address concerns. I'd appreciate a review of the edited version! Thanks. drumguy8800 C T 18:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

hi

thanks--nice to hear from you. i don't know how long i can stay/how involved i can be, though. i enabled email on my acct. if you ever want to get in touch with me/alert me that i have done something irritating-- like, um, left a dispute tag up and disappeared :-) i totally forgot about that. Cindery 01:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect tag

I noticed a few days ago you removed the protection tag from the Roman Catholic Church article. Just letting you know that this does not do anything to change the actual state of the article (it is merely for informational purposes). If you want it unprotected, ask an admin, or preferably, request it on the talk page. Thanks Glen 09:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT

I think it might be a good idea for you to reread this, too, having weathered what I would characterize as tedious "letter, not spirit" arguments viz policy initiated by you before (is arithmetic OR, etc :-). I do mean it in a friendly way. Are tedious policy discussions-- cross-posted posthaste to several boards--necessary to decipher if current pubmed research should be excluded rom articles, or if one sentence summaries of them should be tendentiously debated at length viz wording? I think the problems here are much simpler, are being blown out of proportion, and can be discussed and resolved much more succinctly.

Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cindery (talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 November 2006.

Your opinion

Hello... I wanted to ask your opinion on Talk:Depo Provera. I'm at a bit of an impasse with another editor (User:Cindery)as to whether an edit is OR or not. I feel I'm getting more argumentative than I should, and I'd like an outside opinion. Since you've contributed to the page much longer than I, I wanted to ask your opinion. I'll ask User:Davidruben as well, as he appears to be a regular contributor to the page. Thanks. MastCell 16:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you there?

I don't know what it in the hay I just did to the reference system at EC, but I have royally screwed it up--and seem to be making it worse by trying to fix it...do you see what I did wrong/know how can I fix? (I saw you just made an edit to EC, so hoping you are still online) Tks, Cindery 22:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you. (Just so I learn from my mistakes--was it that I tried to put the first ref back in alone instead of putting both back in together?) Cindery 22:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. (I do not know how to code html--but, I'm sure that's obvious to you :-) I just do everything by writing down citation formats I see in guts of articles on a piece of paper and then typing them in--or cutting and pasting--so I can't easily detect code errors. I don't even know how to use Diberri's tool--I enter all the citejournal stuff manually. I will remember that, though: ref tags must always be closed/look first for open ref tag in a cut 'n' paste that made huge mess...) Cindery 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ProChoice External Links

Got your message about wikipedia not being a link farm, but have added a few slected links to provide source of various opinions and to balance links on pro life article.67.117.145.72 09:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Radio Blagon

Hi, I saw you participated in pages related to radio. I just wanted a little bit of help to correct an article I've tried to translate from French. It's about a French independent Internet radio called Radio Blagon. My english is not perfect, so I make a lot of little mistakes. If you have a bit of time to have a look at the grammar, the spelling and the general style of this article, that would be great. Thanks, Ajor 18:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done! reading your modifications, I realised how bad was my english... You've done a good work! Thanks! Ajor 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

FPC Promotion

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:AmbrosianIliadPict47Achilles.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Choice

Being pro-choice is not apart of the Christian left. Being pro-life is still a concept of the Christian left. If someone is a left wing politican that is pro choice, and a Christian, that doesn't mean they are apart of the Christian left. Catholic for Choice is also not a religious organization. The members of the organization are mostly non-Christians. The Christian left believe that people should oppose abortion because it goes against social justice. The same reason that most people that oppose abortion feel. 75.3.28.188 07:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Being for abortion or for gay marriage may be identified by some people as left wing, but they are really not. Supporting abortion goes against human rights and social justice. It's not possible for a Christian to be for social justice and also for abortion. The article is confusing Christian idealogy like social justice with people who believe in Christianity but are not good Christians like people that support abortion. 75.3.28.188 07:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Christian left is it supposed to be for Christians with leftist views based on Christianity or is it for Christians with leftist views based on reasons unrelated to their religion? The article never makes a clear distinction. For instance, Martin Luther King, Jr. and many of those priests, had what some people considered leftist views, but they did not base their views on leftist politics. They based their views on Christianity. They were neither left or right, they were simply Christians. They also would not belong in the article if people that support abortion and other social injustices can be placed in the article as well. 75.3.28.188 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A vote for the deletion of the article based on notability was already done.

A vote for the deletion of the JP Holding article based on notability was already done. Holding was voted to be notable. Please see the talk page. I am deleting the deletion of the article flag. ken 16:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Please read this discussion/vote on Holding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JP_Holding ken 16:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I didn't understand your last post to me and....

I didn't understand your last post to me and I wanted to change the article back to JP Holding but the Wikipedia computer wouldn't let me so I changed the article to James Patrick Holding. ken 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Are you going to do anything about Robert Boyce's vandalism to the Carrier article because of his rabid atheist POV

Are you going to do anything about Robert Boyce's vandalism to the Richard Carrier article because of his rabid atheist POV? He removed the JP Holding material and your material and he will do it over and over and I can tell you from experience. ken 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo