User talk:Andrew c/archive7

Stalking

Would you please stop wiki-stalking me through "My Contributions", thank you. PianoKeys 09:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Favor

Hi, could you help me? See this and my talk page. Good night, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Quadell, please do not try to carry your wikistalking campaign against me to other users. I ask that you apologize immediately and try to undo your destructive actions. M.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mosquera (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 July 2007.

1914

Well, perhaps you could explain why the cutoff point isn't arbitrary? Otherwise I think I should relist this one. There's two different issues: (1) should the cat be kept, and (2) if so, by what name. The second issue is obvious, the new name is indeed better (hence it was listed on the work page). The first issue isn't really clear to me at the moment. >Radiant< 08:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

IP

The IP you just blocked didn't vandalise past final. It stopped after the final warning, according to the talkpage. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course I guess you can block after Level 3, though rare. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's 24.119.150.197. I'd undo it myself, but I'm not an admin. Thanks, Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother waiting

Just delete the picture now if you can. John Smith's 09:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Victoria falls.jpg permission.

Re OTRS ticket 2006082710007408

Gmaxwell agrees with you that Seebeforeyoudie probably can't license it under CC-by-SA. You can ask him to delete the image and associated pages. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-12t19:03z

July 12th DYK

• Thank you for picking the Michael Dadap article. Cheers and regards. Dragonbite 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

July 12th DYK: The Children's Orchestra Society article

• Hello Andrew c., I just want to verify a DYK appearance on July 12, 2007. I know that the Michael Dadap article did indeed appear on the Main Page by "visual confirmation" and through your notice delivered on my User's Talk Page. However, I also received a notice from User:ViolinViola informing me that The Children's Orchestra Society also/already appeared on the Main Page. But I can't seem to find or have any evidence that it had indeed already been chosen/picked. The "hook" is not in archive, not in the next DYK update page, and is still on the "DYK's suggestions" page. And also, only the Michael Dadap article's talk page has a "DYK banner"; none can be found on the talk page of the Children's Orchestra Society article. Could you please kindly verify/clarify this? I believe User:VioloinViola is just not yet aware of the mechanisms of the DYK since he/she is a fairly new Wikipedian if I am not mistaken. I could understand that, but I need confirmation about DYK appearance of the "Children's Orchestra" article. Thanks for your assistance... User:Rodsan18 a.k.a Dragonbite 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Radio stations

Thanks for helping out with Lish12381 (talk · contribs). I always appreciate a second pair of eyes for AIV. I'm glad that we came to the same conclusion -- maybe some time off will help her understand the spirit of Wikipedia. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the hedgehog. Also thanks for getting rid of that guy that vandalized my userpage about a dozen times. You know it's bad when there's an edit war on your on userpage, lol. --FrankCostanza 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:K69

K69 (talk · contribs) has returned as an anon IP to continue to insert the copyvio external link into the South Park article. Corvus cornix 04:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew,

I’m new to wikipedia but have noticed some gaps in certain areas of interest to me so figured I'd see if I could slowly start to help out - but I have a lot to learn about how to post, edit, etc and apologize for prematurely uploading a couple of entries. I also uploaded an entry for Daniel Siegel, MD that my guess needs to be fleshed out as well – even though it wasn’t tagged – so I’ll get to that over the next few days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethicsandkids (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 July 2007.

Thanks Again Andrew!

I appreciate it! Ethicsandkids 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Irem (copied from my page)

What is your intent with Irem? It seems like a reasonable disambig page to me, so I'm curious what sort of uncontroversial action you wish to be taken after the deletion, and perhaps I could help.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to move Irem (company) to Irem. The other page is an alternate spelling, and all links are for the company. I have proposed similar deletions for Taito and SNK. JohnnyMrNinja 21:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have added dablinks to the company pages. JohnnyMrNinja 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy tag from those last to because I do not believe that they meet the criteria for speedy deletion as uncontroversial page moves. Please consider using Wikipedia:Requested moves instead. Someone else deleted Irem before me, so I moved the article on the company there for you. Hope this helps some, and sorry it may take a few more days to get those other articles moved.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Figured as much, but a speedy delete is always preferable. The last times I proposed such a move, Kaneko and List of fighting games, they just sat there for days with no-one caring or commenting. Thank you for your help, and especially for keeping me informed. Most people on here don't stop to explain themselves, which can be very frustrating to a new editor. JohnnyMrNinja 22:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to move the talk page as well? JohnnyMrNinja 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! JohnnyMrNinja 01:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your welcome message. Handy links to have.

I hope we can both colaborate on adding information on Wiki regarding the Greek Manuscripts of the Bible :) Stephen Walch 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry About The Bad Faith There

I wasn't to sure and thought it was. I won't be so triggerfinger on talkpages. And if I'm unsure, I might just ask someone like you first rather than reporting. Once again, my apologies. -WarthogDemon 18:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'll live up to that starting now . . . this isn't appropriate is it: User:ELITEDOLLSTRAIN? -WarthogDemon 18:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. It was userfied so obviously fine. -WarthogDemon 18:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Pilate Article and Historicity

Thanks for your work here. I didn't want that interesting info on Pilate to go unnoticed especially for those who say that the entire New Testament and the Bible is mere mythology. I may add back in reference to the new locations. SimonATL 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly (almost incredibly) late congrats

I was off when your Rfa closed, successfully of course, and as a result I missed the window of opportunity to give you congrats with the rest of the crowd! Fortunately, I'm a puppy, and can ignore appropriate timing. Here it is, late but well-meant.

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Peniel AfD

I think you may want to note that the second user to vote "strong keep" on the Peniel AfD, user MicGoogle, has a very slim editing history. He has a total of 5 visible edits, 4 of which were made on February 14th. The 5th, of course, being the AfD discussion. Is it not a little unusual that an inactive user would come out of nowhere to participate in an AfD? It gets a little more complicated- the only article this user did edit, Sewanhaka High School, was edited many times by user Apfaq. Additionally, this user continues to sign his name with a website advertisement- specifically, a website which he had created a Wikipedia article for (which was subsequently deleted as a "spam" article).

I'm a little suspicious about the motivation for this user's vote. It could all be coincidence, of course, but considering Apfaq's passion over this article, and his lack of understanding of WP policies, I think such suspicion is understandable.--C.Logan 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD closing

On AfD:Hibino: I have no argument with your conclusion of "no consensus", and I think that your reasoning for this was good. However, I might also say that your reasoning is hard to follow. I wonder if you were a bit sleepy when you wrote it. Example: All that said about my delete tendencies for ["Putting aside my own inclination to delete"?] this article, I cannot in good conscious ["conscience"?] ignore the significant majority [of] "keep" supporters, ["keep votes"?] even if I ignore the anon. And that's just one sentence. You might like to revisit your summary, tweaking it here and there. Either way, there's no need to reply to this message, and indeed you should feel free to delete it. -- Hoary 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Complete Baby and Toddler Meal Planner

I note you deleted this article, without bias to recreating a new one with proper sources. Would it be ok to create a redirect under that title to the author, Annabel Karmel? Espresso Addict 07:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Per lack of response & holiday notification, I'll create the redirect; let me know if it's a problem. Espresso Addict 09:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Campaign For Life

You propose the deletion of the article on The Campaign For Life because it is not noteworthy, yet you created an article on the band Hemphiliac? I think this deletion proposal has more to do with your personal opinions than anything else. Don't let your personal feelings attempt censorship on other Wikipedians from contributing.Dragon224 20:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So now that the introduction of Jesus is taken care of...

Do you think we could go with an FAC after copyediting? The only thing I see left to do is reference the new sentence in the lead with something attesting to the idea that very few scholar type people are either Biblical literalists or Jesus-mythers, and I assume someone already knows something for that. Homestarmy 02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC @ Category talk:Typefaces

Because of your interest in the subject, I would appreciate your input. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't Block Me

Nice try. But you can't block me. I added a comment to the talk section. My removing of the content is justifiable. You're replacing it is not. If you continue to replace biased content, you will be blocked from editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.48.231 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 July 2007.

You didn't address the whole edit I made. As I stated (and you ignored), the Jesus Seminar did not "find" the Gospel of John to be historically unreliable. They simply assumed it was so, because they had an a priori rejection of the supernatural. I don't want your help, I want you to quit making unfounded reversions. I will report you if you do not justify your reversion next time. Further, you removed my "many" comment, yet left the "most" comment directly preceding it. Talk about inconsistency.

Of course, from your interests in evolution, atheism, humanism, etc, it is clear that you prefer skeptical information as opposed to purely unbiased fact. This is obvious from your inconsistency. Please try harder to look for facts, not just whatever you can find to support your own beliefs. You point me to a single source to say that you have the "majority" opinion. How absurd!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.48.231 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 30 July 2007.

You seem to have no problem making edits without giving proper reason, or even refuting the reasons given for other edits. That is biased, irresponsible, and probably counts and wiki vandalism. Unless you can backup your claims, they do not belong on Wikipedia. The JS does not argue anything about John--they dismiss it a priori. I trust that you will redeem yourself by reverting back to my "assertion" edit. Otherwise, I trust that when you are reported, you will be dealt with appropriately.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.48.231 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 30 July 2007.

Sorry if I flamed things a bit. I've apologised unreservedly to the anon [1] so hopefully he will accept it as a genuine mistake. The unsigned comment here didn't read as very constructive and using capitals in you edit summary made it hard to read! Also his blanking of his talk page looked suspicious which is why I jumped feet first to the wrong conclusion. Hope I haven't made things worse. Sophia 06:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK update required

Hi -- You're listed as one of the admins interested in DYK. The current set has been up for 15 hours now and there's a new set ready to go at the template update page. Thanks in advance for your assistance! Espresso Addict 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Espresso Addict 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Catholicism template

You removed the template, I created, from some pages. I think you are right tor remove templates. I only added the template in some cases, because I saw articles with several of these templates and thought, they had to be placed on all the articles mentioned in the template. I saw the problem and changed the infobox from side to bottom to avoid meter long collections of sidebars. There is only one question. Are there any rules, which template has to be removed in case of collusion? --Thw1309 06:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

New Testament canon and Church of England

I have responded to the issues that you raised at Talk:Biblical canon. Your points are worth considering. I happen to disagree but the issues are not easily resolved and certainly worthy of further discussion. Let's involve others and see what the best resolution is.

Separately, I noticed the use of the word "eirenically" in the following text:

With the restoration of the monarchy to Charles II of England (1660-1685), the Church of England was once again governed by the Thirty-Nine Articles, as printed in the Book of Common Prayer (1662), which explicitly excludes the Apocrypha from the inspired writings as unsuitable for forming doctrine, while eirenically conceding them value for education so permitting public reading and study.

At first, I assumed that "eirenically" was some estoeric theological term that I was not familiar with and needed to look up when I had time. Just now, however, it occurred to me that it might be a misspelling of "ironically". Do you have any insight on this?

--Richard 14:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll check out Talk:Biblical canon in a bit. As for "eirenically". The OED says it is a variant of irenical, adj. "Peaceful; pacific; tending to promote peace, esp. in relation to theological or ecclesiastical differences." so that in the adverb form irenically is "in the spirit of peace." So the passage is saying, while the apocrypha were demoted, in a sense, to not being inspired, in the spirit of ecumenical peace, they were still given some value.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:Alastair Haines chose the word eirenically. Clever on his part but perhaps over the head of the average reader. The Apocrypha were part of the highly significant English Civil War. See Kevin Phillips' Cousins' Wars for a good modern overview. Very roughly, the Apocrypha were associated with Popery, i.e. Catholicism, which meant France, Spain and Ireland. Removing the Apocrypha is of course associated with the Protestant reformation, which was Germany, Scotland, Netherlands and East Anglia. England after the civil war (The Restoration) chose a somewhat neutral path, which is Anglicanism. Many East Anglians chose to emmigrate to the New World, the rest as they say is history. 75.15.205.54 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bouncy

How is it inappropriate for the bouncy ball article? --Java7837 22:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest vs. Vested Interest

Hi Andrew: I am following up on my attempt to create links to peer-reviewed, evidence-based published material on reproductive health topics under categories such as IUDs, Contraception, HPV, Cervical Cancer, etc. "HU12" cautioned me: "you have a conflict of interest in being the Director of Communications of Association of Reproductive Health Professionals so please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy." I would argue that I have a vested interest as opposed to a conflict of interest to ensure that the materials that are made available on these pages are accurate, consumer-focused, and up-to-date. Can you speak to this issue or direct me to the person/s and/or committee with whom I can have this discussion? Note, the information on the pages I visited (IUDs, Contraception, etc.) is up-to-date, but the resources/links were weak, and there are a multitude out there. If I posted links to other respectable organization's materials, in addition to those of my org, would that be more palatable/acceptable? Thanks in advance for engaging in this conversation with me. Janet --Jriessman 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Novchak Agent

OK, well why do you waste your time going after people rather than fixing grammar mistakes, when you yourself are a communication graduate?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.140.233.16 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 3 August 2007.

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:2003 Iraq conflict. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Evil Spartan 19:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gataca Movie Poster B.jpg

That's nice, but I have no idea how the image is being used or if it does meet WP:NONFREE, so telling me is pretty pointless. See the big banner at the top of my talk page. 17Drew 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh crap

Great, what is the right tag then? Let me know and I'll fix it. Thanks —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have rolled back all those edits to minimize the chance of someone deleting them by mistake. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:People with clinical depression

Someone's at it again. FYI.--Dr who1975 04:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

It was a pleasure meeting you at FNB today! Hopefully see you next week. Peace, delldot talk 22:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Dependent territories 2007.png

I am afraid Image talk:Dependent territories 2007.png shouldn't have been deleted. The map was moved to Commons and therefore the image page itself appears to be a red link on the top menu. Could you please restore it? See also User talk:Masamage#Image talk:Dependent territories 2007.png and User talk:Android79#Image talk:Dependent territories 2007.png. Qaka 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

will someone please ban this troll? Why can't he just go to commons to talk about images on commons? SchmuckyTheCat

As I've mentioned on Rachel's user talk page, the map itself is annodated with English, and therefore I don't think it will be used by other languages of Wikipedia - unless a translation of the map in a certain language isn't yet ready. I've dropped a note on the talk page of List of dependent territories, which is the only English article where the map is used. Qaka 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Thank you for the welcome, Andrew. Is this where I can ask questions. (Oncewereviking 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

OWV

A question

See here. I am more than willing change the category title. Thanks Taprobanus 01:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Archives

I looked at 14-17 and 72, but obviously that didn't have the original discussion where consensus was allegedly reached. I tried looking elsewhere, but there were so many archived talk pages and so much text I was having difficulty finding the right bit - which is why I asked for help. John Smith's 17:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Godzilla fan?

If you are a real fan, use this...

File:Godzilla （01）.jpgThis user likes godzilla and his films.

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. It was nice to see a familiar name on the list :) Lyrl^Talk _C 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Salting

Thank you for your comment. It is a long time since I salted a page, but I think that if you look at WP:SALT you will find that my way is equally valid. Although looking at it I may have forgetfully omitted the curly brackets, in which case thank you for correcting me. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Hello, in accordance with the instructions on the Template_talk:Did_you_know page I would like to give you a notice that the DYK update is 5 hours late. Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BC/AD dispute

Andrew, thanks for your response. Actually I self-reverted myself on Indus Valley Civilization when it was pointed out I'd changed most of the terms over. On Christianity and Buddhism I did make the usage consistent in terms of BCE/CE. On Template:Middle kingdoms of India I also added a CE term where it was missing (for clarification). If I should not be editing in regards to BC/AD without consensus, why can K_C and Hong edit for the purposes of putting BCE/CE in without consensus? In some cases they were doing so on articles I hadn't been editing. I understand you are just trying to calm things down, but they are not helping either. Indeed Hong actually declared that he doesn't think he needs consensus to change an article to sole BCE/CE usage. Are you going to ask him to gain consensus first as well? Also what sort of an example is an admin like K_C setting if, again, he is going to take the dispute on to other articles? I'm not complaining that I'm not having my way, only that two users appear free to do what I'm asked not to do.

(I've copied this from the noticeboard so we can continue the discussion if you'd prefer to close the matter there.) John Smith's 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately Ghostexorcist has continued to edit war here. I can't blame him for not reading your comments, but I think it's a shame that some people won't try to reach consensus first. John Smith's 10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced- Scotland Transport articles

Is a bot working on this cat? It wasn't renamed properly so basically both cats were created. Simply south 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles On Delve Into Jesus

You have removed links to articles on this site. I don't agree with your assessment that these link violate the policy and would appreciate it if you would undo your changes. Delve Into Jesus is a ministry of Delve Christian Ministry Inc. They are a non profit organization and gain no revenue whatosever from these links. I linked to them because they are well thought out, well researched, relevant articles written by an expert in the field and no less relevant than other links on the same page. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.201.168.121 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 16 August 2007.

How should I go about doing this?

So I'm trying to figure out how to start a wikipedia article for this series I saw on YouTube. How do I prove it's notable?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awoo2006 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 August 2007.

Talk:Jesus#Rabbi_Hillel_is_not_Hillel_the_Elder.21

H.H. Ben-Sasson's History of the Jewish People calls Hillel a Hakhamim: "The greatest of the hakhamim in the last generations before the destruction of the Temple was Hillel the Elder" (page 284) 75.0.11.167 07:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)