User talk:Andrew c/archive5

John of Patmos move

Sorry for the abrupt merge of John of Patmos. I thought of raising for discussion until that only 2 people had ever written on the talk page, so I thought it a rarely seen article that no one would miss. Notice that I explained my reasons for the merge on the talk page before merging. You implied that this was part of some POV plot; it's not. I don't have any opinion on who wrote Revelation and I merged Patmos to Authorship of the Johannine works where the issue is NPOV. If I was promoting the Apostle as the author, I would redirected to John the Apostle. I'm tagging the page for a merge now. You're welcome to contribute. --Ephilei 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misandry

I noticed you over at misandry and was wondering if you could help out. I have tried to comunicate about wikipedia policy to the anon, but there has been no progress yet (just edit warring, which I am trying to avoid). I was hoping a 3rd perspective might be able to help out in the dispute. There was talk page discussion concerning the western culture section and the critical link, yet anon keeps ignoring the previous consensus. At least now, it appears the anon is willing to come to talk, but they need to understand that you don't re-insert controversial content during a content dispute BEFORE the new consensus is reached. Perhaps the edits are for the better, but procedurally, I think the edit warring is clearly in bad form. Also, the "western culture" text is copied and pasted from the web, not from the original code, so a lot of the markup and references have been lost. Anyway, any help would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 19:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text above is copy/pasted from User_talk:Edgarde

Thanks for asking. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. I've saved some excessively conservative edits, explained them on the Talk page, and linked that explanation from anon's Talk page. I hope it does some good, but with some of the Misandry editors it's like shouting into a void. I've recently been reluctant to post on Talk:Misandry because I felt my comments had become non-constructive and served to inflame more than illuminate.

Has the anon been identified (beyond his IP address) with any certainty as a previous editor? I think the battle he's fighting was previously someone else's.

I'm watching your Talk page, so you can reply here or on my page. / edgarde 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming and giving your two cents. I agree with a lot of what you said on talk. I am not sure the exact history of this anon editor, besides what can be found in their contribution history. Thanks again for your input.-Andrew c 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents due to yet another revert without comment or attempt to fix problems. Talk page notices are past the final warning stage, and user is causing similar PITA in at least one other article. / edgarde 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Levonorgestrel

Re. to your request, I just hacked it around a bit. Can you take a look at it now and see what you think? The article is a bit sparse on data still and needs fleshing out - Alison^☺ 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fetal pain

I was about to weigh in at Talk:Fetal pain when you posted on my talk page. I didn't get around in time, because I've been trying to untangle a dispute with Joie de Vivre at Category talk:Methods of abortion. I don't even know where to begin with Fetal pain, but I'll see what I can do, although I won't be available from Friday to Sunday because I'm going on vacation (as opposed to just a Wikibreak).
Take a Wiki-break for as long as you desire, or even leave WikiProject Abortion/Wikipedia if you so wish, but my only request is that you not be cowed into backing down (i.e. withdrawing your concerns) when I feel that you're not the one who is in the wrong. I think you've handled yourself very well in the face of such pressure; you have attempted to work constructively with Ferrylodge, to see eye to eye with him, despite whatever differences there might be between you. You have owned up to whatever errors in judgement or conduct you might have made in the process. I thought I'd had my fill of it all a number of times, too, but, after a while away, I came back refreshed and ready to pick up where I left off. You've been holding down the fort while I was away, but now that you're facing your own burnout, I suppose it's time for me to pick up the slack. We've made it through Pro-lick, G&E, and Cindery before. Wikipedia isn't a contest: if someone can "win," then everyone loses. Articles are improved by consensus, or, failing that, compromise, not by concession to the editor who is willing to push the hardest and vocalize the loudest. -Severa (!!!) 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore

I am not sure what better background I can give for the use of the word libertarian to describe the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. I have been with the organization since before it was officially founded and understand its philosophical basis. I fear that most of the world does not understand the difference between libertarian, conservative, and liberal, philosophically speaking. This is further confused by political parties adopting and distorting these terms. I merely seek to be accurate here. NPR did accurately describe TCPR as libertarian (the philosophy not the political party) at the following link: [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nysara (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 March 2007.

My apologies that you were singled out. I asked you the question directly because your responses seemed well thought out. --Nysara 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore

I replied. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity

You're right. I lost my temper. I'll leave apologies on their talk pages. Thank you! Ecto 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Abortion methods

If you have the time, could you weigh in again here and here, as your input could help us to reach an agreement with which we can go forward. I hate to leave the WikiProject Abortion categorization system suspended in a twilight state. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 01:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please check out Category talk:Abortion by kind. I'm going on a real vacation and my check-in time is in two hours so I won't be available to sort this all out. I tried to create enact a blend of our compromise proposals from Category talk:Methods of abortion but now it is my opinion that Joie de Vivre is being small and reactionary. I think a third party could help smooth this out. I'm sick of it, really, because we've got it coming from all sides right now, and no one is ever happy about anything. -Severa (!!!) 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

jhop is notable and relevant to the article. it is a pro-life organization. what do you mean by orphaned?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryandailey (talk • contribs) 15:44, 15 April 2007.

Jesus

I appreciate that you have taken the time to read my edits, and I mean nothing personal about the reversion. I tried hard to add citations to my additions, and I think if you feel its uncited, we can add more. I'd like to improve the article by adding more relevant and accurate information rather than let is stay in a neglected state Wyatt 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Papyrus 1

I undeleted Papyrus 1 because it appeared to contain useful information that could easily be converted to a stub, and therefore did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I also saw that it was deleted less than 24 hours after it had been added, and the material seemed like fairly dry research, comparable to stuff we include from the CIA factbook all the time. Wesley 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Beyonce pic

That wasn't a request, that was a comment on a request. LittlePete 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There's been another inbetween my comment and your deletion. Can you restore it? LittlePete

Sorry, I'm still finding my way around. I promise not to bother you or the Graphics Lab anymore. LittlePete 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 19. Severa seems unwilling to budge on their stance that Category:Methods of abortion must be buried. Can you see my concern that the medical procedures should not be buried amongst things like Feticide? Joie de Vivre 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bible CfD

Have you seen Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_24#Famous_and_Rare_bibles ? One for you I think.

On the illuminated MS, DmsGold I think now agrees with me on dropping the intermediate J-C Ill MS category. Are you ok with this? I think that's the only point of difference between us, isn't it? I've also asked on the Ill MS talk page for comments on some precise names for new sub-cats - do have a look, Cheers Johnbod 15:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

np

No problem - I was too reflexive, I know you didn't mean anything. I've been the subject of accusation in a couple other articles recently so I was just a little soft, that's all. Sorry about that. Lostcaesar 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

IMs

Ok, sorry, I was putting it too strongly, but I think I would have suggested "misc..." wasn't the best term, & I got worried seeing the question of the umbrella category being reopened at CfD, where anything can happen. I'll go & edit myself. I've now, as you may have seen, emptied what I think are the only remaining categories to alter, which means they can be speedily deleted after 4 days, so I think we are there now. Thanks for all your efforts. I can't remember if you were involved wherever it was that (oh yes CfD for "Famous, rare bibles" or some such) I suggested a category for notable editions of printed Bibles, which seems to be lacking. Various early Russian etc oneas have been added as poor stubs. Actually I see you were involved [2]. Don't take the Love Monkey personally (see Icon history)! Regards Johnbod 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam and Talk:Fertility awareness

Other software sites are commercial. While FertilityFriend has a free version, they also have a subscription version with more features. Ovusoft has a 15-day free trial, but their product is by purchase only. Because the commercial sites are single-item "stores" - selling only the software, and nothing else, I don't feel it violates the spirit of Wikipedia's "not usually to be linked" rule against commercial sites.

Other software uses the term NFP to describe itself - PalmNFP, Perimon, and the Aware! software anon prefers. None of the software programs, as far as I can tell, have any moral content. Because the software appears to be using the term NFP interchangeably with FA, not using it to imply any moral messages, I have no problem including any of these links in the FA article.

I recently had a dispute with Joie de Vivre over a similar issue in the FA section of the birth control article, and the article ended up getting protected. I don't feel as strongly about external links as I do about article content, and I'm reluctant to get in a dispute with you and JdV over the external links on the FA page. Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I had been meaning to ask you something though, I was kind of concerned when I noticed you were editing behind me a bit and changing the way the notes were ordered, are the author names always supposed to go first when there's a hyperlink, and the hyperlink supposed to go with the article title? I've just always done it the other way before... Homestarmy 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think they'll want all of the notes in cite web format or just convert the two cite webs to just how all the others are? I don't really want to convert everything to cite web... Homestarmy 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

IP user on Misandry

Hi Andrew c, I just the warning you gave the IP user from misandry on their talk page. I had a quick look and they've already been given a final warning on hteir other IP for disrupting misandry on April 13th. I made a quick list of their disruption and warnings:

List of activity by Misandry IP user

• incivility [3]
• altering other users comments [4] [5] [6]
• POV push [7] [8]

IPs

• 38.117.238.71 (talk · contribs) - user was final warned on April 13th [9]
  
• 67.167.254.157 (talk · contribs)
  
• 66.65.58.133 (talk · contribs) - user was final warned on April 17th [10]

I'm not sure if this constitutes vandalizing after a final warning but I have a strong feeling that it does--Cailil 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for your response. On reflection I think I was a little premature to credit the one user with all of the posts. You're absolutely right it's worth holding out some hope for the IP user and giving them a further chance.--Cailil 18:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism and Al Gore

Al Gore won the popular vote and groups like the Contras who maim and kill unarmed civilians are terrorists. This isn't opinion, its fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.176.13.19 (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Contras Not Terrorists?!

If the Contras aren't terrorists, neither are al Qaeda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.176.13.19 (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

GSE

What's the purpose of adding GSE template to the articles on Russian rivers? KNewman 05:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

666, The American Revolution, and the Dollar Bill

Why did you delete this? Are you Satanic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.163.245 (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

How is 666, the American Revolution, and the Dollar Bill a fringe belief?

This is based on the Bible and the people and places that contributed to the American Revolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.163.245 (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Mexico

Hi Andrew c. Any chance you could help out with this?Ferrylodge 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Death and resurrection of Jesus

Regarding the lede to Death and resurrection of Jesus, I was wondering if you could explain to Richard and me on the Christianity talk page your specific concerns. I've looked it over and it seems fine. fishhead64 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remove your speedy delete tags from the articles

[11] [12] The founder of Orthodox wiki authorized the postings. PS please stop blanket deleting, deleting and censoring my contributions wholesale stop wiki-stalking me. You put articles up for deletion that where completely inline. Please stop with your censoring, frustrating and disruptive behavior. How could your conduct today be inline with someone apologetic? Can you not see why I might doubt your sincerity? LoveMonkey 23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Per some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, I've reverted all these speedy tags. I used rollback, because there were a lot of them; please don't take offense. It seems we need to evaluate these specific articles on a case-by-case basis. I propose we coordinate efforts through the WikiProject talk page. Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I favor the idea of trying our best to move forward with handling the copyright issue properly. Hopefully the interpersonal stuff can be put aside in order to get that done. I understood when I saw the discussion on the project talk page that you would surely have undone your own tags, but there seemed to have been some confusion about whether only admins were supposed to remove them, and I felt it was important to remove the tags immediately, before things got more confusing. Mangojuice^talk 02:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My bot

I'm aware; my bot is in the process of removing tags from the pages it has tagged. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The unjust mass-deletion of the "anti-[religion]" categories

Have you or any of the people that voted to "delete" these categories ever been involved with the maintaining/building of these categories before you all decided to come along and delete them all? That doesn't seem to make make sense does it? --Wassermann 04:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And why are three distinct categories in the vote being lumped together in a big-grab bag, just because they have the term 'anti' attached to them? Wouldn't it be better to vote on them seperately? By the way, there is a large academic literature outside of the wikipedia which uses the category Anti-Catholicism. Here is just a small sample:

Steve Bruce, No Pope of Rome: Anti-Catholicism in Modern Scotland (Edinburgh, 1985).

Cogliano; Francis D. No King, No Popery: Anti-Catholicism in Revolutionary New England Greenwood Press, 1995

David Brion Davis, "Some Themes of Counter-subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic and Anti-Mormon Literature", Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 47 (1960), 205-224.

Andrew M. Greeley, An Ugly Little Secret: Anti-Catholicism in North America 1977.

Hinckley, Ted C. "American Anti-catholicism During the Mexican War" Pacific Historical Review 1962 31(2): 121-137. ISSN 0030-8684

Philip Jenkins, The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (Oxford University Press, New ed. 2004). ISBN 0-19-517604-9

Kenny; Stephen. "Prejudice That Rarely Utters Its Name: A Historiographical and Historical Reflection upon North American Anti-Catholicism." American Review of Canadian Studies. Volume: 32. Issue: 4. 2002. pp : 639+.

J.R. Miller, "Anti-Catholic Thought in Victorian Canada" in Canadian Historical Review 65, no.4. (December 1985), p. 474+

E. R. Norman, Anti-Catholicism in Victorian England (1968).

D. G. Paz, "Popular Anti-Catholicism in England, 1850-1851", Albion 11 (1979), 331-359.

Carol Z. Wiener, "The Beleaguered Isle. A Study of Elizabethan and Early Jacobean Anti-Catholicism", Past and Present, 51 (1971), 27-62.

Do you think all these authors are misguided in using the term 'anti-Catholicism'? I thought the wikipedia was about knowledge rather than being an arena for the activities of the thought police. Colin4C 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

CfDs on Combat treatises & "Illustrated" MS

Andrew, I have answered your questions on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_18#Category:Fechtb.C3.BCcher and the one below - perhaps you could revisit the debates. The technical nature of the issues seems to have put most other editors off. I have put the Judeo-Christian decision up for Deletion Review also here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_25#Category:Christian_illuminated_manuscripts. The present situation is wrong whichever way you look at it. Thanks Johnbod 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Abortion articles

Thank you very much for the note! I've just been rather busy, and haven't had much time for Wikipedia over the past couple of days. This can be said especially for the IDX and PBA Ban Act articles, which, in the wake of the Gonzales v. Carhart decision, have experienced an upsurge in activity. There's a lot to take in on Talk:Intact dilation and extraction, but I'll give it a go. I get the impression that people are sort of losing sight of the fact that the IDX article is a global topic, not just U.S.-specific one, and are basing a lot of editorial decisions — international and medical — around the current U.S. legal situation. -Severa (!!!) 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry

I am sorry to have upset you, but, honestly, I cannot understand why correcting the spelling of some words is "editing other's comments"? I tried very carefully to keep the meaning of the comments unchanged. Is this not an overreaction from your side? - Nevertheless, I will not do it a second time. Sorry! --Tellervo 18:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

N. Beale talk

Hi,

It's now restored. :) I don't usually restore talk pages as a matter of course, because they are often filled with irrelevancies. I'm happy to do so on request, however. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew C. John Vandenberg, whom I had not encountered before this AfD, has done a lot of work on the Nicholas Beale article and I wonder if you'd have time to look in and see if this meets your concerns. I have stayed away from editing it, as you suggested, except in response to queries. Many thanks NBeale 18:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is inconsistent at times. However, this is not generally considered a useful argument in deletion debates, as it could equally plausibly be used as an argument for deleting those other categories. Note that all those prior deletion debates show a lack of consensus, rather than a consensus to keep. Note also that on the "anti-christian" CFD, the closer notes that "a continuing failure to resolve BLP/NPOV/V issues is likely to result in eventual deletion". I admit this is a difficult decision, but in the end the deciding factor is that the category is negative or inflammatory towards living people, which is strongly discouraged. >Radiant< 08:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The unregulation of the content is bound to lead to angering people and misunderstandings. My experience with this site shows that people generally just delete or undo willy-nilly and do not tend to try to engage in reasoned argument and just try to impose their will on others. Then they make demands that people NOT delete or undo after they have just done that. They list very little in the way of facts to justify their behavior, and there seem to be arbitrary decisions on what may or may not be edited. If there is going to be some authority, it would help people to know who is the authority and how they appeal to that authority. Or if there is not going to be authority(difficult for that to be wieldy), then let it be, or find some way to let people have their cake and eat it too. At the same time, the site can be a useful way to let people contribute based on their expertise, but I don't know how this can be done without having moderators who will mediate disputes, etc.

The main problem is that some people act like moderators but are not designated as such. That tends to create problems. 69.181.188.254 11:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Census of Quirinius

Andrew, you have commented on this article in the past and you seem to have a good and balanced understanding of the issues here. I have been trying over the past few months to make this into a usable article that represents the mainstream view, explains the alternative (and I believe, very much minority) points of view without giving undue weight to them, and presents the details in such a way as to make them accessible to general readers. Several times I (and other editors) have attempted to cut back and clarify the text - although sometimes I have found it necessary to add more detail than I thought was really necessary in order to give the picture balance. Each time, other editors - as far as I know it is in fact one editor - respond by piling on more detail of the other point of view. The end result is a citation war, with 85 citations (some of them multiple) in a 42 kilobyte article, about a fairly obscure subject.

I don't want to give up on this, I don't want to add more (I could add plenty, if necessary!), and frankly the task of going through what's there and cutting back on the text (if only to make it readable) is becoming too much, especially since whenever I do it seems to get longer. I really don't want to have an article that does not fairly represent different points of view, but I am afraid that it is becoming difficult to see what is objective and not here.

Can I ask you to have a look at the article and offer a view about it? Right now, it's me and one other editor working on this, and it really needs a wider perspective and other, fresh views. Can you suggest a way to make this a fair and usable article?

By the way, the citation count has now reached 89. There are academic books that have fewer cites than that.

Rbreen 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about the article - I was beginning to think that maybe I was being completely unreasonable. I think it would certainly help if you could comment on the talk page. Part of the problem is that so few people have been involved in this article, and it would really benefit from more, and more diverse, views being expressed. We've now got 91 citations, by the way! Rbreen 09:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-Religous Categories debate

To reply to your enquiry on my Talk Page, my special field of knowledge is Anti-Catholicism and how that relates to Gothic literature. That's how I got involved in the debate. I was unaware that Anti-Islamic and Anti-Mormon categories got deleted, but yes I would support a review of that descision. From what I know Anti-Islamic sentiment has been a major feature of Western civilisation for about 1400 years - I think Dante consigned Mohammed to one of the levels of Hell in his 'Inferno', not to mention the Crusades...and the Spanish repression of the Moslems afer the Reconquista. A further thought on 'anti' sentiments as regards religions is that, in the past, in pre-political correctness days, these were not subjective or unconscious: they were often explicit govenment policy and followed by very real suppressions and persecutions and were explicitly praised and defended in works of literature. I.e. people were not 'in denial' about 'unconscious hostility' towards said religions but were actively and unashamedly in favour of suppressing them and persecuting their adherents. Luther, for instance wrote some terrible things against both Catholics and Jews. This was a bad thing of course, but no reason for the wikipedia to deny that it happened. Colin4C 17:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Typography articles

Hi Andrew c. Thanks for your comments. I am in the last 2 weeks of semester (teach typography) will try to get to the link soon, and would enjoy editing/creating type-related articles. Best, Jim CApitol3 12:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Kochsim.gif

I have added notes to the image description page that may interest you. Cuddlyable3 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Council of Jerusalem

In case you're interested, looks like some major changes are being proposed for Council of Jerusalem, see also Talk: Council of Jerusalem. 64.149.82.195 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Papyri

I noticed your hand at work and liked your decisions. You know more than I about Wiki processes.

There are only one or two matters of taste where you and I might diverge slightly. I'm not too insistant regarding taste. For example, I chose Bodmer Library quite deliberately, out of the decision to consistantly translate as much as possible. As I said, this is not a big deal. In the table, however, although I am personally more comfortable with using Koeln for Cologne, for instance, this doesn't help the average reader. Also, the Russian, Ukrainian and Egyptian locations are all transliterated, so one is hardly really being true to the original if not translating. For NA27 to print the list with original language names and Latin descriptions makes sense, because it is not written for an English language audience. Wiki (English) however is. ;)

Although I totally agree with the change to the plural -- NT papyri -- I was actually in two minds about how to render the plural into English. Papyruses would be acceptible to many, but sets my teeth on edge. The correct form is not natural to many outside the field, so I simply avoided it.

I only mention these things so you'll pick up a feeling for how I make certain choices, and realize there is thought behind them. As I said though, they are not matters of great importance. What matters is making the outstanding evidence for the text of the New Testament available to as wide an audience as possible. It's great to know there is a keen mind out there who is applying it to getting it done effectively and with quality.

PS the notes you left in your edit trail were very helpful. Thank you. :) Alastair Haines 00:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Is good! Good work with the Google test too, a weakness with it could be that it would pick up references to the library in languages other than English. Additionally, it could be skewed because the name would be transcribed from NA27 and like publications. I think we are free to choose whichever. Please you make the decision, probably the most important thing is that we have a redirect, which leaves a trace and space for anyone else who is researching or contributing regarding the library. Your call friend, I'll ammend the table at some point if necessary, or if you don't get there first. ;) Alastair Haines 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice additions to P2! I'm informed and impressed. Cheers Andrew. Alastair Haines 10:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Way to go! Just saw P37! :))) Alastair Haines 11:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Change anything you like Andrew, if I don't like it I'll let you know. You will get more work done if you just keep making decisions, it slows things down if you wait for a reply from me. I nearly always agree your ideas are improvements. Even if I don't think they are, they're only matters of taste.

Regarding change to Uncial rather than Codex, yes I agree. There are other classification issues. Language and script are the main ones. As you say, though, the Old Testament also features in some codices. This is a similar classification problem to Diglots like D. Anyway, yet another list or set of lists is provided by the "Versions" -- Latin, Coptic and the Aramaic Peshitta being particularly notable.

I can help a bit with the Old Testament, because I own a copy of the Septuagint, published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. It has a textual aparatus that mimics NA27. I would propose we have yet another list of manuscripts of the Old Testament, the ones that are standard for Septuagint textual criticism.

Please feel free to reclassify any classifications I may make, and change names. What you and I set up, is likely to provide a very helpful way for students of textual criticism to aquire knowledge and references rather quickly. I wish it was all there when I was a student, but then again, it's great fun doing what we're doing. :) Alastair Haines 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for your comments on my talk page. I deliberately didn't want to advertise the RfA, but I appreciate your kind words and return the compliment - I've found you to be an excellent and level-headed editor on some heated topics. If I can give you a hand, let me know. MastCell ^Talk 03:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

CFD

In your comments on catholic primates at [13] you begin 'I would mind a rename'. The rest of your remarks suggest that a 'not' might have gone astray. -- roundhouse 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bell typeface

Hi Andrew c. Nice to see your new typeface categories. I want to humbly offer a word of caution about relying upon type liscensors Monotype, Berthold, etc. as to categorization. Whereas they can be good sources, sometimes today there are few professional stafff left on board after series of take overs and acquisitions. Best bet is to check against several texts. Bell is identified as a modern in each of the referneces I mention on the Bell article page. Whereas I can see some similarities with the transitionals, it was intended as an English response to the French Didot faces. It is far higher in contrast than Baskerville. You had also categorized "Korinna" as a modern. It really is not. An early twentieth century text and display face that owes much more to Art Noveau than eighteenth century Enlightenment (and the ITC version available today is as much abpout the 1970s than Art Nouveau even. I hope you don't mind that I moved it out of Modern/Didone. Best JimCApitol3 03:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I think the classifications are great, there are of course seeral systems. The ATypI one seems a bit cumbersome for wikipedia. I could see Blackletter, Old Style|Aldine, Transitional, Modern|Didone, Slab-serif, Realist-sans Serif, Geomeric Sans-serif, and Humanist Sans-serif. I am cautious about sourcing historical information on types from foundry websites because I have found errors thee and imagine that it is writen more towards sales than scholarship. Some sources I find useful ar Jaspert, Berry & Johnson's The Encylopaedia of Typefaces, Fiedl, Ott and Stein's Typography, Waltr Tracy's Letters of Credit, Lewis Blackwell's 20th-century Type, Neil Macmillan's An A-Z of Type Deisgners, and Robert Bringhurst's Elements of Typographic Style. For specific movements and isms in the 20th century Bauhaus, de Stijl, etc. individual books on the movement often have a chapeter or section on the typography. I think the foundry categories are great, some will belong o seeral. Another question do we begin to write articles on the various versions of a typeface family, for example Stempel Garamond, Adobe Garamond, Simoncini Garamond, Garamond 3, etc.? Well, there's plenty to do! I live in the U.S. in Boston, there ae three good libraries here for historic stuff. Best, Jim CApitol3 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories, speedy tagging, etc.

Hi Andrew c. I did not create either of the incised categories. I remember creatng one called "Glyphic serif typefaces." That is fairly lean at present with Albertus, but could be joined eventually by Latin and Meridien. Please help me out with the sppedy tagging biz. This is an area of wiki I do not know. Do you want me to request deletion of the category? Jim CApitol3 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

O, yes, I think though verbally a trifle cumbersome that it should be Old Style Serif. I would be grateful for your opinion on a third sans-serif category. Do you think Category:Realist sans-serif typefaces, or Category:Grotesque typefaces, or Category:Neo-grotesque typefaces? This for all the Franklin Gothic, Univers, Akzidenz, Helvetica, etc. Also I see you seem to be an advocte of the local category and n need to be also in the parent. I am slowly seeing this as a good thing. A few faces might be listed in a couple (Bell, Dead History). Not sure what CfD means. Or, "speedy tagging" except I associate speedy on wiki with deletion. Best, Jim CApitol3 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thnks Andrew. Agree, And have requested speedy deletion. Jim CApitol3 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

much gratitude expressed!

A big THANKS for taking on the task of categorizing the typefaces. This is an area I am interested in but have not the expertise to keep up with. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Folio, multiple specimens

Hi Andrew c. You are welcome. A great, and underappreciated face. Hey, please feel free to delete multiple specimens not in use. I suppose some may be of different versions, e.g. Bodoni Antiqua v. Bauer Bodoni. Do you think we might have articles on various versions of the faces? Thank you for all the work invested in organization. I see you are in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any connection with the Virginia Commonwealth University? Thanks for the barnstar! Best, Jim CApitol3 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You surely did have some great teachers! Jim CApitol3 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Caspar Rene Gregory

Nice work Andrew! Very pleased indeed. :D Alastair Haines 10:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Manuscript categories

Hmmm, it's tricky. There are about 4,500 Oxyrhynchus manuscripts. Less than 50 are New Testament. Even p13 is actually on the back of a Livy text.

The dilemma is, from a general Oxyrhynchus POV, relationship to the NT is a drop in the ocean. However, from a NT POV, Oxyrhynchus has a very significant place.

Most things are pretty fluid at Wiki. It looks as though a lot of work has been done on Illuminated manuscripts, at one stage they were pretty much all that we had. Naming and categories followed concerns of the one discipline that cared to put content on Wiki. Now we are starting more systematic treatment of all Biblical manuscripts, I guess we need to think about past, present and future.

We can't predict the future exactly, so however carefully we try to name things, those might be superceded. It's hard to change past decisions without causing offence. I would think the main thing is we need to cater for the present and near future.

Two main principles jump to mind.

• Articles should be placed in the most specific category of a heirarchy of caategories.
• Articles can be placed in many categories (but not higher categories, where a more specific one exists).

Here are two suggestions.

1. Categories Category:Oxyrhynchus papyri is a subset of Category:Oxyrhynchus manuscripts. All current articles are about Oxyrhynchus papyri and so should be in that category and not the other one. Before we remove the higher category, we should check that all Oxyrhynchus manuscripts are papyri. If they are, we can delete Oxyrhynchus manuscripts. If they are not, let's create a couple of stubs for the Oxyrhynchus parchments. Alternatively, we could create Category:Oxyrhynchus and place the parchment stubs in that, along with the Oxyrhynchus article and the Grenfell and Hunt stubs and the List of Oxyrhynchus papyri.

2. List Certainly this list, as it is currently named, lends itself to probably all 4,500 manuscripts. When it gets big enough, it can be split into additional lists and/or articles. The names for those articles will be obvious to whoever is editing at the time. For example: Oxyrhynchus Coptic papyri, Oxyrhynchus New Testament papyri, Oxyrhynchus Latin papyri, Oxyrhynchus Greek papyri, Oxyrhynchus Demotic papyri.

Given the prominent place of the Oxy NT papyri for NT textual criticism, the List of Oxy papyri article does need to remain in NT papyri (though it can be included elsewhere as well). Actually, I think there are Old Testament (maybe Septuagint) papyri from Oxyrhynchus too.

The bottom line is that articles are often relevant to multiple categories, the more the merrier really, it just helps navigation. However, we just need to make sure that articles don't appear multiple times within a single heirarchy. If it's a New Testament Greek miniscule, it doesn't belong at Biblical manuscripts, if there is a more specific sub-category of Bib mans.

Well, sorry about the essay. I'm sure you'll make good decisions. I'll work around whatever you come up with. The only thing that would be crazy is if the text that points out the domination of Oxyrhynchus papyri among NT papyri ended up in an article that wasn't in any Biblical manuscript categories, and therefore ended up being hard to find. Or if the NT papyri category suddenly lost all the Oxy paps, which is actually a third of all its members. It would be unnecessary, because Categories can be "both ... and" not simply "either ... or". If the worst comes to the worst, just include Oxy paps or Oxy mans in more than one super-category.

Cheers. Alastair Haines 15:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ministers of the Universal Life Church

Thank you for your cfd contribution to the above category. I'm glad to see some feedback from someone who understands. I appreciate you taking the time to leave your well thought out comment. GreenJoe 15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Dragonfly image

-- Andrew, I am not sure if this is how one gets a hold of people to comment about errors.

1) But I saw the graphic of the dragonfly, which I was very very impressed. 2) But then I had to chuckle a little on the wings. They are not even close to being right.

I am trying to contact you since your name is associated with the image's wings. My quibble is minor, but here it goes. The basic problem is that those wings were scanned and traced from a Hymenoptera (Probably a bee or wasp, I do not have time to tell you for sure) and then attached to this simplified odonate diagram. For us pedantic entomologists that use wikipedia, this error is conspicuous and detracting. Is there a way you can add odonata wings? Given this image is associated with an "award image" and on a page on dragonfly anatomy, it beg to be rectified.

You can delete this msg from me as soon as you read it, or if you can, pass this msg to whom it concerns. PS, I dig that you like fix gears. Awesome!

Thanks.02:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC) moscow999

• Andrew, Thanks for the link. I went there and explained the problem with diagram, not your doing, but problems with terms and wings.

Moscow999 01:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Saints" and Sinners

I see you have removed the "Saint" references from the Vulgate article, on the basis that these are POV. I tend to think that rather that the term - as used in an encyclopedia article - is simply factual and descriptive; it differentiates persons who are venerated by a religious tradition from those that are not, with no implication that of approval or agreement with this position. Is there an agreed policy in Wikipedia on this - or is it simply your point of view, that the term is POV? TomHennell 10:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)